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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Automated Merchandising System v. Iancu, No. 17-1953 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2018)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 17-1953
Decided
August 9, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

AUTOMATED MERCHANDISING SYSTEMS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF

COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,

Intervenor

2017-1953, 2017-1954, 2017-1955, 2017-1957

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 95/000,604, 95/000,605, 95/000,606, 95/000,607.

JUDGMENT

JAMES DANIEL BERQUIST, Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP, Arlington, VA, argued for appellant. Also represented by PETER WHITLOCK GOWDEY, DONALD LEE JACKSON, McLean, VA. PHILIP J. WARRICK, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA,

2argued for intervenor. Also represented by THOMAS W. KRAUSE, WILLIAM LAMARCA, JOSEPH MATAL, ROBERT J. MCMANUS.

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

HUGHES, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT August 9, 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

Automated Merchandising System v. Iancu, No. 17-1953 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2018).

Record ID
CAFC-17-1953-20180809
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-17-1953-20180809

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.