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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Crane Security Technologies v. Rolling Optics AB, No. 18-2374 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 2019)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 18-2374
Decided
November 12, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

CRANE SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., VISUAL

PHYSICS, LLC,

Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants

v.

ROLLING OPTICS AB,

Defendant-Appellant

2018-2374, 2019-1040

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in No. 1:14-cv-12428-LTS, Judge Leo T. Sorokin.

JUDGMENT

MARK CHRISTOPHER FLEMING, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for plaintiffs-cross-appellants. Also represented by VINITA FERRERA, JASON H. LISS, MICHAELA P. SEWALL.

ROBERT H. STIER, JR., Pierce Atwood LLP, Portland, ME, argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by MARGARET MINISTER; CHRISTOPHER BAXTER, Portsmouth, NH.

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

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

November 12, 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

Crane Security Technologies v. Rolling Optics AB, No. 18-2374 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 2019).

Record ID
CAFC-18-2374-20191112
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-18-2374-20191112

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.