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.

Mobile Scanning Technologies v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., No. 14-1720 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 2015)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 14-1720
Decided
April 13, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 MOBILE SCANNING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Appellant

v.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Appellee

2014-1720

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in No. IPR2013-00093.

JUDGMENT

CHARLES JOHN ROGERS, Conley Rose, P.C., Houston, TX, argued for appellant.

MITCHELL S. FELLER, Gottlieb Rackman & Reisman, P.C., New York, NY, argued for appellee.

NATHAN K. KELLEY, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for intervenor Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by JEREMIAH HELM, MOLLY R. SILFEN, THOMAS W. KRAUSE.

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 13, 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

Mobile Scanning Technologies v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., No. 14-1720 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 2015).

Record ID
CAFC-14-1720-20150413
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-14-1720-20150413

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