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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

CSP Technologies, Inc. v. Sud-Chemie AG, No. 14-1337 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2014)

Dismissed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 14-1337
Decided
October 6, 2014
Judge
Prost, C.J.
Document
Order on Motion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

CSP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SUD-CHEMIE AG, SUD-CHEMIE, INC., AIRSEC S.A.S., CLARIANT PRODUKTE DEUTSCHLAND

GMBH, CLARIANT CORPORATION, AND

CLARIANT PRODUCTION (FRANCE) S.A.S.,

Defendants-Appellees.

2014-1337

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in No. 4:11-cv-00029-RLYWGH, Judge Richard L. Young.

ON MOTION

Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK and MOORE, Circuit

Judges.

O R D E R

Appellees move without opposition to dismiss this appeal as premature.

22 CSP TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SUD-CHEMIE AG

As appellees note, counterclaims for invalidity and patent misuse are unresolved and remain outstanding.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Daniel E. O’Toole

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: October 6, 2014

s30

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

CSP Technologies, Inc. v. Sud-Chemie AG, No. 14-1337 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2014).

Record ID
CAFC-14-1337-20141006
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-14-1337-20141006

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.