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.

Goto Denshi Co., Ltd. v. Mitsubishi Cable Industries, No. 17-1826 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 11, 2018)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 17-1826
Decided
April 11, 2018
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

GOTO DENSHI CO., LTD.,

Appellant

v.

MITSUBISHI CABLE INDUSTRIES, LTD.,

MITSUBISHI CABLE AMERICA, INC.,

Appellees

2017-1826

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2015-01108.

JUDGMENT

TREVOR QUICK CODDINGTON, San Diego IP Law Group LLP, San Diego, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by DAVID BECKWITH, JAMES V. FAZIO, III, CODY R. LEJEUNE.

ISRAEL SASHA MAYERGOYZ, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, argued for appellees. Also represented by SEAN CHRISTIAN PLATT, DOUGLAS CLARK, San Diego, CA.

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

PER CURIAM (DYK, REYNA, and STOLL, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT April 11, 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

Goto Denshi Co., Ltd. v. Mitsubishi Cable Industries, No. 17-1826 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 11, 2018).

Record ID
CAFC-17-1826-20180411
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-17-1826-20180411

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