Fed. Cir.

In re Soto, No. 23-2008 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 6, 2025)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 23-2008
Decided: February 6, 2025
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 IN RE: ALEXANDER I. SOTO, WALTER G. SOTO,

Appellants 2023-2008

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 17/138,794.

JUDGMENT

DEREK MEEKER, Laurence & Phillips IP Law, Washington, DC, argued for appellants. Also represented by KEVIN B. LAURENCE, MATTHEW C. PHILLIPS.

MICHAEL S. FORMAN, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Coke Morgan Stewart. Also represented by ROBERT MCBRIDE, AMY J. NELSON, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED.

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

2PER CURIAM (MOORE, Chief Judge, HUGHES and

CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

February 6, 2025

Date

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 Soto, No. 23-2008 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 6, 2025).

Record ID: CAFC-23-2008-20250206
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-23-2008-20250206

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