Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Interface, Inc. v. Tandus Centiva Inc., No. 15-1475 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2016)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 15-1475
Decided
February 8, 2016
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

INTERFACE, INC.,

Appellant

v.

TANDUS CENTIVA INC.,

Appellee

2015-1475, 2015-1668

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2013-00333, IPR2013-00527.

JUDGMENT

CANDICE C. DECAIRE, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellant. Also represented by ADAM HOWARD CHARNES, Winston-Salem, NC. BARRY J. HERMAN, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice LLP, Baltimore, MD, argued for appellee. Also represented by PRESTON HAMILTON HEARD, DANA E. STANO, Atlanta, GA.

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

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT February 8, 2016 /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

Interface, Inc. v. Tandus Centiva Inc., No. 15-1475 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2016).

Record ID
CAFC-15-1475-20160208
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-15-1475-20160208

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.