CLEARVALUE, INC. v. PEARL RIVER POLYMERS, INC., 2012-1595. (2013)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Number: infco20131209140
Visitors: 3
Filed: Dec. 09, 2013
Latest Update: Dec. 09, 2013
Summary: This disposition is nonprecedential. PER CURIAM. Mr. Haase appeals from the district court's order that Appellees are entitled to recover (1) costs as the prevailing 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 reve
Summary: This disposition is nonprecedential. PER CURIAM. Mr. Haase appeals from the district court's order that Appellees are entitled to recover (1) costs as the prevailing 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 rever..
More
This disposition is nonprecedential.
PER CURIAM.
Mr. Haase appeals from the district court's order that Appellees are entitled to recover (1) costs as the prevailing 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., 668 F.3d 1340, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir. 2012); ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 560 F.3d 1291, 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.
Source: Leagle
