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.

Rapid Completions LLC v. Baker Hughes Incorporated, No. 18-1125 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 19, 2018)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 18-1125
Decided
November 19, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

RAPID COMPLETIONS LLC,

Appellant

v.

BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED, BAKER

HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS, INC.,

Appellees

2018-1125, 2018-1126

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2016-00656, IPR2016-00657.

JUDGMENT

JUSTIN NEMUNAITIS, Caldwell Cassady & Curry, Dallas, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by BRADLEY WAYNE CALDWELL.

MARK T. GARRETT, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Austin, TX, argued for appellees. Also represented by STEPHANIE DEBROW, EAGLE HOWARD ROBINSON; JONATHAN S. FRANKLIN, Washington, DC.

2THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, LOURIE, and CLEVENGER,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

November 19, 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

Rapid Completions LLC v. Baker Hughes Incorporated, No. 18-1125 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 19, 2018).

Record ID
CAFC-18-1125-20181119
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-18-1125-20181119

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