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.

Daicel Corporation v. Celanese International Corp., No. 18-2130 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2019)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 18-2130
Decided
November 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

DAICEL CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

CELANESE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,

Appellee

2018-2130

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-00165.

JUDGMENT

GERALD MYERS MURPHY, JR., Birch Stewart Kolasch & Birch, LLP, Falls Church, VA, argued for appellant. Also represented by EUGENE PEREZ. CHARLES COLLINS-CHASE, Finnegan, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by C. COLLETTE CORSER, MICHAEL J. FLIBBERT; JUSTIN LEONARD KRIEGER, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Denver, CO.

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

PER CURIAM (LOURIE, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

November 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

Daicel Corporation v. Celanese International Corp., No. 18-2130 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2019).

Record ID
CAFC-18-2130-20191108
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-18-2130-20191108

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