John R. Gammino v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Lp

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-1257
JOHN R. GAMMINO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE LP,
Defendant-Appellee.
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.
Appealed from: United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Judge Ed Kinkeade

-- 1 of 3 --

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-1257
JOHN R. GAMMINO,
Appellant/Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE, L.P.,
Appellee/Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
No. 3:05-CV-0850, Judge Ed Kinkeade
___________________________
DECIDED: February 27, 2008
___________________________
Before BRYSON and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and WOLLE, District Judge.∗
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
∗ Honorable Charles R. Wolle, Senior District Judge, United States District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

-- 2 of 3 --

2007-1257 2
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.

-- 3 of 3 --