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.

Invue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc., No. 18-1889 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 8, 2019)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 18-1889
Decided
March 8, 2019
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 INVUE SECURITY PRODUCTS INC.,

Appellant

v.

MOBILE TECH, INC.,

Cross-Appellant

2018-1889, 2018-1898

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-00895.

JUDGMENT

JOHN W. HARBIN, Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellant. Also represented by GREGORY JOSEPH CARLIN, DAVID S. MORELAND, WARREN JAMES THOMAS.

ALAN NORMAN, Thompson Coburn LLP, St. Louis, MO, argued for cross-appellant. Also represented by ANTHONY F. BLUM, MATTHEW A. BRAUNEL, DAVID B. JINKINS.

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

PER CURIAM (DYK, WALLACH, and STOLL, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

March 8, 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

Invue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc., No. 18-1889 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 8, 2019).

Record ID
CAFC-18-1889-20190308
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-18-1889-20190308

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