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.

MAX Rack, Inc. v. Hoist Fitness Systems, Inc., No. 10-1417 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2011)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 10-1417
Decided
February 10, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

MAX RACK, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

HOIST FITNESS SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

2010-1417

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in No. 05-CV-0784, Judge Michael H. Watson.

JUDGMENT

JEFFREY S. STANDLEY, Standley Law Group, LLP, of Dublin, Ohio, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were JAMES L. KWAK, F. MICHAEL SPEED, JR. and MICHAEL R. STONEBROOK.

SUSAN B. MEYER, Gordon & Rees, LLP, of San Diego, California, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief was JOHN L. HALLER.

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

PER CURIAM (RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and DYK,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT February 10, 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

MAX Rack, Inc. v. Hoist Fitness Systems, Inc., No. 10-1417 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2011).

Record ID
CAFC-10-1417-20110210
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-10-1417-20110210

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