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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Dexcom, Inc. v. Waveform Technologies, Inc., No. 18-1752 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2019)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 18-1752
Decided
April 3, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

DEXCOM, INC.,

Appellant

v.

WAVEFORM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Appellee

2018-1752, 2018-1753

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2016-01679, IPR2016-01680.

JUDGMENT

GREGORY A. CASTANIAS, Jones Day, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by DAVID B. COCHRAN, CALVIN GRIFFITH, Cleveland, OH; MATTHEW JOHNSON, JOSHUA R. NIGHTINGALE, Pittsburgh, PA; SCOTT E. DAVIS, JOHN D. VANDENBERG, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, OR. SCOTT D. EADS, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, Portland, OR, argued for appellee. Also represented by

2NICHOLAS (NIKA) FREMONT ALDRICH, JR., SARA KOBAK, JASON ADAM WRUBLESKI.

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

cuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

April 3, 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

Dexcom, Inc. v. Waveform Technologies, Inc., No. 18-1752 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2019).

Record ID
CAFC-18-1752-20190403
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-18-1752-20190403

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.