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.

Exergen Corporation v. Thermomedics, Inc., No. 16-1099 (Fed. Cir. June 22, 2016)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-1099
Decided
June 22, 2016
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

EXERGEN CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SANOMEDICS INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.,

THERMOMEDICS, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

2016-1099

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in No. 1:13-cv-11243-DJC, Judge Denise J. Casper.

JUDGMENT

JOEL R. LEEMAN, Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP, Boston, MA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by ROBERT M. ASHER, BRANDON TAYLOR SCRUGGS, SHARONA STERNBERG, KERRY L. TIMBERS.

TIMOTHY DEVLIN, Devlin Law Firm, Wilmington, DE, argued for defendants-appellees.

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

PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT June 22, 2016 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner 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

Exergen Corporation v. Thermomedics, Inc., No. 16-1099 (Fed. Cir. June 22, 2016).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-ca13-16-01099-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01099-0

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