Legal Opinion
Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided March 23, 2016No. 2015-1116, 2015-1119PublishedCited by 44 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge MOORE. Opinion concurring specially in the judgment filed by Circuit Judge REYNA.
MOORE, Circuit Judge.
Shaw Industries Group, Inc. appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“PTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) final written decision in consolidated inter partes reviews (“IPR”) of claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,806,360. Shaw also petitions for writ of mandamus. Automated Creel Systems (“ACS”) cross-appeals. We affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand. We deny Shaw’s petition for writ.
Background
ACS is the owner of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Cheney v. United States District Court for District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- In Re Robert J. Gartside and Richard C. NortonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
- In Re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
- James L. Hanauer v. Robert B. Reich, Secretary of LaborCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1996
- St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. Volcano Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2017
- Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2017
- Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2023
- Sionyx, LLC v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K.District Court, District of Columbia · 2018
- Click-To-Call Technologies, Lp v. Ingenio, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2018
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.