Fed. Cir.

Think Computer Corporation v. Square, Inc., No. 16-1818 (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2017)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 16-1818
Decided: July 24, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 THINK COMPUTER CORPORATION,

Appellant

SQUARE, INC.,

Appellee

2016-1818

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. CBM2014-00159.

JUDGMENT

ISAAC PHILIP RABICOFF, Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. STEFANI E. SHANBERG, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by ROBIN L. BREWER, EUGENE MARDER.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

2ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, and STOLL, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT July 24, 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

Think Computer Corporation v. Square, Inc., No. 16-1818 (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2017).

Record ID: CAFC-16-1818-20170724
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-16-1818-20170724

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