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.

R+L Carriers, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., No. 17-2469 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2018)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 17-2469
Decided
August 13, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

R+L CARRIERS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

QUALCOMM, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

2017-2469

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in Nos. 1:09-cv-00445-SSB, 1:09-md-02050-SSB-SKB, Senior Judge Sandra S. Beckwith.

JUDGMENT

ANTHONY C. WHITE, Thompson Hine LLP, Columbus, OH, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by PHILIP B. SINENENG; STEPHEN BUTLER, SR., Cincinnati, OH; ARTHUR P. LICYGIEWICZ, Cleveland, OH. J. DEREK VANDENBURGH, Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh, Lindquist & Schuman, PA, Minneapolis, MN, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by ALEXANDRA JANE OLSON, DOUGLAS J. WILLIAMS; JAMES

2GEORGE WARRINER, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Austin, TX; RICHARD STEPHEN ZEMBEK, Houston, TX. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and WALLACH,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

August 13, 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

R+L Carriers, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., No. 17-2469 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2018).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-ca13-17-02469-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-17-02469-0

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