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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Goodson Holdings, LLC v. Titeflex Corporation, No. 18-1134 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 7, 2018)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 18-1134
Decided
November 7, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

GOODSON HOLDINGS, LLC,

Appellant

v.

TITEFLEX CORPORATION,

Appellee

2018-1134, 2018-1149

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2016-00730, IPR2016-00731.

JUDGMENT

MARK STRACHAN, Sayles Werbner, P.C., Dallas, TX, argued for appellant. JAMES L. DAY, JR., Farella Braun + Martel LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by DEEPAK GUPTA.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

2ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

es).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

November 7, 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

Goodson Holdings, LLC v. Titeflex Corporation, No. 18-1134 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 7, 2018).

Record ID
CAFC-18-1134-20181107
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-18-1134-20181107

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.