Court Opinion

ID: 3006758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-02 16:01:08.597611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:03:32.927401
License: Public Domain

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
                ______________________

               ALEXANDER SHUKH,
                 Plaintiff-Appellant

                           v.

   SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC, SEAGATE
 TECHNOLOGY, INC., SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY,
            Defendants-Appellees

      UNKNOWN OWNERS AND ASSIGNEES,
                Defendant

           SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY PLC,
                 Defendant-Appellee
               ______________________

                      2015-1012
                ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota in No. 0:10-cv-00404-JRT-JJK,
Judge John R. Tunheim.
                ______________________

                Decided: October 2, 2015
                ______________________

    CONSTANTINE JOHN GEKAS, Gekas Law Ltd., Chicago,
IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant.
2                    SHUKH   v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC

     CHAD DROWN, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Minneap-
olis, MN, argued for defendants-appellees. Also repre-
sented by DAVID J.F. GROSS, CHARLES FEENEY KNAPP,
ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT, AARON D. VAN OORT; CALVIN
L. LITSEY, East Palo Alto, CA.
                 ______________________

       Before MOORE, WALLACH, and TARANTO, Circuit
                      Judges.
PER CURIAM.
    In light of our holding in Shukh v. Seagate Technolo-
gy, LLC, Case No. 14-1406, vacating and remanding in
part the district court’s judgment on the merits against
Alexander Shukh, we vacate and remand the district
court’s costs judgment.
                VACATED AND REMANDED
                         COSTS
    No costs.