Fed. Cir.

Cellwitch Inc. v. Tile, Inc., No. 21-1982 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2022)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 21-1982
Decided: May 13, 2022
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

CELLWITCH INC.,

Appellant

TILE, INC.,

Cross-Appellant

2021-1982, 2021-2050

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-00317.

JUDGMENT

PAUL MICHAEL SCHOENHARD, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by NICOLE M. JANTZI, KRISTIN M. WHIDBY.

SARAH J. GUSKE, Baker Botts LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for cross-appellant. Also represented by LAUREN J. DREYER, Washington, DC.

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

PER CURIAM (LOURIE, MAYER, and CHEN, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

May 13, 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

Cellwitch Inc. v. Tile, Inc., No. 21-1982 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2022).

Record ID: CAFC-21-1982-20220513
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-21-1982-20220513

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