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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., No. 12-1102 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2012)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 12-1102
Decided
October 10, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 ASPEX EYEWEAR, INC., AND CONTOUR OPTIK,

INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

ALTAIR EYEWEAR, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

2012-1102

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in No. 10-CV-12202, Judge William G. Young.

JUDGMENT

MICHAEL A. NICODEMA, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, of Florham Park, New Jersey, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief was KIMBERLY A. WARSHAWSKY, of Phoenix, Arizona.

TRACY ZURZOLO QUINN, Reed Smith, LLP, of Chicago, Illinois, argued for defendant-appellee. With her on the brief were CARL H. PIERCE and MATTHEW P. FREDERICK. Of counsel were JAMES C. MARTIN and KEVIN S. KATONA, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

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

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

Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., No. 12-1102 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2012).

Record ID
CAFC-12-1102-20121010
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-12-1102-20121010

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.