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.

Brixham Solutions, Ltd. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 16-1178 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2016)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-1178
Decided
October 6, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 BRIXHAM SOLUTIONS, LTD.,

Appellant

v.

JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,

Appellee

2016-1178

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2014-00431.

JUDGMENT

GEORGE C. SUMMERFIELD, JR., Stadheim & Grear, Ltd., Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by ROLF STADHEIM.

REBECCA CARSON, Irell & Manella LLP, Newport Beach, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by NIMA HEFAZI; JONATHAN STUART KAGAN, Los Angeles, CA. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

2ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

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

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT October 6, 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

Brixham Solutions, Ltd. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 16-1178 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2016).

Record ID
CAFC-16-1178-20161006
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-16-1178-20161006

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