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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Glenn Connery v. Laurence Boucher, No. 12-1612 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2013)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 12-1612
Decided
April 9, 2013
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

GLENN W. CONNERY, GARY JASZEWSKI, AND

RICHARD REID,

Appellants,

v.

LAURENCE B. BOUCHER, STEPHEN E.

BLIGHTMAN, PETER K. CRAFT, DAVID A.

HIGGEN, CLIVE M. PHILBRICK, AND DARYL D.

STARR,

Appellees.

2012-1612

(Interference No. 105,775)

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

JUDGMENT

HECTOR J. RIBERA, Fenwick & West LLP, of Mountain View, California, argued for appellants. With him on the brief were LYNN H. PASAHOW and CAROLYN CHANG.

THOMAS W. LATHRAM, Silicon Edge Law Group, LLP, of Pleasanton, California, argued for appellees. With him on the brief was MARK A. LAUER. Of counsel was CHARLES

2L. GHOLZ, Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, of Alexandria, Virginia.

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

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

April 9, 2013 /s/ Jan Horblay 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

Glenn Connery v. Laurence Boucher, No. 12-1612 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2013).

Record ID
CAFC-12-1612-20130409
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-12-1612-20130409

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.