Fed. Cir.

Imes v. Galasso, No. 11-1113 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 5, 2011)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 11-1113
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

KEVIN IMES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

and

AMY IMES,

Plaintiff,

RAYMOND M. GALASSO and VERVE, LLC,

Defendants-Appellants.

2011-1113

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 10-CV-0373, Judge Sam Sparks.

JUDGMENT

EARL L. VICKERY, Law Office of Lanny Vickery, of Austin, Texas, argued for plaintiffs-appellees.

EDWARD J. MARSHALL, Edward J. Marshall Attorney at Law, P.L.L.C., of Austin, Texas, argued for defendants-appellants. 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

Imes v. Galasso, No. 11-1113 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 5, 2011).

Record ID: CAFC-11-1113-20110805
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-11-1113-20110805

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