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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Rutherford Controls Int’L Corp. v. Vanguard Security Engineering Corp., Ltd., No. 10-1113 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2010)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 10-1113
Decided
July 14, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 RUTHERFORD CONTROLS INT’L CORP., a Canadian Corporation and RUTHERFORD CONTROLS INT’L CORP., a Virginia Corporation,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

VANGUARD SECURITY ENGINEERING CORP.,

LTD.,

Defendant,

and

SECURITY DOOR CONTROLS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

2010-1113

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in No. 08-CV-0369, Judge Henry E. Hudson.

JUDGMENT

WILLIAM C. BERGMANN, Baker & Hostetler LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief were MARK H. TIDMAN and A. NEAL SETH.

STEPHEN E. NOONA, Kaufman & Canoles, P.C., of Norfolk, Virginia, argued for defendant-appellee. Of counsel on the brief was JAYE G. HEYBL, Koppel, Patrick, Heybl & Dawson, of Westlake Village, California.

2THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT July 14, 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

Rutherford Controls Int’L Corp. v. Vanguard Security Engineering Corp., Ltd., No. 10-1113 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2010).

Record ID
CAFC-10-1113-20100714
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-10-1113-20100714

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.