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.

Pure Fishing, Inc. v. Normark Corporation, No. 13-1655 (Fed. Cir. June 20, 2014)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 13-1655
Decided
June 20, 2014
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

PURE FISHING, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NORMARK CORPORATION

(doing business as Rapala),

Defendant-Appellee.

2013-1655

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina in No. 10-CV-2140, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie.

JUDGMENT

MARCUS A. MANOS, Nexsen Pruet, LLC, of Columbia, South Carolina, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was DANIEL C. LEONARDI.

J. THOMAS VITT, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were SHANNON L. BJORKLUND and MICHAEL WEINBECK.

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

PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, LOURIE, and DYK, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT June 20, 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

Pure Fishing, Inc. v. Normark Corporation, No. 13-1655 (Fed. Cir. June 20, 2014).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-ca13-13-01655-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-13-01655-0

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.

Source: govinfo.gov USCOURTS collection · retrieved July 25, 2026 · Report an error