Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

SNF Holding Company v. Basf Corporation, No. 16-2565 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2017)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-2565
Decided
October 17, 2017
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit SNF HOLDING COMPANY, FLOPAM INC.,

CHEMTALL, INC., SNF SAS, SNF (CHINA)

FLOCCULANT CO. LTD.,

Appellants

v.

BASF CORPORATION,

Appellee

2016-2565

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2015-00600.

JUDGMENT

JAMES W. DABNEY, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellants. Also represented by JAMES W. BRADY, JR., JONATHAN W.S. ENGLAND, CHARLES J. MONTERIO, JR., Blank Rome LLP, Washington, DC. ROBERT RIDDLE, Reed Smith LLP, Houston, TX, argued for appellee. Also represented by MATTHEW S.

2GIBSON; JAMES CHRISTOPHER MARTIN, Pittsburgh, PA; SCOTT D. BAKER, San Francisco, CA. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

TARANTO, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT October 17, 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

SNF Holding Company v. Basf Corporation, No. 16-2565 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2017).

Record ID
CAFC-16-2565-20171017
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-16-2565-20171017

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.