Nextec Applications, Inc. v. Brookwood Cos., Inc.

Full title: NEXTEC APPLICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROOKWOOD COMPANIES…

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Date published: Nov 18, 2013

542 F. App'x 995 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

Opinion

2012-1670 2012-1685

11-18-2013

NEXTEC APPLICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROOKWOOD COMPANIES, INC., Defendant-Cross-Appellant.

NAGENDRA SETTY, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP, of San Francisco, California, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were STEPHEN S. KORNICZKY, EDWARD V. ANDERSON, and MICHAEL MURPHY. Of counsel was DANIEL NICHOLAS YANNUZZI, of San Diego, California. DARYL L. JOSEFFER, King & Spalding, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-cross appellant. With him on the brief were KAREN F. GROHMAN; ADAM M. CONRAD, of Charlotte, North Carolina; ETHAN HORWITZ, of New York, New York; and MARY KATHERINE BATES, of Atlanta, Georgia.

Per Curiam

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in No. 07-CV-6901, Senior Judge Thomas P. Griesa.

JUDGMENT

NAGENDRA SETTY, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP, of San Francisco, California, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were STEPHEN S. KORNICZKY, EDWARD V. ANDERSON, and MICHAEL MURPHY. Of counsel was DANIEL NICHOLAS YANNUZZI, of San Diego, California.

DARYL L. JOSEFFER, King & Spalding, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-cross appellant. With him on the brief were KAREN F. GROHMAN; ADAM M. CONRAD, of Charlotte, North Carolina; ETHAN HORWITZ, of New York, New York; and MARY KATHERINE BATES, of Atlanta, Georgia. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (RADER, Chief Judge, MAYER, and CHEN,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

______________

Daniel E. O'Toole

Clerk of Court