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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

AAT Bioquest, Inc. v. Texas Fluorescence, No. 16-2056 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 15, 2017)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-2056
Decided
February 15, 2017
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit

AAT BIOQUEST, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TEXAS FLUORESCENCE LABORATORIES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant

2016-2056

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 4:14-cv-03909-DMR, Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.

Decided: February 15, 2017

KRISTA MARIE CARTER, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by DEBORAH E. FISHMAN.

RICK B. YEAGER, Austin, TX, argued for defendant-appellant.

Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and CHEN, Circuit

Judges.

22 AAT BIOQUEST, INC. v. TEXAS FLUORESCENCE

On this limited record and in light of the arguments raised, the district court judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

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

AAT Bioquest, Inc. v. Texas Fluorescence, No. 16-2056 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 15, 2017).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-ca13-16-02056-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02056-0

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.