Voestalpine Stahl Gmbh v. Arcelormittal
This text of Voestalpine Stahl Gmbh v. Arcelormittal (Voestalpine Stahl Gmbh v. Arcelormittal) 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 ______________________
VOESTALPINE STAHL GMBH, Appellant
v.
ARCELORMITTAL, Appellee ______________________
2016-1407 ______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 95/001,214, 95/001,350, 95/001,353. ______________________
JUDGMENT ______________________
MAXWELL JAMES PETERSEN, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant.
DAVID JAMES CUSHING, Sughrue Mion, PLLC, Wash- ington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by RICHARD CLAY TURNER; MARK JAMES DEBOY, Edell Shapiro and Finnan, Gaithersburg, MD. ______________________
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, LOURIE, and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
October 11, 2016 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Voestalpine Stahl Gmbh v. Arcelormittal, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/voestalpine-stahl-gmbh-v-arcelormittal-cafc-2016.