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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

In re Bayer Cropscience, LP, No. 12-1444 (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2013)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 12-1444
Decided
May 14, 2013
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 IN RE BAYER CROPSCIENCE, LP

2012-1444

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences No. 90/008,317.

JUDGMENT

HAL K. LITCHFORD, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, of Washington, DC, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were SUSAN E. SHAW MCBEE and CHESTER G. MOORE, III, of Washington, DC.

KRISTI L. R. SAWERT, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were NATHAN K. KELLEY, Deputy Solicitor, and LORE A. UNT, Associate Solicitor.

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

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT May 14, 2013 /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

In re Bayer Cropscience, LP, No. 12-1444 (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2013).

Record ID
CAFC-12-1444-20130514
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-12-1444-20130514

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.