U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2008

Gammino v. Southwestern Bell Telephone L.P.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Decided February 27, 2008 · Bryson, Moore, Wolle

267 F. App'x 949

Counsel

W. Mark Mullineaux, Flamm, Boroff & Bacine, PC, of Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Mark B. Schoeller and Joseph R. Carnicella., Roger Fulghum, Baker Botts L.L.P., of Houston, Texas, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Scott F. Partridge, Shira R. Yoshor, Michael Hawes, Steven J. Mitby, and Robinson Vu. Of counsel on the brief were Timothy G. Newman and Russell W. White, Larson Newman Abel Polansky & White LLP, of Austin, Texas.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Gammino v. Sprint Communications Company (Fed. Cir. 2014)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

In a thorough opinion, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that the asserted claims of the two patents at issue in this litigation, U.S. Pat. No. 5,809,125 and U.S. Pat. No. 5,812,-650, are anticipated by prior art and therefore are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion. No purpose would be served by simply retracing the analysis of the district court, which is fully sufficient to resolve this appeal. In light of our disposition of the invalidity claim, we need not address the district court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment of non-infringement.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.