Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Romala Stone, Inc. v. the Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 10-1044 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2010)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 10-1044
Decided
September 9, 2010
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

ROMALA STONE, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

2010-1044

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in No. 04-CV-2307, Judge Richard W. Story.

JUDGMENT

THOMAS N. PARSEKIAN, Parksekian Law Corporation, of Laguna Niguel, California, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Of counsel was SANFORD ASTOR, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, of Los Angeles, California.

HOLMES J. HAWKINS III, King & Spalding LLP, of Atlanta, Georgia, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were LETITIA A. MCDONALD, THOMAS C. LUNDIN JR.; and PAUL D. CLEMENT and DARYL L. JOSEFFER, of Washington, DC. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

LINN, Circuit Judges).

2AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT September 9, 2010 __/s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Romala Stone, Inc. v. the Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 10-1044 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2010).

Record ID
CAFC-10-1044-20100909
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-10-1044-20100909

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.