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.

Motorola Mobility LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 15-2061 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2016)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 15-2061
Decided
May 10, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, GOOGLE INC.,

Appellants

v.

MICROSOFT CORP.,

Appellee

2015-2061

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/002,267.

JUDGMENT

ANDREW S. EHMKE, Haynes & Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for appellants. Also represented by DEBRA JANECE MCCOMAS; MICHAEL SCOTT PARSONS, Richardson, TX. JOHN D. VANDENBERG, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, OR, argued for appellee. Also represented by JOSEPH THOMAS JAKUBEK, TODD M. SIEGEL.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

2ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (O’MALLEY, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT May 10, 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

Motorola Mobility LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 15-2061 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2016).

Record ID
CAFC-15-2061-20160510
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-15-2061-20160510

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