Fed. Cir.

Taser International, Inc. v. Phazzer Electronics, Inc., No. 18-1914 (Fed. Cir. July 23, 2019)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 18-1914
Decided: July 23, 2019
Judge: Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document: Rule 36 Judgment
Length: 2 pages

Full Text Analysis Cite this Opinion

Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

PHAZZER ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant

2018-1914

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in No. 6:16-cv-00366-PGB-KRS, Judge Paul G. Byron.

JUDGMENT

PAMELA BETH PETERSEN, Axon Enterprise, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ, argued for plaintiff-appellee. JOSEPH A. DAVIDOW, Willis & Davidow, LLC, Naples, FL, argued for defendant-appellant. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

2PER CURIAM (O’MALLEY, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

July 23, 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

Taser International, Inc. v. Phazzer Electronics, Inc., No. 18-1914 (Fed. Cir. July 23, 2019).

Record ID: CAFC-18-1914-20190723
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-18-1914-20190723

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