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.

LUV N' Care Ltd v. Munchkin, Inc., No. 14-1653 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2015)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 14-1653
Decided
April 14, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

LUV N’ CARE LTD.,

Appellant

v.

MUNCHKIN, INC.,

Appellee

2014-1653

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2013-00072.

JUDGMENT

EDWARD DAVID MANZO, Husch Blackwell LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by DANIEL KIM, HARTWELL POWELL MORSE, III, GEORGE S. PAVLIK, III.

ALLEN JUSTIN POPLIN, Lathrop & Gage, LLP, Overland Park, KS, argued for appellee. Also represented by TRAVIS W. MCCALLON, ROBERT CAMERON GARRISON, Kansas City, MO.

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

PER CURIAM (WALLACH, MAYER, and CHEN, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT April 14, 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

LUV N' Care Ltd v. Munchkin, Inc., No. 14-1653 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2015).

Record ID
CAFC-14-1653-20150414
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-14-1653-20150414

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