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.

Toshiba Corporation v. Optical Devices, LLC, No. 16-2012 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2017)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-2012
Decided
May 15, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

TOSHIBA CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

OPTICAL DEVICES, LLC,

Appellee

2016-2012, 2016-2013, 2016-2014

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2014-01445, IPR2014-01446, IPR2014-01447.

JUDGMENT

STANLEY JOSEPH PANIKOWSKI, III, DLA Piper US LLP, San Diego, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by MARK D. FOWLER, ALAN LIMBACH, CARRIE LYNNE WILLIAMSON, BRENT YAMASHITA, East Palo Alto, CA.

STEPHEN JON TYTRAN, Scenera Research LLC, Portsmouth, NH, argued for appellee. Also represented by THEODOSIOS THOMAS.

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

PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, SCHALL, and WALLACH, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT May 15, 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

Toshiba Corporation v. Optical Devices, LLC, No. 16-2012 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2017).

Record ID
CAFC-16-2012-20170515
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-16-2012-20170515

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