Fed. Cir.

Morris National, Inc. v. Adams & Brooks, Inc., No. 14-1224 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 17, 2014)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 14-1224
Decided: September 17, 2014
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

MORRIS NATIONAL, INC.,

Appellant,

ADAMS & BROOKS, INC.,

Appellee.

2014-1224

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 92052158.

JUDGMENT

ELLIOT B. GIPSON, Fayer Gipson LLP, of Los Angeles, California, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was PHU NGUYEN.

BASSAM N. IBRAHIM, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief was BRYCE J. MAYNARD. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

2ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (CHEN, LINN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judg-

es).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT September 17, 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

Morris National, Inc. v. Adams & Brooks, Inc., No. 14-1224 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 17, 2014).

Record ID: CAFC-14-1224-20140917
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-14-1224-20140917

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