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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Mimedx Group, Inc. v. Musculoskeletal Transplant, No. 17-1043 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 14, 2017)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 17-1043
Decided
September 14, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

MIMEDX GROUP, INC.,

Appellant

v.

MUSCULOSKELETAL TRANSPLANT

FOUNDATION,

Appellee

2017-1043

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2015-00664.

JUDGMENT

PATRICK J. FLINN, Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellant. Also represented by KEITH E. BROYLES, PAMELA COUNCILL, MATTHEW WOLFF HOWELL; DEEPRO MUKERJEE, New York, NY. MICHAEL ANTHONY NICODEMA, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Florham Park, NJ, argued for appellee. Also represented by JOHN K. KIM.

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

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT September 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

Mimedx Group, Inc. v. Musculoskeletal Transplant, No. 17-1043 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 14, 2017).

Record ID
CAFC-17-1043-20170914
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-17-1043-20170914

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.