Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01617/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01617-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF

JUDGMENT ACCOMPANIED BY OPINION 

OPINION FILED AND JUDGMENT ENTERED: 02/12/2016

 The attached opinion announcing the judgment of the court in your case was filed and judgment was entered on 

the date indicated above. The mandate will be issued in due course. 

 Information is also provided about petitions for rehearing and suggestions for rehearing en banc. The questions 

and answers are those frequently asked and answered by the Clerk's Office.

 Costs are taxed against the appellant in favor of the appellee under Rule 39. The party entitled to costs is 

provided a bill of costs form and an instruction sheet with this notice.

 The parties are encouraged to stipulate to the costs. A bill of costs will be presumed correct in the absence of a 

timely filed objection.

 Costs are payable to the party awarded costs. If costs are awarded to the government, they should be paid to 

the Treasurer of the United States. Where costs are awarded against the government, payment should be made to 

the person(s) designated under the governing statutes, the court's orders, and the parties' written settlement 

agreements. In cases between private parties, payment should be made to counsel for the party awarded costs or, if 

the party is not represented by counsel, to the party pro se. Payment of costs should not be sent to the court. Costs 

should be paid promptly.

 If the court also imposed monetary sanctions, they are payable to the opposing party unless the court's opinion 

provides otherwise. Sanctions should be paid in the same way as costs.

 Regarding exhibits and visual aids: Your attention is directed Fed. R. App. P. 34(g) which states that the clerk 

may destroy or dispose of the exhibits if counsel does not reclaim them within a reasonable time after the clerk gives 

notice to remove them. (The clerk deems a reasonable time to be 15 days from the date the final mandate is issued.) 

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Daniel E. O'Toole

Daniel E. O'Toole 

Clerk of Court

cc: Frederick M. Abbott

John R. Alison III

Christa M. Anderson

James Scott Ballenger

P. Douglas Barr

Margreth Barrett

Jamie B. Beaber

Benjamin Beaton

Sara Beccia

Garrard R. Beeney

Merritt Blakeslee

Adam R. Brebner

Roger Brooks

Sarah Burg

Gino Cheng

Case: 14-1617 Document: 338-1 Page: 1 Filed: 02/12/2016
Joseph S. Cianfrani

Kathi A. Cover

Samuel Drezdzon

Charles Duan

Barbara A. Fiacco

Theodore Lawrence Field

Joshua John Fougere

Mark R. Freeman

Seth David Greenstein

Jennifer Herbst Hamilton

Walter E. Hanley Jr.

Robert T. Haslam

John D. Haynes

Timothy P. Heaton

Audra Carol Eidem Heinze

Steven A. Hirsch

Robert N. Hochman

Tihua Huang

Paul Whitfield Hughes

Matthew R. Hulse

Katherine H. Johnson

Philip Staton Johnson

Lisa K. Jorgenson

David J. Kappos

William Douglas Kari

James R. Klaiber

Leo L. Lam

Kristan Lynn Lansbery

Noah Leibowitz

Michael Brett Levin

Kfir Levy

Matthew A. Levy

Charles Lifland

Steven B. Loy

Phillip R. Malone

Bryan Medlock Jr.

Timothy Colin Meece

Matthew J. Moore

John Nilsson

Willow White Noonan

Edward F. O'Connor I

Brian P. O'Shaughnessy

Mohammed Raza Panjwani

Melissa N. Patterson

Jeffrey Theodore Pearlman

Aaron Ligoury Joseph Pereira

Andrew John Pincus

Vera Ranieri

Maura L. Rees

Kevin H. Rhodes

Susan Roeder

David F. Ryan

Meenakshi Kala Sarvaiya

Christopher M. Scharff

Mark Schonfeld

Steven C. Sereboff

Nathan Shaffer

Melissa Arbus Sherry

Jason Steven Shull

Kent N. Shum

Owais Ahmed Siddiqui

Sherwin Siy

Case: 14-1617 Document: 338-1 Page: 2 Filed: 02/12/2016
David S. Steuer

Daniel Stringfield

Ranganath Sudarshan

James Suh

Robert Anthony Surrette

Robert P. Taylor

Constantine L. Trela Jr.

Susan Van Keulen

Robert A. Van Nest

Herbert Clare Wamsley Jr.

Peter James Wied

Vincent K. Yip

Kristin Leigh Yohannan Moore

14-1617 - Lexmark International, Inc. v. Impression Products, Inc.

14-1619 - Lexmark International, Inc. v. Impression Products, Inc. (Cross-Appeal)

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:10-cv-00564-MRB

Case: 14-1617 Document: 338-1 Page: 3 Filed: 02/12/2016