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.

Convatec Technologies Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 14-1822 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2015)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 14-1822
Decided
August 10, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

CONVATEC TECHNOLOGIES INC.,

Appellant

v.

SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.,

Appellee

2014-1822, 2014-1823

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2013-00097, IPR2013-00102.

JUDGMENT

RICHARD TORCZON, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by JEFFREY WILLIAM GUISE, PETER R. MUNSON, LORELEI PEREZ WESTIN, San Diego, CA.

BRADLEY THOMAS LENNIE, Hunton & Williams LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by JEFFREY B. VOCKRODT, CHRISTOPHER H. YAEN; DAVID A. KELLY, Atlanta, GA.

2MONICA BARNES LATEEF, Office of the Solictor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by NATHAN K. KELLEY, SCOTT WEIDENFELLER.

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

PER CURIAM (CHEN, LINN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judg-

es).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

August 10, 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

Convatec Technologies Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 14-1822 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2015).

Record ID
CAFC-14-1822-20150810
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-14-1822-20150810

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