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.

Forhealth Technologies, Inc. v. Intelligent Hospital Systems, No. 14-1348 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2014)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 14-1348
Decided
November 10, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 FORHEALTH TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

also known as FHT, Inc.,

Appellant,

v.

INTELLIGENT HOSPITAL SYSTEMS LTD.,

Appellee.

2014-1348

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Reexamination No. 95/000,333.

JUDGMENT

DAVID LEASON, Leason Ellis LLP, of White Plains, New York, argued for appellant.

KEVIN B. LAURENCE, Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P., of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief was GREG H. GARDELLA.

2THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and

TARANTO, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT November 10, 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

Forhealth Technologies, Inc. v. Intelligent Hospital Systems, No. 14-1348 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2014).

Record ID
CAFC-14-1348-20141110
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-14-1348-20141110

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