Fed. Cir.

Chet’S Shoes, Inc. v. Kastner, No. 10-1555 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 5, 2011)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 10-1555
Decided: August 5, 2011
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

CHET’S SHOES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SIDNEY KASTNER,

Defendant-Appellant.

2010-1555

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Vermont in No. 08-CV-0197, Senior Judge J. Garvan Murtha.

JUDGMENT

DONALD W. NILES, Niles Law Office, P.A., of Wadena, Minnesota, argued for plaintiff-appellee.

WALTER D. AMES, Law Office of Walter D. Ames, of McLean, Virginia, argued for defendant-appellant. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

2ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (LOURIE, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT August 5, 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

Chet’S Shoes, Inc. v. Kastner, No. 10-1555 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 5, 2011).

Record ID: CAFC-10-1555-20110805
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-10-1555-20110805

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