Wireless Ink Corporation v. Google, Inc., No. 13-1683 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2014) — Rule 36 Judgment

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

WIRELESS INK CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

GOOGLE, INC., YOUTUBE, LLC, AND

FACEBOOK, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees,

AND

YOUTUBE, INC., AND MYSPACE, INC.,

Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

WIRELESS INK CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

FACEBOOK, INC. AND GOOGLE, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

2013-1683, -1684

2Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Nos. 11-cv-01751 and 10-cv-01841, Judge P. Kevin Castel.

JUDGMENT

JEREMY S. PITCOCK, The Pitcock Law Group, of New York, New York, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Of counsel on the brief was PAPOOL S. CHAUDHARI, Chaudhari Law, PLLC, of Wylie, Texas.

JOHN CHRISTOPHER ROZENDAAL, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C., of Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees. With him on the brief for Facebook, Inc., were MICHAEL E. JOFFRE and MELANIE L. BOSTWICK. Of counsel on the brief for Facebook, Inc., were HEIDI L. KEEFE, MARK R. WEINSTEIN, and ELIZABETH L. STAMESHKIN, Cooley LLP, of Palo Alto, California. On the brief for Google, Inc. and YouTube, LLC, were KEVIN X. MCGANN, AARON CHASE, and ADAM GAHTAN, White & Case LLP, of New York, New York.

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

PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and CHEN,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT July 16, 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.

Cite this opinion