Fed. Cir.

Inova Labs, Inc. v. Inogen, Inc., No. 15-1067 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2015)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 15-1067
Decided: May 7, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

INOVA LABS, INC.,

Appellant

INOGEN, INC.,

Appellee

2015-1067

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/001,885.

JUDGMENT

ERIC B. MEYERTONS, Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & Goetzel, P.C., Austin, TX, argued for appellant.

JOHN B. SGANGA, JR., Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, Irvine, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by LINDA H. LIU, NICHOLAS M. ZOVKO.

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

2PER CURIAM (O’MALLEY, PLAGER, and TARANTO, Cir-

cuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT May 7, 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

Inova Labs, Inc. v. Inogen, Inc., No. 15-1067 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2015).

Record ID: CAFC-15-1067-20150507
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-15-1067-20150507

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