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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Avenue Innovations, Inc. v. E. Mishan & Sons Inc., No. 20-1065 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2020)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 20-1065
Decided
November 10, 2020
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 AVENUE INNOVATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

E. MISHAN & SONS INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

2020-1065

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in No. 1:16-cv-03086-KPF, Judge Katherine Polk Failla.

JUDGMENT

PETER JOSEPH CORCORAN, III, Corcoran IP Law PLLC, Texarkana, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by MATTHEW JAMES DOWD, Dowd Scheffel PLLC, Washington, DC; EDWARD W. GOLDSTEIN, Goldstein Law, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX.

JAMES M. GLASS, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by EDWARD J. DEFRANCO, JOHN THOMAS MCKEE.

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 10, 2020 /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

Avenue Innovations, Inc. v. E. Mishan & Sons Inc., No. 20-1065 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2020).

Record ID
CAFC-20-1065-20201110
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-20-1065-20201110

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.