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.

Surgetech M LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 24-1280 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2025)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 24-1280
Decided
June 9, 2025
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

SURGETECH M LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., DBA UBER,

Defendant-Appellee

2024-1280

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. 1:22-cv-00882-GBW, Judge Gregory Brian Williams.

JUDGMENT

JAMES M. BOLLINGER, McCarter & English, LLP, Stamford, CT, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by DAVID SILVIA; IAN STERLIN, Boston, MA. MARK N. REITER, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BLAINE H. EVANSON, Irvine, CA; EVAN T. KRATZER, ANDREW WILLIAM ROBB, Palo Alto, CA.

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

PER CURIAM (PROST, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

June 9, 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

Surgetech M LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 24-1280 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2025).

Record ID
CAFC-24-1280-20250609
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-24-1280-20250609

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