Raytheon Techs. Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co.

Full title: RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Appellant v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

Date published: Jan 18, 2022

No. 2021-1166 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 18, 2022)

Opinion

2021-1166

01-18-2022

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Appellant v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Appellee ANDREW HIRSHFELD, PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Intervenor

Christopher Dryer, Fish & Richardson PC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by Lauren Ann Degnan, Jared Hartzman, Walter Karl Renner. Christopher Pepe, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by Anish R. Desai, New York, NY. Peter John Sawert, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor. Also represented by Daniel Kazhdan, Thomas W. Krause, Maureen Donovan Queler, Farheena Yasmeen Rasheed, Molly R. Silfen.

PER CURIAM.

This disposition is nonprecedential.

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-01289.

Christopher Dryer, Fish & Richardson PC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by Lauren

Ann Degnan, Jared Hartzman, Walter Karl Renner.

Christopher Pepe, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by Anish R. Desai, New York, NY.

Peter John Sawert, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor. Also represented by Daniel Kazhdan, Thomas W. Krause, Maureen Donovan Queler, Farheena Yasmeen Rasheed, Molly R. Silfen.

JUDGMENT

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is

Ordered and Adjudged:

PER CURIAM.

Prost, Chen, and Hughes, Circuit Judges.

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.