Irwin Industrial Tool Co. v. Bibow Industries, Inc.
This text of Irwin Industrial Tool Co. v. Bibow Industries, Inc. (Irwin Industrial Tool Co. v. Bibow Industries, Inc.) 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 ______________________
IRWIN INDUSTRIAL TOOL COMPANY (doing business as Lenox), Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BIBOW INDUSTRIES, INC. AND CHRISTOPHER W. BIBOW, Defendants-Appellants. ______________________
2013-1112 ______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in No. 11-CV-30023, Judge Douglas P. Woodlock. ______________________
JUDGMENT ______________________
RACHAEL A. HARRIS, Squire Sanders (US) LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With her on the brief was JOHN A. BURLINGAME.
EDWARD P. DUTKIEWICZ, of Dade City, Florida, argued for defendants-appellants. ______________________
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, PROST, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
September 23, 2013 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Irwin Industrial Tool Co. v. Bibow Industries, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irwin-industrial-tool-co-v-bibow-industries-inc-cafc-2013.