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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Voestalpine Stahl GmbH v. Arcelormittal, No. 16-1407 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2016)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-1407
Decided
October 11, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 VOESTALPINE STAHL GMBH,

Appellant

v.

ARCELORMITTAL,

Appellee

2016-1407

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 95/001,214, 95/001,350, 95/001,353.

JUDGMENT

MAXWELL JAMES PETERSEN, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. DAVID JAMES CUSHING, Sughrue Mion, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by RICHARD CLAY TURNER; MARK JAMES DEBOY, Edell Shapiro and Finnan, Gaithersburg, MD. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

2ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT October 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

Voestalpine Stahl GmbH v. Arcelormittal, No. 16-1407 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2016).

Record ID
CAFC-16-1407-20161011
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-16-1407-20161011

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.