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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Bodymedia, Inc. v. Basis Science, Inc., No. 15-1788 (Fed. Cir. July 12, 2016)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 15-1788
Decided
July 12, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

BODYMEDIA, INC.,

Appellant

v.

BASIS SCIENCE, INC.,

Appellee

2015-1788

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/002,376.

JUDGMENT

DAVID CLAY HOLLOWAY, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellant. Also represented by ROBERT J. CURYLO, MICHAEL S. PAVENTO, RENAE WAINWRIGHT.

J. DAVID HADDEN, Fenwick & West, LLP, Mountain View, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by CAROLYN CHANG, AMY HAYDEN.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

2ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT July 12, 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

Bodymedia, Inc. v. Basis Science, Inc., No. 15-1788 (Fed. Cir. July 12, 2016).

Record ID
CAFC-15-1788-20160712
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-15-1788-20160712

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.