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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Depuy Synthes Products, LLC v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 14-1136 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2015)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 14-1136
Decided
January 14, 2015
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 DEPUY SYNTHES PRODUCTS, LLC,

Appellant,

v.

SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.,

Appellee.

2014-1136

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 90/009,378, 95/000,468.

JUDGMENT

PAUL J. CRONIN, Nutter, McClennen & Fish, LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were HEATHER B. REPICKY and LISA J. ADAMS. JOSEPH R. RE, Knobbe, Martens, Olson, & Bear, LLP, of Irvine, California, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were CHRISTY G. LEA; BRADLEY T. LENNIE, Hunton & Williams, LLP, of Washington DC; and ROBERT A. KING and DAVID A. KELLY, of Atlanta, Georgia.

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 January 14, 2015 /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

Depuy Synthes Products, LLC v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 14-1136 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2015).

Record ID
CAFC-14-1136-20150114
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-14-1136-20150114

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.