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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Zoomessence, Inc. v. Matal, No. 17-1581 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 16, 2018)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 17-1581
Decided
January 16, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

ZOOMESSENCE, INC.,

Appellant

v.

JOSEPH MATAL, PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS

AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF

COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

AND DIRECTOR, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK

OFFICE,

Intervenor

2017-1581

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2015-01418.

JUDGMENT

STEVEN JOHN HULTQUIST, Hultquist, PLLC, Chapel Hill, NC, argued for appellant. Also represented by MARY B. GRANT.

MICHAEL SUMNER FORMAN, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria,

2VA, argued for intervenor. Also represented by NATHAN K. KELLEY, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, ROBERT J. MCMANUS, LORE A. UNT.

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

January 16, 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

Zoomessence, Inc. v. Matal, No. 17-1581 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 16, 2018).

Record ID
CAFC-17-1581-20180116
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-17-1581-20180116

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.