From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ultravision Techs. v. Glux Visual Effects Tech. (Shenzhen) Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
Jan 13, 2023
No. 2022-1342 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2023)

Opinion

2022-1344

01-13-2023

ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Appellant v. GLUX VISUAL EFFECTS TECH (SHENZHEN) CO., LEYARD OPTOELECTRONIC CO., SHENZHEN LIANTRONICS CO., LTD., UNILUMIN GROUP CO., LTD., Appellees

PETER LAMBRIANAKOS, Fabricant LLP, Rye, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by ALFRED ROSS FABRICANT, JOSEPH M. MERCADANTE, VINCENT J. RUBINO, III. JORDAN BOCK, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA, argued for appellees. Also represented by KEVIN PAUL MARTIN; NAOMI BIRBACH, LINNEA P. CIPRIANO, New York, NY; MONTE COOPER, Redwood City, CA; PATRICK MCCARTHY, Washington, DC.


This disposition is nonprecedential.

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-01052.

PETER LAMBRIANAKOS, Fabricant LLP, Rye, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by ALFRED ROSS FABRICANT, JOSEPH M. MERCADANTE, VINCENT J. RUBINO, III.

JORDAN BOCK, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA, argued for appellees. Also represented by KEVIN PAUL

MARTIN; NAOMI BIRBACH, LINNEA P. CIPRIANO, New York, NY; MONTE COOPER, Redwood City, CA; PATRICK MCCARTHY, Washington, DC.

JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM

PROST, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.


Summaries of

Ultravision Techs. v. Glux Visual Effects Tech. (Shenzhen) Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
Jan 13, 2023
No. 2022-1342 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2023)
Case details for

Ultravision Techs. v. Glux Visual Effects Tech. (Shenzhen) Co.

Case Details

Full title:ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Appellant v. GLUX VISUAL EFFECTS TECH…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

Date published: Jan 13, 2023

Citations

No. 2022-1342 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2023)

Citing Cases

Ultravision Techs. v. GoVision, LLC

Ultravision also appealed the "waterproof" construction as it related to claim 22 of U.S. Patent No.…