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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. v. Auris Health, Inc., No. 21-1473 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2022)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 21-1473
Decided
March 14, 2022
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

AURIS HEALTH, INC.,

Appellee

2021-1473

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-01173.

JUDGMENT

JACOB ADAM SCHROEDER, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by ARPITA BHATTACHARYYA; FRANK A. DECOSTA, III, Washington, DC; ROBERT KING HIGH, III, Atlanta, GA. CHING-LEE FUKUDA, Sidley Austin LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellee. Also represented by THOMAS ANTHONY BROUGHAN, III, RYAN C. MORRIS, Washington, DC; PAUL J. ROGERSON, Chicago, IL.

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

March 14, 2022 /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

Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. v. Auris Health, Inc., No. 21-1473 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2022).

Record ID
CAFC-21-1473-20220314
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-21-1473-20220314

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.