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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., No. 10-1334 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2011)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 10-1334
Decided
February 24, 2011
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

MARTIN GARDNER REIFFIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant-Cross Appellant.

2010-1334,-1391,-1392

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in Case No. 98-CV-0266, Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker.

JUDGMENT

MARTIN G. REIFFIN, of Danville, California, argued for plaintiff-appellant. On the brief was JOSEPH L. SPIEGEL, Spiegel Brown Fichera & Acard, of Poughkeepsie, New York.

TODD M. SIEGEL, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, of Portland, Oregon, argued for defendant-cross appellant. With him on the brief was JOHN D. VANDENBERG. Of counsel on the brief were ERIC L. WESENBERG, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, of Menlo Park, California and STEPHEN P. MCGRATH, Microsoft Corporation, of Redmond, Washington.

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

February 24, 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

Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., No. 10-1334 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2011).

Record ID
CAFC-10-1334-20110224
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-10-1334-20110224

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.