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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Mondis Technology Ltd. v. Innolux Corporation, No. 13-1178 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2013)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 13-1178
Decided
September 13, 2013
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 MONDIS TECHNOLOGY LTD.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

INNOLUX CORPORATION (FORMERLY KNOWN AS

CHIMEI INNOLUX CORPORATION) AND INNOLUX

CORP.,

Defendants,

AND

HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD.,

Movant-Appellant.

2013-1178

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 11-CV-0378, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

JUDGMENT

MARTIN J. BLACK, Dechert LLP, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, argued for the plaintiff-appellee. With him

2on the brief were JEFFREY B. PLIES and VINCENT A. GALLO.

PETER J. WIED, Goodwin Procter LLP, of Los Angeles, California, argued for movant-appellant. With him on the brief were TERRY D. GARNETT, VINCENT K. YIP, and JAY C. CHIU.

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 September 13, 2013 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk

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

Mondis Technology Ltd. v. Innolux Corporation, No. 13-1178 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2013).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-ca13-13-01178-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-13-01178-0

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.