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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Gopro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC, No. 17-1894 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2018)

Denied
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 17-1894
Decided
November 1, 2018
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

GOPRO, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

CONTOUR IP HOLDING LLC,

Appellee.

2017-1894, 2017-1936

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2015-01078, IPR2015-01080.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN,

HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

Appellee Contour IP Holding LLC filed a combined petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. A response2 2 GOPRO, INC. v. CONTOUR IP HOLDING LLC

to the petition was invited by the court and filed by appellant GoPro, Inc. The petition was first referred to the panel that heard the appeal. The panel denied the petition except as described in the accompanying panel order.

Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. (2) The mandate of this court will issue on December

10, 2018.

FOR THE COURT

November 1, 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

Gopro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC, No. 17-1894 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2018).

Record ID
CAFC-17-1894-20181101-2
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-17-1894-20181101-2

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.