Fed. Cir.

Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc. v. Movea, Inc., No. 16-1738 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 6, 2017)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 16-1738
Decided: April 6, 2017
Judge: Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document: Rule 36 Judgment
Length: 2 pages

Full Text Analysis Cite this Opinion

Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit HILLCREST LABORATORIES, INC.,

Appellant

MOVEA, INC.,

Appellee

2016-1738

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/002,036.

JUDGMENT

JAMES R. BARNEY, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by RAJEEV GUPTA, KARTHIK KUMAR.

PIERRE YANNEY, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellee. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

2ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (REYNA, MAYER, and HUGHES, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT April 6, 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

Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc. v. Movea, Inc., No. 16-1738 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 6, 2017).

Record ID: CAFC-16-1738-20170406
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-16-1738-20170406

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