Fed. Cir.

Waugh v. Mcwane, Inc., No. 17-2343 (Fed. Cir. June 6, 2018)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 17-2343
Decided: June 6, 2018
Judge: Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document: Rule 36 Judgment
Length: 2 pages

Full Text Analysis Cite this Opinion

Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit

TOM W. WAUGH,

Appellant

MCWANE, INC.,

Appellee

2017-2343

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-00266.

JUDGMENT

RENE A. VAZQUEZ, Sinergia Technology Law Group, PLLC, Leesburg, VA, argued for appellant. CHRISTOPHER BRANTLEY KELLY, Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellee. Also represented by MICHAEL S. CONNOR, KIRK T. BRADLEY, Charlotte, NC. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

2ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (WALLACH, SCHALL, and TARANTO, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT June 6, 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

Waugh v. Mcwane, Inc., No. 17-2343 (Fed. Cir. June 6, 2018).

Record ID: CAFC-17-2343-20180606
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-17-2343-20180606

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