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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Veritas Technologies LLC v. Realtime Data, LLC [Rule 36 Judgment] v2, No. 18-1366 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2019)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 18-1366
Decided
December 6, 2019
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES LLC,

Appellant

v.

REALTIME DATA, LLC,

Appellee

2018-1366, 2018-2323

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2016-00972, IPR2016-01002, IPR2016-01671, IPR2016-01672, IPR2017-00364, IPR2017-00365.

JUDGMENT

ROBERT J. GAJARSA, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by GABRIEL BELL; ANN MARIE WAHLS, Chicago, IL; ROBERT STEINBERG, Los Angeles, CA; LISA K. NGUYEN, Menlo Park, CA; AMIT MAKKER, San Francisco, CA. KAYVAN B. NOROOZI, Noroozi PC, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellee.

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

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

December 6, 2019 /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

Veritas Technologies LLC v. Realtime Data, LLC [Rule 36 Judgment] v2, No. 18-1366 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2019).

Record ID
CAFC-18-1366-20191206
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-18-1366-20191206

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.