Patent Case Watch

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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Polycom, Inc. v. Directpacket Research, Inc., No. 21-1744 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 13, 2021)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 21-1744
Decided
December 13, 2021
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages
Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit

POLYCOM, INC.,

Appellant

v.

DIRECTPACKET RESEARCH, INC.,

Appellee

2021-1744

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-01234.

JUDGMENT

GEOFFREY P. EATON, Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by DAVID DALKE, Los Angeles, CA; NOOROSSADAT TORABI, San Francisco, CA; KATHERINE VIDAL, Redwood City, CA. TERENCE P. ROSS, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by CHRISTOPHER FERENC, ERIC THOMAS WERLINGER.

2THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (MOORE, Chief Judge, DYK and REYNA,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner December 13, 2021 Peter R. Marksteiner

Date 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

Polycom, Inc. v. Directpacket Research, Inc., No. 21-1744 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 13, 2021).

Record ID
CAFC-21-1744-20211213
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-21-1744-20211213

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