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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. 17-1212 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2017)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 17-1212
Also Docketed
No. 17-1248 (consolidated; same document)
Decided
September 18, 2017
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 RADWARE, LTD., RADWARE, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

F5 NETWORKS, INC.,

Defendant-Cross-Appellant

2017-1212, 2017-1248

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 5:13-cv-02024-RMW, Senior Judge Ronald M. Whyte.

JUDGMENT

FABIO E. MARINO, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Menlo Park, CA, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by NITIN GAMBHIR; JOSHUA DAVID ROGACZEWSKI, Washington, DC. RAMSEY M. AL-SALAM, Perkins Coie, LLP, Seattle, WA, argued for defendant-cross-appellant. Also represented by CHRISTINA JORDAN MCCULLOUGH, STEVAN R. STARK, JR.

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 September 18, 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

Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. 17-1212 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2017).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-ca13-17-01212-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-17-01212-0

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.