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.

BP Corporation North America v. Invista S.A.R.L., No. 17-1890 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2018)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 17-1890
Decided
May 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 BP CORPORATION NORTH AMERICA INC.,

Appellant

v.

INVISTA S.A.R.L.,

Appellee

2017-1890

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/002,316.

JUDGMENT

ROBERT CARPENTER, BP America, Inc., Naperville, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by JAMES LEE LOVSIN, McDonnell, Boehnen, Hulbert & Berghoff, LLP, Chicago, IL. MARTINA TYREUS HUFNAL, Fish & Richardson, PC, Wilmington, DE, argued for appellee. Also represented by CRAIG E. COUNTRYMAN, San Diego, CA; JOHN A. DRAGSETH, Minneapolis, MN.

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

PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, LOURIE, and STOLL, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT May 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

BP Corporation North America v. Invista S.A.R.L., No. 17-1890 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2018).

Record ID
CAFC-17-1890-20180511
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-17-1890-20180511

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