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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Corning Optical Communications v. Panduit Corp., No. 18-1903 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 8, 2019)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 18-1903
Decided
August 8, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS LLC,

Appellant

v.

PANDUIT CORP.,

Appellee

2018-1903, 2018-1905, 2018-2058

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2016-01703, IPR2016-01709, IPR2017-00029.

JUDGMENT

JASON M. WILCOX, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by JOHN C. O'QUINN, HANNAH LAUREN BEDARD; ERIC DAVID HAYES, Chicago, IL. JOHN J. MOLENDA, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellee. Also represented by ROBERT GREENFELD; KELLY J. EBERSPECHER, DANIEL STEVEN STRINGFIELD, Chicago, IL; KATHERINE DOROTHY CAPPAERT, Washington, DC.

2THIS 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

August 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

Corning Optical Communications v. Panduit Corp., No. 18-1903 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 8, 2019).

Record ID
CAFC-18-1903-20190808
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-18-1903-20190808

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.