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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Shieldmark, Inc. v. Insite Solutions, LLC, No. 14-1175 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 14, 2014)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 14-1175
Decided
October 14, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

SHIELDMARK, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

INSITE SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Defendant-Appellee.

2014-1175, -1177

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in Nos. 1:12-cv-00223-DCN and 1:13-cv-00572-DCN, Judge Donald C. Nugent.

JUDGMENT

W. SCOTT HARDERS, Brennan, Manna & Diamond, LLC, of Akron, Ohio, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was MARTIN J. PANGRACE. Of counsel on the brief was MARK B. COHN, Dubyak Connick Thompson & Bloom, LLC, of Cleveland, Ohio.

RAY L. WEBER, Renner, Kenner, Greive, Bobak, Taylor, & Weber, of Akron, Ohio, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief was LAURA J. GENTILCORE.

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

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT October 14, 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

Shieldmark, Inc. v. Insite Solutions, LLC, No. 14-1175 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 14, 2014).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-ca13-14-01175-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01175-0

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.