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.

Gonzalez v. New Life Ventures, Inc., No. 16-2622 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2017)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-2622
Also Docketed
No. 17-1092 (consolidated; same document)
Decided
August 21, 2017
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

EMMANUEL C. GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

NEW LIFE VENTURES, INC.,

Defendant-Cross-Appellant

2016-2622, 2017-1092

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Nos. 2:14-cv-00906-JRG, 2:14-cv-00907-JRG, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

JUDGMENT

MICHAEL SCOTT FULLER, Locke Lord LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by PAUL DONSY LEIN.

NICHOLAS A. BROWN, Greenberg Traurig LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for defendant-cross appellant. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

2ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, and TARANTO,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT August 21, 2017 /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

Gonzalez v. New Life Ventures, Inc., No. 16-2622 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2017).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-ca13-16-02622-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02622-0

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