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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Papyrus Technology Corp. v. NEW York Stock Exchange, LLC., No. 10-1166 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 7, 2010)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 10-1166
Decided
October 7, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 PAPYRUS TECHNOLOGY CORP.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, LLC,

Defendant-Appellee.

2010-1166

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in case no. 04-CV-0625, Judge Judith M. Barzilay, sitting by designation.

JUDGMENT

STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP, of New York, New York, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were EDGAR H. HAUG, STEPHEN J. LIEB and VICKI M. FRANKS.

MICHAEL M. MURRAY, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, of New York, New York, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were CHRISTOPHER J. GASPAR, JEFFREY LESOVITZ and BLAKE E. REESE. Of counsel on the brief were JAMES H. SHALEK, NOLAN M. GOLDBERG and ALAN FEDERBUSH, Proskauer Rose LLP, of New York, New York.

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

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT October 7, 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

Papyrus Technology Corp. v. NEW York Stock Exchange, LLC., No. 10-1166 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 7, 2010).

Record ID
CAFC-10-1166-20101007
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-10-1166-20101007

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.