Fed. Cir.

In re Stan Cipkowski, No. 12-1552 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2013)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 12-1552
Decided: March 14, 2013
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

IN RE STAN CIPKOWSKI

2012-1552

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Serial No 08/981,665.

JUDGMENT

B. AARON SCHULMAN, Stites & Harbison, PLLC, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for the appellant.

LORE A. UNT, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent & Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were RAYMOND T. CHEN, Solicitor, and KRISTI L.R. SAWERT, Associate Solicitor.

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

PER CURIAM (LOURIE, PLAGER, and WALLACH, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT March 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 Stan Cipkowski, No. 12-1552 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2013).

Record ID: CAFC-12-1552-20130314
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-12-1552-20130314

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 15, 2026 · Report an error