Fed. Cir.

Probert v. the Clorox Co., Inc., No. 10-1298 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2010)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 10-1298
Decided: December 9, 2010
Judge: Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document: Rule 36 Judgment
Length: 2 pages

Full Text Analysis Cite this Opinion

Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit DAVID D. PROBERT and JACKLYN O. PROBERT,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

THE CLOROX COMPANY, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

2010-1298

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah in No. 07-CV-0139, Judge Dee V. Benson.

JUDGMENT

TODD E. ZENGER, Kirton & McConkie, of Salt Lake City, Utah, argued for plaintiffs-appellants.

DAVID R, WRIGHT, Workman Nydegger, of Salt Lake City, Utah, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were DAVID R. TODD and CLINTON E. DUKE. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

2ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (GAJARSA, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT December 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

Probert v. the Clorox Co., Inc., No. 10-1298 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2010).

Record ID: CAFC-10-1298-20101209
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-10-1298-20101209

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