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.

Uusi, LLC v. Webasto Roof Systems, Inc., No. 16-1517 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2016)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-1517
Decided
December 9, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

UUSI, LLC,

Appellant

v.

WEBASTO ROOF SYSTEMS, INC.,

Appellee

2016-1517

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2014-00650.

JUDGMENT

JOSEPH BARBER, Howard & Howard Attorneys, PLLC, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by DANIEL BLISS, GERALD E. MCGLYNN III, Royal Oak, MI.

CHARLES SANDERS, Latham & Watkins LLP, Boston, MA, argued for appellee. Also represented by GABRIEL BELL, GABRIELLE LAHATTE, Washington, DC. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

2ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (DYK, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT December 9, 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

Uusi, LLC v. Webasto Roof Systems, Inc., No. 16-1517 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2016).

Record ID
CAFC-16-1517-20161209
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-16-1517-20161209

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