Patent Case Watch

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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Citrix Systems, Inc. v. 01 Communique Laboratory, Inc., No. 14-1240 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2014)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 14-1240
Decided
October 16, 2014
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages
Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

01 COMMUNIQUE LABORATORY, INC.,

Appellee.

2014-1240

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/001,018.

JUDGMENT

DOUGLAS J. KLINE, Goodwin Procter LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were KENNETH E. RADCLIFFE; and JENNIFER A. ALBERT and WILLIAM M. JAY, of Washington, DC.

KENNETH J. SHEEHAN, Baker & Hostetler LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. With him on the brief was SHAWNNA M. YASHAR. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

2ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, BRYSON and

HUGHES, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT October 16, 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

Citrix Systems, Inc. v. 01 Communique Laboratory, Inc., No. 14-1240 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2014).

Record ID
CAFC-14-1240-20141016
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-14-1240-20141016

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