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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Acharya v. Hauser, No. 11-1452 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 14, 2012)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 11-1452
Decided
February 14, 2012
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 BARUN ACHARYA AND XINGEN DONG,

Appellants,

v.

RAYMOND HAUSER AND LONNIE E. HOLDER,

Appellees. 2011-1452

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Interference No. 105,750.

JUDGMENT

JAY R. CAMPBELL, Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP, of Cleveland, Ohio, argued for appellants. With him on the brief were DON W. BULSON, TODD R. TUCKER, KYLE B. FLEMING and NICHOLAS J. GINGO.

THOMAS C. MCDONOUGH, Neal Gerber & Eisenberg, LLP, of Chicago, Illinois, argued for appellees. With him on the brief was LAWRENCE E. JAMES, JR. Of counsel on the brief were CHARLES L. GHOLZ and W. TODD BAKER,

2Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C., of Alexandria, Virginia. THIS 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 14, 2012 /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

Acharya v. Hauser, No. 11-1452 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 14, 2012).

Record ID
CAFC-11-1452-20120214
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-11-1452-20120214

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.