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.

Panduit Corp. v. Corning Optical Communications, No. 18-1999 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 8, 2019)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 18-1999
Decided
August 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

PANDUIT CORP.,

Appellant

v.

CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS LLC,

Appellee

2018-1999

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-00009.

JUDGMENT

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

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

PER CURIAM (LOURIE, PLAGER, and O’MALLEY, Cir-

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

Panduit Corp. v. Corning Optical Communications, No. 18-1999 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 8, 2019).

Record ID
CAFC-18-1999-20190808
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-18-1999-20190808

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.

Source: Federal Circuit opinions and orders · retrieved August 15, 2026 · Report an error