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.

AIP Acquisition LLC v. Level 3 Communications, LLC, No. 15-1286 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2015)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 15-1286
Decided
November 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

AIP ACQUISITION LLC,

Appellant

v.

LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,

Appellee

2015-1286

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in No. IPR2013-00296.

JUDGMENT

CHI ENG, Eng Law Firm, Newark, NJ, argued for appellant. JON WRIGHT, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by MICHAEL BRADLEY RAY, PAULINE PELLETIER; IFTIKAHR AHMED, DAVID R. CLONTS, MANOJ S. GANDHI, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP, Houston, TX; RICHARD LAURENCE MACON, San Antonio, TX.

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

PER CURIAM (TARANTO, PLAGER, and LINN, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT November 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

AIP Acquisition LLC v. Level 3 Communications, LLC, No. 15-1286 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2015).

Record ID
CAFC-15-1286-20151110
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-15-1286-20151110

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