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.

Bose Corporation v. SDI Technologies, Inc., No. 15-1322 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2016)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 15-1322
Decided
November 14, 2016
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

BOSE CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Appellee

2015-1322, 2015-1323, 2015-1961, 2015-1963 Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2013-00350, IPR2013-00465, IPR2014-00343, IPR2014-00346.

JUDGMENT

MARK JOSEPH HEBERT, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Boston, MA, argued for appellant. Also represented by JOLYNN M. LUSSIER; BRIAN P. BOYD, Atlanta, GA.

MATTHEW B. LOWRIE, Foley & Lardner LLP, Boston, MA, argued for appellee. Also represented by MATTHEW AMBROS, LUCAS I. SILVA; KIMBERLY KRISTIN DODD, Milwaukee, WI.

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

PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and

REYNA, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT November 14, 2016 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner 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

Bose Corporation v. SDI Technologies, Inc., No. 15-1322 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2016).

Record ID
CAFC-15-1322-20161114
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-15-1322-20161114

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