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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

In re Adams, No. 22-1705 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 11, 2023)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 22-1705
Decided
April 11, 2023
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

IN RE: PHILLIP M. ADAMS,

Appellant 2022-1705

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 15/412,696.

JUDGMENT

ALMA JOHN PATE, Pate Nelson & Hill, Salt Lake City, UT, argued for appellant Phillip M. Adams. Also represented by GORDON K. HILL. MAI-TRANG DUC DANG, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Katherine K. Vidal. Also represented by BENJAMIN T. HICKMAN, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, AMY J. NELSON, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED.

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

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

April 11,2023 /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

In re Adams, No. 22-1705 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 11, 2023).

Record ID
CAFC-22-1705-20230411
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-22-1705-20230411

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.