Patent Case Watch

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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Taylor Brands v. GB II, No. 10-1151 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2011)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 10-1151
Decided
July 28, 2011
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages
Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

TAYLOR BRANDS, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GB II CORPORATION

(doing business as Columbia River Knife and Tool

Company),

Defendant-Appellee.

2010-1151

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee in Case No. 08-CV-0325, Magistrate Judge Dennis H. Inman.

JUDGMENT

PETER N. LALOS, Novak Druce & Quigg, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was THOMAS P. PAVELKO.

SCOTT E. DAVIS, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, of Portland, Oregon, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were DERRICK W. TODDY, JOHN D. VANDENBERG and PHILIP WARRICK.

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

PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, SCHALL, and MOORE, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT July 28, 2011 /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

Taylor Brands v. GB II, No. 10-1151 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2011).

Record ID
CAFC-10-1151-20110728
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-10-1151-20110728

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.

Source: Federal Circuit opinions and orders · retrieved August 14, 2026 · Report an error

Other documents in this case