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.

Action Star Enterprise Co. v. KaiJet Technology Intl., No. 14-1552 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2015)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 14-1552
Decided
May 15, 2015
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 ACTION STAR ENTERPRISE CO. LTD., A

TAIWANESE CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

KAIJET TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL

LIMITED, A GEORGIA CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee

DOES, 1 TO 10 INCLUSIVE,

Defendants

2014-1552

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in No. 2:12-cv-08074-BRO-MRW, Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell.

JUDGMENT

JOHN A. DRAGSETH, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Minneapolis, MN, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by CHRISTOPHER ROBERT DILLON, Boston, MA.

2XAVIER M. BRANDWAJN, Alston & Bird LLP, East Palo Alto, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by YITAI HU, RYAN W. KOPPELMAN. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT May 15, 2015 /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

Action Star Enterprise Co. v. KaiJet Technology Intl., No. 14-1552 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2015).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-ca13-14-01552-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01552-0

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