Fed. Cir.

Benecke-Kaliko AG v. the Haartz Corporation, No. 15-1110 (Fed. Cir. June 15, 2015)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 15-1110
Decided: June 15, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

BENECKE-KALIKO AG,

Appellant

THE HAARTZ CORPORATION,

Appellee

2015-1110

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/000,611.

JUDGMENT

MARK D. KLINKO, Fay Sharpe, LLP, Cleveland, OH, argued for appellant. Also represented by JUDE A. FRY.

STEVEN JAY GROSSMAN, Grossman Tucker Perreault & Pfleger, PLLC, Manchester, NH, argued for appellee. Also represented by BETH A. FILIP. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

2PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, LOURIE, and CHEN, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT June 15, 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

Benecke-Kaliko AG v. the Haartz Corporation, No. 15-1110 (Fed. Cir. June 15, 2015).

Record ID: CAFC-15-1110-20150615
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-15-1110-20150615

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