Fed. Cir.

Goodman v. Smart Modular Technologies, No. 17-1084 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 5, 2017)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 17-1084
Decided: October 5, 2017
Judge: Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document: Rule 36 Judgment
Length: 2 pages

Full Text Analysis Cite this Opinion

Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit

JAMES B. GOODMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

SMART MODULAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

2017-1084

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in No. 4:14-cv-01380, Judge Gray H. Miller.

JUDGMENT

DAVID FINK, Fink & Johnson, Houston, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant. MICHAEL FRANCIS HEAFEY, Troutman Sanders LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by ANUP M. SHAH, Charlotte, NC. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

2ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (MOORE, PLAGER, and CHEN, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT October 5, 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

Goodman v. Smart Modular Technologies, No. 17-1084 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 5, 2017).

govinfo ID: USCOURTS-ca13-17-01084-0
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-17-01084-0

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