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.

Smart Modular Technologies v. Netlist, Inc., No. 16-2666 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-2666
Decided
November 14, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 SMART MODULAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Appellant

v.

NETLIST, INC.,

Appellee

2016-2666, 2016-2667

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2014-01372, IPR2014-01374.

JUDGMENT

MICHAEL FRANCIS HEAFEY, Troutman Sanders LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by ANUP M. SHAH, Charlotte, NC. THOMAS J. WIMBISCUS, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., Chicago, IL, argued for appellee. Also represented by WAYNE BRADLEY, SCOTT P. MCBRIDE, GREGORY SCHODDE, RONALD SPUHLER.

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

PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, WALLACH and

HUGHES, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT November 14, 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

Smart Modular Technologies v. Netlist, Inc., No. 16-2666 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2017).

Record ID
CAFC-16-2666-20171114
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-16-2666-20171114

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