Fed. Cir.

Wright Manufacturing, Inc. v. the Toro Company, No. 14-1534 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2015)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 14-1534
Decided: May 12, 2015
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 WRIGHT MANUFACTURING, INC.,

Appellant

THE TORO COMPANY,

Appellee

2014-1534, 2014-1558

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 95/001,741, 95/001,442.

JUDGMENT

JOSEPH A. RHOA, Nixon & Vanderhye P.C., Arlington, VA, argued for appellant.

RACHEL C. HUGHEY, Merchant & Gould P.C., Minneapolis, MN, argued for appellee. Also represented by ANTHONY RICHARD ZEULI, KATHERINE E. MULLER.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

2ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (REYNA, SCHALL, and HUGHES, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT May 12, 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

Wright Manufacturing, Inc. v. the Toro Company, No. 14-1534 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2015).

Record ID: CAFC-14-1534-20150512
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-14-1534-20150512

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