Enova Technology Corp. v. Seagate Technology (us) [rule 36 Judgment]

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ENOVA TECHNOLOGY CORP.,
Appellant
v
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY (US) HOLDINGS INC.,
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC,
Appellees
______________________
2016-1287
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2014-
00683.
______________________
JUDGMENT
______________________
D ARRYL MICHAEL WOO, Vinson & Elkins LLP, San
Francisco, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by
CHAO WANG; J ANICE T A, Austin, TX.
D AVID J.F. G ROSS , Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Minne-
apolis, MN, argued for appellees. Also represented by
L UCAS J. T OMSICH , J ULIE WAHLSTRAND; CALVIN L. L ITSEY ,
East Palo Alto, CA; RICHARD M. MARSH , J R., Denver, CO.

-- 1 of 2 --

______________________
T HIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is
O RDERED and A DJUDGED:
P ER CURIAM (N EWMAN, T ARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit
Judges).
AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.
ENTERED BY O RDER OF THE COURT
March 20, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court

-- 2 of 2 --