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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Worlds Inc. v. Activision Blizzard Inc., No. 21-1990 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2022)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 21-1990
Decided
March 10, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

WORLDS INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC., BLIZZARD

ENTERTAINMENT, INC., ACTIVISION

PUBLISHING, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

2021-1990

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in No. 1:12-cv-10576-DJC, Judge Denise J. Casper.

JUDGMENT

WAYNE MICHAEL HELGE, Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP, McLean, VA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by ALDO NOTO, JAMES THOMAS WILSON. KEVIN SCOTT PRUSSIA, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by SONAL NARESH MEHTA, JENNIFER JASMINE JOHN, Palo Alto, CA.

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

HUGHES, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

March 10, 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

Worlds Inc. v. Activision Blizzard Inc., No. 21-1990 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2022).

Record ID
CAFC-21-1990-20220310
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-21-1990-20220310

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.