Filed: Jan. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit _ CAO GROUP, INC., Appellant v. BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY, INC., Appellee _ 2016-1664 _ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/002,271. _ JUDGMENT _ H. DICKSON BURTON, TraskBritt, PC, Salt Lake City, UT, argued for appellant. Also represented by J. JEFFREY GUNN, STEPHEN E. PULLEY. JOSHUA LEE RASKIN, Greenberg Traurig LLP, New York, NY, argued for
Summary: NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit _ CAO GROUP, INC., Appellant v. BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY, INC., Appellee _ 2016-1664 _ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/002,271. _ JUDGMENT _ H. DICKSON BURTON, TraskBritt, PC, Salt Lake City, UT, argued for appellant. Also represented by J. JEFFREY GUNN, STEPHEN E. PULLEY. JOSHUA LEE RASKIN, Greenberg Traurig LLP, New York, NY, argued for a..
More
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ CAO GROUP, INC., Appellant v. BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY, INC., Appellee ______________________ 2016-1664 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/002,271. ______________________ JUDGMENT ______________________ H. DICKSON BURTON, TraskBritt, PC, Salt Lake City, UT, argued for appellant. Also represented by J. JEFFREY GUNN, STEPHEN E. PULLEY. JOSHUA LEE RASKIN, Greenberg Traurig LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellee. ______________________ THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, MOORE, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT January 27, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
