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.

Baltimore aircoil Company v. SPX Cooling Technologies, No. 17-1342 (Fed. Cir. May 4, 2018)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 17-1342
Decided
May 4, 2018
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 BALTIMORE AIRCOIL COMPANY, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SPX COOLING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

2017-1342

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in No. 1:13-cv-02053-CCB, Judge Catherine C. Blake.

JUDGMENT

JAMIE HERBERT MCDOLE, Haynes & Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by MATTHEW PHILIP CHIARIZIO, MICHAEL DALEY KARSON, BENJAMIN LEE MESCHES, PHILLIP BRETT PHILBIN.

MICHAEL EDWARD ANDERSON, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by JASON F. HOFFMAN, KA CHUN LEUNG, KENNETH JON SHEEHAN; JOHN FRANK MURPHY, DALE M. HEIST, Philadelphia, PA.

2THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (LOURIE, CLEVENGER, and REYNA, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT May 4, 2018 /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

Baltimore aircoil Company v. SPX Cooling Technologies, No. 17-1342 (Fed. Cir. May 4, 2018).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-ca13-17-01342-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-17-01342-0

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