Shukh v. Seagate Tech., LLC

Full title: ALEXANDER SHUKH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC, SEAGATE…

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Date published: Oct 2, 2015

2015-1012 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 2015)

Opinion

2015-1012

10-02-2015

ALEXANDER SHUKH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC, SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, INC., SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, Defendants-Appellees UNKNOWN OWNERS AND ASSIGNEES, Defendant SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY PLC, Defendant-Appellee

CONSTANTINE JOHN GEKAS, Gekas Law Ltd., Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant. CHAD DROWN, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Minneapolis, MN, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by DAVID J.F. GROSS, CHARLES FEENEY KNAPP, ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT, AARON D. VAN OORT; CALVIN L. LITSEY, East Palo Alto, CA.

PER CURIAM.

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in No. 0:10-cv-00404-JRT-JJK, Judge John R. Tunheim. CONSTANTINE JOHN GEKAS, Gekas Law Ltd., Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant. CHAD DROWN, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Minneapolis, MN, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by DAVID J.F. GROSS, CHARLES FEENEY KNAPP, ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT, AARON D. VAN OORT; CALVIN L. LITSEY, East Palo Alto, CA. Before MOORE, WALLACH, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.

In light of our holding in Shukh v. Seagate Technology, LLC, Case No. 14-1406, vacating and remanding in part the district court's judgment on the merits against Alexander Shukh, we vacate and remand the district court's costs judgment.

VACATED AND REMANDED

COSTS

No costs.