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.

Enova Technology Corp. v. Seagate Technology (US), No. 16-1287 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 20, 2017)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-1287
Decided
March 20, 2017
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

ENOVA TECHNOLOGY CORP.,

Appellant

v

SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY (US) HOLDINGS INC.,

SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC,

Appellees

2016-1287

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2014-00683.

JUDGMENT

DARRYL MICHAEL WOO, Vinson & Elkins LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by CHAO WANG; JANICE TA, Austin, TX.

DAVID J.F. GROSS, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Minneapolis, MN, argued for appellees. Also represented by LUCAS J. TOMSICH, JULIE WAHLSTRAND; CALVIN L. LITSEY, East Palo Alto, CA; RICHARD M. MARSH, JR., Denver, CO.

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

PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT March 20, 2017 /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

Enova Technology Corp. v. Seagate Technology (US), No. 16-1287 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 20, 2017).

Record ID
CAFC-16-1287-20170320
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-16-1287-20170320

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