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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Ingevity Corporation v. ITC, No. 20-1800 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2021)

See Opinion Disposition stated in the opinion
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 20-1800
Decided
August 6, 2021
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

INGEVITY CORPORATION, INGEVITY SOUTH

CAROLINA, LLC,

Appellants

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Appellee

MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS NORTH AMERICA,

INC., MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS JAPAN CORP., MAHLE SISTEMAS DE FILTRACIÓN DE MÉXICO S.A. DE C.V., MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS CANADA

ULC, KURARAY CO., LTD., CALGON CARBON

CORPORATION,

Intervenors

2020-1800

Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1140.

O R D E R

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, SCHALL, and TARANTO, Cir-

cuit Judges.

22 INGEVITY CORPORATION v. ITC

Before the court is the parties’ August 4, 2021, Joint Response to the Order to Show Cause. The parties do not request that anything in the court’s opinion of July 21, 2021 remain confidential. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The opinion issued under seal on July 21, 2021 is hereby unsealed.

FOR THE COURT

August 6, 2021 /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

Ingevity Corporation v. ITC, No. 20-1800 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2021).

Record ID
CAFC-20-1800-20210806-1
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-20-1800-20210806-1

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.