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 Pactiv LLC, No. 14-1066 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2014)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 14-1066
Decided
September 15, 2014
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 PACTIV LLC

2014-1066, -1067, -1068, -1069, -1070

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 90/011,132, 90/010,976, 90/011,128, 90/011,130, and 90/011,131.

JUDGMENT

DANIEL H. SHULMAN, Reynolds Group Holdings, Ltd., of Lake Forest, Illinois, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was JOHN C. GATZ, Nixon Peabody LLP, of Chicago, Illinois.

AMY J. NELSON, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were NATHAN K. KELLEY, Solicitor, SCOTT C. WEIDENFELLER, Senior Counsel for Patent Law and Litigation, and ROBERT J. MCMANUS, Associate Solicitor.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

2ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

REYNA, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

September 15, 2014 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

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 Pactiv LLC, No. 14-1066 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2014).

Record ID
CAFC-14-1066-20140915
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-14-1066-20140915

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.