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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Wangs Alliance Corporation v. Philips Lighting North America, No. 17-1531 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2018)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 17-1531
Decided
March 14, 2018
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 WANGS ALLIANCE CORPORATION, DBA WAC

LIGHTING CO.,

Appellant

v.

PHILIPS LIGHTING NORTH AMERICA CORP.,

Appellee

2017-1531, 2017-1532

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2015-01293, IPR2015-01294.

JUDGMENT

ETAI LAHAV, Radulescu LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by DAVID C. RADULESCU, MICHAEL D. SADOWITZ, TIGRAN VARDANIAN.

MARK CHRISTOPHER FLEMING, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for appellee. Also represented by CYNTHIA D. VREELAND; ARIANNA EVERS, ROBERT MANHAS, Washington, DC.

2THIS 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 March 14, 2018 /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

Wangs Alliance Corporation v. Philips Lighting North America, No. 17-1531 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2018).

Record ID
CAFC-17-1531-20180314
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-17-1531-20180314

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.