NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.


  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
                ______________________

                CLEARVALUE, INC.,
                    Plaintiff,

                         AND

              RICHARD ALAN HAASE,
                 Plaintiff-Appellant,

                           v.

 PEARL RIVER POLYMERS, INC., POLYCHEMIE,
   INC., SNF, INC., POLYDYNE, INC., AND SNF
             HOLDING COMPANY,
               Defendants-Appellees.
              ______________________

                      2012-1595
                ______________________

   Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas in No. 06-CV-0197, Judge
Leonard Davis.
                ______________________

              Decided: December 9, 2013
               ______________________

   RICHARD A. HAASE, of Missouri City, Texas, pro se.
2             CLEARVALUE, INC.   v. PEARL RIVER POLYMERS, INC.



    HOWARD L. CLOSE, Wright & Close, L.L.P., of Hou-
ston, Texas, for defendants-appellees. With him on the
brief were R. RUSSELL HOLLENBECK; and ANDY TINDEL,
Mann, Tindel & Thompson, of Tyler, Texas.
                 ______________________

    Before MOORE, SCHALL, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
    Mr. Haase appeals from the district court’s order that
Appellees are entitled to recover (1) costs as the prevail-
ing party in this case, and (2) monetary sanctions related
to discovery violations by Mr. Haase and others. In
previous appeals related to this case, we affirmed the
district court’s imposition of monetary sanctions, affirmed
the grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that
Appellees did not misappropriate a trade secret, and
reversed the denial of JMOL of patent invalidity. See
ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 

, 1345–46 (Fed. Cir. 2012); ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl
River Polymers, Inc., 

, 1304–05 (Fed. Cir.
2009).
    Mr. Haase argues that the district court abused its
discretion by awarding costs to Appellees; challenges the
award of monetary sanctions; and challenges the final
judgment related to trade secret misappropriation and
patent invalidity. We have considered these and all other
arguments Mr. Haase raises, and find them to be without
merit. Accordingly, we affirm.
                       AFFIRMED
                          COSTS
    Costs are awarded to Appellees.