Fed. Cir.

Futurelogic, Inc. v. Nanoptix, Inc., No. 12-1095 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2012)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 12-1095
Decided: October 10, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

FUTURELOGIC, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

NANOPTIX, INC.,

Defendant-Cross Appellant.

2012-1095, -1136

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in No. 10-CV-7678, Judge John F. Walter.

JUDGMENT

BRETT J. WILLIAMSON, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, of Newport Beach, California, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

ADAM K. YOWELL and MICHAEL D. ROUNDS, Watson Rounds, of Reno, Nevada, argued for the defendant-cross appellant.

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

PER CURIAM (RADER, Chief Judge, LINN and WALLACH,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT October 10, 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

Futurelogic, Inc. v. Nanoptix, Inc., No. 12-1095 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2012).

Record ID: CAFC-12-1095-20121010
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-12-1095-20121010

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