UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A. v. ECLINICAL WORKS, LLC , No. 14-1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A., AND UNILOC USA, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ECLINICAL WORKS, LLC, AND PULSE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Appellees. ______________________ 2014-1005 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Nos. 2:13-cv-03244-MWFPLA and 2:13-cv-03246-MWF-PLA, Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. ______________________ JUDGMENT ______________________ LAWRENCE M. HADLEY, McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C., of Los Angeles, California, argued for plaintiffsappellants. With him on the brief was ALAN P. BLOCK; and DANIEL L. GEYSER, of Dallas, Texas. Of counsel on the brief was JAMES L. ETHERIDGE, Etheridge Law Group, of Southlake, Texas. KEITH M. AURZADA, Bryan Cave LLP, of Dallas, Texas, argued for defendant-appellee, eClinical Works, LLC. With him on the brief was JOHN C. BUSH, of Atlanta, Georgia. Of counsel on the brief was RYAN T. PUMPIAN, Bloom Sugarman Everett, LLP, of Atlanta, Georgia. DON V. KELLY, Evans & Dixon, LLC, of Saint Louis, Missouri, argued for defendant-appellee, Pulse Systems, Inc. ______________________ THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: PER CURIAM (MOORE, CLEVENGER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT October 14, 2014 Date /s/ Daniel E. O Toole Daniel E. O Toole Clerk of Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
