PHIL-INSUL CORP. v. REWARD WALL SYSTEMS, INC. , No. 14-1078 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ PHIL-INSUL CORP., doing business as IntegraSpec, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REWARD WALL SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, AND NUDURA CORPORATION AND POLYFORM A.G.P INC., Defendants-Cross-Appellants, AND BUILDBLOCK BUILDING SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, AND AMVIC CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. ______________________ 2014-1078, -1098 ______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska in No. 8:12-CV-00091, Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. ______________________ JUDGMENT ______________________ PAUL ADAMS, The Adams Law Firm, of Albuquerque, New Mexico, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Of counsel on the brief were MICHAEL T. COOKE and BRETT M. PINKUS, Friedman, Suder & Cooke, of Fort Worth, Texas. RACHEL C. HUGHEY, Merchant & Gould P.C., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, argued for defendants-crossappellants Nudura Corporation, et al. With her on the brief were CHRISTOPHER J. SORENSON, AARON M. JOHNSON, and KATHERINE E. MULLER. KORI ANNE BAGROWSKI, Brinks Gilson & Lione, of Chicago, Illinois, argued for defendant-appellee Amvic Corporation. With her on the brief was JAMES ROBERT SOBIERAJ. MICHAEL R. ANNIS, Husch Blackwell, LLP, of St. Louis, Missouri, for defendant-appellee Reward Wall Systems, Inc. Of counsel was ANDREW RICHARD GILFOIL. On the brief for defendant-appellee Buildblock Building Systems, LLC, were DAVID M. SULLIVAN and HARVEY D. ELLIS, JR, Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C., of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Of counsel was TYNIA A. WATSON. ______________________ THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, DYK and TARANTO, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT October 10, 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.