Fed. Cir.

Liquidnet Holdings, Inc. v. Pulse Trading, Inc., No. 11-1508 (Fed. Cir. July 23, 2012)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 11-1508
Decided: July 23, 2012
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

LIQUIDNET HOLDINGS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

PULSE TRADING, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

2011-1508

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Case No. 07-CV-6886, Judge Shira Ann Scheindlin.

JUDGMENT

JOSEPH A. MICALLEF, Sidley Austin LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

ROBERT R. GILMAN, Gilman Clark & Hunter LLC, of Boston, Massachusetts, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief was THOMAS J. CLARK.

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

PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, BRYSON, and PROST, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

July 23, 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

Liquidnet Holdings, Inc. v. Pulse Trading, Inc., No. 11-1508 (Fed. Cir. July 23, 2012).

Record ID: CAFC-11-1508-20120723
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-11-1508-20120723

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