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.

In re Patterson, No. 17-2364 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2018)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 17-2364
Decided
October 10, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 IN RE: JAMES PATTERSON, NATHAN MOODY,

Appellants 2017-2364

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 13/103,813.

JUDGMENT

ANDREW V. TRASK, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellants. Also represented by JAMES SHERWOOD, Google LLC, Washington, DC. ROBERT MCBRIDE, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by THOMAS W. KRAUSE, KAKOLI CAPRIHAN, MARY L. KELLY, MEREDITH HOPE SCHOENFELD.

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

2PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and

HUGHES, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

The parties shall bear their own costs. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

October 10, 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

In re Patterson, No. 17-2364 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2018).

Record ID
CAFC-17-2364-20181010
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-17-2364-20181010

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