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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Farstone Technology, Inc. v. apple Inc., No. 16-1210 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2016)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-1210
Decided
August 16, 2016
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY, INC., A CALIFORNIA

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

APPLE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee

2016-1210

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in No. 8:13-cv-01537-ODWJEM, Judge Otis D. Wright II.

JUDGMENT

KENNETH STEIN, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by JOSEPH DIAMANTE, CHARLES E. CANTINE, IAN DIBERNARDO.

JOSEPH R. PALMORE, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by SETH W. LLOYD, BRIAN ROBERT MATSUI; VINCENT JOSEPH BELUSKO, BITA RAHEBI, Los Angeles, CA.

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 August 16, 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

Farstone Technology, Inc. v. apple Inc., No. 16-1210 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2016).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-ca13-16-01210-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01210-0

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.