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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Rapid Completions LLC v. Baker Hughes Incorporated, No. 19-1240 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2019)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 19-1240
Decided
November 13, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

RAPID COMPLETIONS LLC,

Appellant

v.

BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED, BAKER

HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS, INC.,

Appellees

2019-1240, 2019-1241

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2016-00596, IPR2016-00597, IPR2016-01496, IPR2016-01505.

JUDGMENT

WASIF QURESHI, Jackson Walker LLP, Houston, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Gonsalves Law Firm, Falls Church, VA. MARK T. GARRETT, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Austin, TX, argued for appellees. Also represented by STEPHANIE DEBROW, EAGLE HOWARD ROBINSON; JONATHAN S. FRANKLIN, Washington, DC.

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 13, 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

Rapid Completions LLC v. Baker Hughes Incorporated, No. 19-1240 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2019).

Record ID
CAFC-19-1240-20191113
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-19-1240-20191113

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.