From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

R+L Carriers, Inc. v. Pitt Ohio Express Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Feb 6, 2013
505 F. App'x 940 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

Opinion

2012-1471

02-06-2013

R+L CARRIERS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PITT OHIO EXPRESS INC., Defendant-Appellee.

ANTHONY C. WHITE, Thompson Hine, LLP, of Columbus, Ohio, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were MEGAN D. DORTENZO, of Cleveland, Ohio, and STEPHEN J. BUTLER, of Cincinnati, Ohio. Of counsel was TROY S. PRINCE, of Cleveland, Ohio. GRETCHEN L. JANKOWSKI, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, argued for defendant-appellee. With her on the brief was MICHAEL L. DEVER.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Cincinnati) in No. 10-CV-0090, Judge Sandra S. Beckwith.

JUDGMENT

ANTHONY C. WHITE, Thompson Hine, LLP, of Columbus, Ohio, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were MEGAN D. DORTENZO, of Cleveland, Ohio, and STEPHEN J. BUTLER, of Cincinnati, Ohio. Of counsel was TROY S. PRINCE, of Cleveland, Ohio.

GRETCHEN L. JANKOWSKI, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, argued for defendant-appellee. With her on the brief was MICHAEL L. DEVER. THIS CAUSE HAVING BEEN HEARD AND CONSIDERED, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, PROST, and O'MALLEY, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

___________

Jan Horbaly

Clerk


Summaries of

R+L Carriers, Inc. v. Pitt Ohio Express Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Feb 6, 2013
505 F. App'x 940 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
Case details for

R+L Carriers, Inc. v. Pitt Ohio Express Inc.

Case Details

Full title:R+L CARRIERS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PITT OHIO EXPRESS INC.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Date published: Feb 6, 2013

Citations

505 F. App'x 940 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

Citing Cases

K-Tech Telecomms., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.

That a complaint alleges a plausible claim for patent infringement on its face and satisfies Form 18 does not…

K-Tech Telecomms., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.

That a complaint alleges a plausible claim for patent infringement on its face and satisfies Form 18 does not…