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.

HTC Corporation v. Cellular Communications Equip., No. 16-1859 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2017)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-1859
Decided
June 9, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 HTC CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) INC.,

Appellants

v.

CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT,

LLC,

Appellee

2016-1859

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2014-01135.

JUDGMENT

STEVEN ARTHUR MOORE, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, San Diego, CA, argued for appellants. Also represented by MATTHEW ROBERT STEPHENS; BRIAN CHRISTOPHER NASH, Austin, TX. CHRISTOPHER GRANAGHAN, Nelson Bumgardner PC, Fort Worth, TX, argued for appellee. Also represented by BARRY JAMES BUMGARDNER, JOHN P. MURPHY.

2THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (DYK, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT June 9, 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

HTC Corporation v. Cellular Communications Equip., No. 16-1859 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2017).

Record ID
CAFC-16-1859-20170609
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-16-1859-20170609

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