Acharya v. Hauser
This text of Acharya v. Hauser (Acharya v. Hauser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________
BARUN ACHARYA AND XINGEN DONG, Appellants,
v.
RAYMOND HAUSER AND LONNIE E. HOLDER, Appellees. ____________________
2011-1452 ______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Interference No. 105,750. ______________________
JUDGMENT ______________________
JAY R. CAMPBELL, Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP, of Cleveland, Ohio, argued for appellants. With him on the brief were DON W. BULSON, TODD R. TUCKER, KYLE B. FLEMING and NICHOLAS J. GINGO.
THOMAS C. MCDONOUGH, Neal Gerber & Eisenberg, LLP, of Chicago, Illinois, argued for appellees. With him on the brief was LAWRENCE E. JAMES, JR. Of counsel on the brief were CHARLES L. GHOLZ and W. TODD BAKER, Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C., of Alexandria, Virginia. ______________________
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
PER CURIAM (LINN, CLEVENGER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges).
AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
February 14, 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Acharya v. Hauser, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acharya-v-hauser-cafc-2012.