From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Voestalpine Stahl GMBH v. Arcelormittal

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Oct 11, 2016
2016-1407 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2016)

Opinion

2016-1407

10-11-2016

VOESTALPINE STAHL GMBH, Appellant v. ARCELORMITTAL, Appellee

MAXWELL JAMES PETERSEN, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. DAVID JAMES CUSHING, Sughrue Mion, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by RICHARD CLAY TURNER; MARK JAMES DEBOY, Edell Shapiro and Finnan, Gaithersburg, MD.


NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 95/001,214, 95/001,350, 95/001,353.

JUDGMENT

MAXWELL JAMES PETERSEN, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. DAVID JAMES CUSHING, Sughrue Mion, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by RICHARD CLAY TURNER; MARK JAMES DEBOY, Edell Shapiro and Finnan, Gaithersburg, MD. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, LOURIE, and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT October 11, 2016

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court


Summaries of

Voestalpine Stahl GMBH v. Arcelormittal

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Oct 11, 2016
2016-1407 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2016)
Case details for

Voestalpine Stahl GMBH v. Arcelormittal

Case Details

Full title:VOESTALPINE STAHL GMBH, Appellant v. ARCELORMITTAL, Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Date published: Oct 11, 2016

Citations

2016-1407 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2016)