From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Patterson

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Oct 10, 2018
2017-2364 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2018)

Opinion

2017-2364

10-10-2018

IN RE: JAMES PATTERSON, NATHAN MOODY, Appellants

ANDREW V. TRASK, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellants. Also represented by JAMES SHERWOOD, Google LLC, Washington, DC. ROBERT MCBRIDE, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by THOMAS W. KRAUSE, KAKOLI CAPRIHAN, MARY L. KELLY, MEREDITH HOPE SCHOENFELD.


NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 13/103,813.

JUDGMENT

ANDREW V. TRASK, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellants. Also represented by JAMES SHERWOOD, Google LLC, Washington, DC. ROBERT MCBRIDE, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by THOMAS W. KRAUSE, KAKOLI CAPRIHAN, MARY L. KELLY, MEREDITH HOPE SCHOENFELD. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and HUGHES, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT October 10, 2018

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court


Summaries of

In re Patterson

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Oct 10, 2018
2017-2364 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2018)
Case details for

In re Patterson

Case Details

Full title:IN RE: JAMES PATTERSON, NATHAN MOODY, Appellants

Court:United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Date published: Oct 10, 2018

Citations

2017-2364 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2018)