Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. v. Eclinical Works, LLC

Federal Circuit

Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. v. Eclinical Works, LLC

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedOctober 14, 2014

Docket14-1005

StatusUnpublished

This text of Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. v. Eclinical Works, LLC (Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. v. Eclinical Works, LLC) 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.

Bluebook

Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. v. Eclinical Works, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A., AND UNILOC USA, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

ECLINICAL WORKS, LLC, AND PULSE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Appellees. ______________________

2014-1005 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Nos. 2:13-cv-03244-MWF- PLA and 2:13-cv-03246-MWF-PLA, Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. ______________________

JUDGMENT ______________________

LAWRENCE M. HADLEY, McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C., of Los Angeles, California, argued for plaintiffs- appellants. With him on the brief was ALAN P. BLOCK; and DANIEL L. GEYSER, of Dallas, Texas. Of counsel on the brief was JAMES L. ETHERIDGE, Etheridge Law Group, of Southlake, Texas. KEITH M. AURZADA, Bryan Cave LLP, of Dallas, Tex- as, argued for defendant-appellee, eClinical Works, LLC. With him on the brief was JOHN C. BUSH, of Atlanta, Georgia. Of counsel on the brief was RYAN T. PUMPIAN, Bloom Sugarman Everett, LLP, of Atlanta, Georgia.

DON V. KELLY, Evans & Dixon, LLC, of Saint Louis, Missouri, argued for defendant-appellee, Pulse Systems, Inc. ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (MOORE, CLEVENGER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

October 14, 2014 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A., AND UNILOC USA, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

ECLINICAL WORKS, LLC, AND PULSE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Appellees. ______________________

2014-1005 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Nos. 2:13-cv-03244-MWF- PLA and 2:13-cv-03246-MWF-PLA, Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. ______________________

JUDGMENT ______________________

LAWRENCE M. HADLEY, McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C., of Los Angeles, California, argued for plaintiffs- appellants. With him on the brief was ALAN P. BLOCK; and DANIEL L. GEYSER, of Dallas, Texas. Of counsel on the brief was JAMES L. ETHERIDGE, Etheridge Law Group, of Southlake, Texas. KEITH M. AURZADA, Bryan Cave LLP, of Dallas, Tex- as, argued for defendant-appellee, eClinical Works, LLC. With him on the brief was JOHN C. BUSH, of Atlanta, Georgia. Of counsel on the brief was RYAN T. PUMPIAN, Bloom Sugarman Everett, LLP, of Atlanta, Georgia.

DON V. KELLY, Evans & Dixon, LLC, of Saint Louis, Missouri, argued for defendant-appellee, Pulse Systems, Inc. ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (MOORE, CLEVENGER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

October 14, 2014 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. v. Eclinical Works, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uniloc-luxembourg-sa-v-eclinical-works-llc-cafc-2014.