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.

Cequent Performance Products v. Hopkins Manufacturing Corp., No. 16-2701 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 20, 2017)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-2701
Decided
November 20, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 CEQUENT PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

HOPKINS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION,

THE COAST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM INC.,

Appellees

2016-2701

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2015-00609.

JUDGMENT

DAVID BOGDAN CUPAR, McDonald Hopkins LLC, Cleveland, OH, argued for appellant. Also represented by MATTHEW JOHN CAVANAGH.

SCOTT R. BROWN, Hovey Williams LLP, Overland Park, KS, argued for appellees. Also represented by MATTHEW B. WALTERS.

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

PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, and WALLACH,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT November 20, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteinter 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

Cequent Performance Products v. Hopkins Manufacturing Corp., No. 16-2701 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 20, 2017).

Record ID
CAFC-16-2701-20171120
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-16-2701-20171120

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