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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Shukh v. Seagate Technology, LLC, No. 15-1012 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 2015)

Vacated & Remanded
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 15-1012
Decided
October 2, 2015
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit

ALEXANDER SHUKH,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC, SEAGATE

TECHNOLOGY, INC., SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY,

Defendants-Appellees

UNKNOWN OWNERS AND ASSIGNEES,

Defendant

SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY PLC,

Defendant-Appellee

2015-1012

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in No. 0:10-cv-00404-JRT-JJK, Judge John R. Tunheim.

Decided: October 2, 2015

CONSTANTINE JOHN GEKAS, Gekas Law Ltd., Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

22 SHUKH v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC

CHAD DROWN, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Minneapolis, MN, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by DAVID J.F. GROSS, CHARLES FEENEY KNAPP, ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT, AARON D. VAN OORT; CALVIN L. LITSEY, East Palo Alto, CA.

Before MOORE, WALLACH, and TARANTO, Circuit

Judges.

In light of our holding in Shukh v. Seagate Technology, LLC, Case No. 14-1406, vacating and remanding in part the district court’s judgment on the merits against Alexander Shukh, we vacate and remand the district court’s costs judgment.

VACATED AND REMANDED

COSTS

No costs.

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

Shukh v. Seagate Technology, LLC, No. 15-1012 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 2015).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-ca13-15-01012-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01012-0

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.