Fed. Cir.

In re Rodriguez-Lafrasse, No. 14-1545 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 6, 2015)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 14-1545
Decided: February 6, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 IN RE CLAIRE RODRIGUEZ-LAFRASSE, ELIE

HADCHITY,

2014-1545

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 12/528,118.

JUDGMENT

MARINA T. LARSON, Larson and Anderson, LLC, Dillon, CO, argued for appellants.

JAMIE LYNNE SIMPSON, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee. Also represented by NATHAN K. KELLEY, JEREMIAH HELM.

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

PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and

BRYSON, Circuit Judges).

2AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT February 6, 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

In re Rodriguez-Lafrasse, No. 14-1545 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 6, 2015).

Record ID: CAFC-14-1545-20150206
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-14-1545-20150206

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