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.

Plas-Pak Industries, Inc. v. Richard Parks Corrosion Tech., No. 14-1451 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 27, 2015)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 14-1451
Decided
January 27, 2015
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 PLAS-PAK INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

RICHARD PARKS CORROSION TECHNOLOGIES,

INC.,

Appellee.

2014-1451

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/001,371.

JUDGMENT

ANDREW C. RYAN, Cantor Colburn LLP, of Hartford, Connecticut, argued for appellant.

MATTHEW S. DICKE, K&L Gates LLP, of Chicago, Illinois, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were THOMAS C. BASSO, ALAN L. BARRY, and SUZANNE E. KONRAD. Of counsel on the brief was MICHAEL T. MURPHY, of Washington, DC.

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

PER CURIAM (LOURIE, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT January 27, 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

Plas-Pak Industries, Inc. v. Richard Parks Corrosion Tech., No. 14-1451 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 27, 2015).

Record ID
CAFC-14-1451-20150127
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-14-1451-20150127

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