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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

AC Technologies S.A. v. Amazon.Com, Inc., No. 17-1999 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2019)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 17-1999
Decided
January 9, 2019
Judge
Stoll, J.
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit

AC TECHNOLOGIES S.A.,

Appellant

v.

AMAZON.COM, INC., BLIZZARD

ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,

Appellees

2017-1999

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2015-01804.

Decided: January 9, 2019

MINGHUI YANG, Hardy Parrish Yang, LLP, Austin, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by VICTOR G. HARDY.

DANIEL T. SHVODIAN, Perkins Coie, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellees. Also represented by CHRISTOPHER LEE KELLEY, WING LIANG, VICTORIA Q. SMITH; DAN L. BAGATELL, Hanover, NH.

22 AC TECHS. v. AMAZON.COM

Before MOORE, SCHALL, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Before us is AC Technologies S.A.’s appeal of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision that all claims of U.S. Patent 8,656,125 are unpatentable. On appeal, AC raises arguments substantially identical to those we rejected today in AC Technologies S.A. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 18-1433. For the reasons explained in that decision, we affirm the Board.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Costs to Appellees.

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

AC Technologies S.A. v. Amazon.Com, Inc., No. 17-1999 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2019).

Record ID
CAFC-17-1999-20190109
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-17-1999-20190109

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.