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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Pacific Scientific Energetic v. Ensign-Bickford aerospace, No. 13-1424 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2014)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 13-1424
Decided
February 10, 2014
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC ENERGETIC MATERIALS

COMPANY (Arizona), LLC AND

PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC ENERGETIC MATERIALS

COMPANY (California), LLC,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

ENSIGN-BICKFORD AEROSPACE & DEFENSE

COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant.

2013-1424

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in No. 10-CV-2252, Judge Joseph R. Goodwin.

JUDGMENT

MICHAEL A. OBLON, Perkins Coie, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. With him on the brief was DAN L. BAGATELL, of Phoenix, Arizona.

SID LEACH, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. of Phoenix, Arizona, argued for defendant-appellant.

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

WALLACH, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT February 10, 2014 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole 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

Pacific Scientific Energetic v. Ensign-Bickford aerospace, No. 13-1424 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2014).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-ca13-13-01424-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-13-01424-0

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.