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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Split Pivot, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corporation, No. 14-1241 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2014)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 14-1241
Decided
December 8, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

SPLIT PIVOT, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TREK BICYCLE CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

2014-1241

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in No. 3:12-cv-00639-WMC, Judge William M. Conley.

JUDGMENT

ALAN MARSHALL ANDERSON, Alan Anderson Law Firm LLC, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was AARON C. NYQUIST. Of counsel was CHRISTOPHER A. YOUNG, Kutak Rock LLP, of Minneapolis, Minnesota.

DAN L. BAGETELL, Perkins Coie LLP, of Phoenix, Arizona, argued for defendant-appellee. On the brief were JOHN S. SKILTON, AUTUMN N. NERO and DAVID R. PEKAREK KROHN, of Madison, Wisconsin.

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

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT December 8, 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

Split Pivot, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corporation, No. 14-1241 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2014).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-ca13-14-01241-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01241-0

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.