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.

Chemco Systems, L.P. v. RDP Technologies, Inc., No. 21-2371 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2023)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 21-2371
Decided
March 10, 2023
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

CHEMCO SYSTEMS, L.P.,

Appellant

v.

RDP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Appellee

2021-2371

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-01563.

JUDGMENT

MATTHEW JOHNSON, Jones Day, Pittsburgh, PA, argued for appellant. Also represented by MARLEE HARTENSTEIN; JENNIFER L. SWIZE, Washington, DC. THOMAS FISHER, Cozen O'Connor P.C., Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by KERI SCHAUBERT, New York, NY. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

2ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST and STARK,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

March 10, 2023 /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

Chemco Systems, L.P. v. RDP Technologies, Inc., No. 21-2371 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2023).

Record ID
CAFC-21-2371-20230310
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-21-2371-20230310

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