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.

Netlist, Inc. v. Diablo Technologies, Inc., No. 16-1011 (Fed. Cir. July 11, 2016)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-1011
Decided
July 11, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

NETLIST, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DIABLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

2016-1011

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 4:13-cv-05962-YGR, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

JUDGMENT

STANLEY JOSEPH PANIKOWSKI, III, DLA Piper LLP (US), San Diego, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by SEAN C. CUNNINGHAM.

FABIO E. MARINO, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Menlo Park, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by NITIN GAMBHIR; NATALIE A. BENNETT, Washington, DC.

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

PER CURIAM (MOORE, LINN, and O’MALLEY, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT July 11, 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

Netlist, Inc. v. Diablo Technologies, Inc., No. 16-1011 (Fed. Cir. July 11, 2016).

Record ID
CAFC-16-1011-20160711
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-16-1011-20160711

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