Fed. Cir.

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Acronis, Inc., No. 20-2149 (Fed. Cir. July 20, 2021)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 20-2149
Decided: July 20, 2021
Judge: Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document: Rule 36 Judgment
Length: 2 pages

Full Text Analysis Cite this Opinion

Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees

ACRONIS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant

2020-2149

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 6:15-cv-01001-RWS-KNM, Judge Robert Schroeder, III.

JUDGMENT

AARON JACOBS, Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Boston, MA, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. JANINE A. CARLAN, Arent Fox, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by JASJIT S. VIDWAN.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

2ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, LOURIE, and O’MALLEY, Cir-

cuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

July 20, 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

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Acronis, Inc., No. 20-2149 (Fed. Cir. July 20, 2021).

Record ID: CAFC-20-2149-20210720
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-20-2149-20210720

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