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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Inneos LLC v. Opticis Co., Ltd., No. 25-1487 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2026)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 25-1487
Decided
June 10, 2026
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

INNEOS LLC,

Appellant

v.

OPTICIS CO., LTD.,

Appellee

2025-1487

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2023-01256.

JUDGMENT

CHRISTIAN E. MAMMEN, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by JULIE GIARDINA, BARRY J. HERMAN, Baltimore, MD.

MICHAEL JONES, Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, PC, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by MARTIN MOSS ZOLTICK.

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

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

June 10, 2026

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

Inneos LLC v. Opticis Co., Ltd., No. 25-1487 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2026).

Record ID
CAFC-25-1487-20260610
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1487-20260610

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.