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.

NFC Technology, LLC v. Matal [Rule 36 Judgment], No. 16-1809 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2017)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-1809
Decided
September 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

NFC TECHNOLOGY, LLC,

Appellant

v.

JOSEPH MATAL, PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS

AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF

COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

AND DIRECTOR, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK

OFFICE,

Intervenor

2016-1809

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2014-01199.

JUDGMENT

JON WRIGHT, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by ADAM LAROCK, BRIAN LEE; ROBERT AUCHTER, McKool Smith, P.C., Washington, DC.

2BENJAMIN T. HICKMAN, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor Joseph Matal. Also represented by NATHAN K. KELLEY, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, JOSEPH GERARD PICCOLO, SCOTT WEIDENFELLER.

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

PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, LOURIE, and HUGHES, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

September 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

NFC Technology, LLC v. Matal [Rule 36 Judgment], No. 16-1809 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2017).

Record ID
CAFC-16-1809-20170920
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-16-1809-20170920

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