Clearvalue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc. , 546 F. App'x 963 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    CLEARVALUE, INC.,
    Plaintiff,
    AND
    RICHARD ALAN HAASE,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    PEARL RIVER POLYMERS, INC., POLYCHEMIE,
    INC., SNF, INC., POLYDYNE, INC., AND SNF
    HOLDING COMPANY,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ______________________
    2012-1595
    ______________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
    Eastern District of Texas in No. 06-CV-0197, Judge
    Leonard Davis.
    ______________________
    Decided: December 9, 2013
    ______________________
    RICHARD A. HAASE, of Missouri City, Texas, pro se.
    2             CLEARVALUE, INC.   v. PEARL RIVER POLYMERS, INC.
    HOWARD L. CLOSE, Wright & Close, L.L.P., of Hou-
    ston, Texas, for defendants-appellees. With him on the
    brief were R. RUSSELL HOLLENBECK; and ANDY TINDEL,
    Mann, Tindel & Thompson, of Tyler, Texas.
    ______________________
    Before MOORE, SCHALL, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
    Mr. Haase appeals from the district court’s order that
    Appellees are entitled to recover (1) costs as the prevail-
    ing party in this case, and (2) monetary sanctions related
    to discovery violations by Mr. Haase and others. In
    previous appeals related to this case, we affirmed the
    district court’s imposition of monetary sanctions, affirmed
    the grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that
    Appellees did not misappropriate a trade secret, and
    reversed the denial of JMOL of patent invalidity. See
    ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 
    668 F.3d 1340
    , 1345–46 (Fed. Cir. 2012); ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl
    River Polymers, Inc., 
    560 F.3d 1291
    , 1304–05 (Fed. Cir.
    2009).
    Mr. Haase argues that the district court abused its
    discretion by awarding costs to Appellees; challenges the
    award of monetary sanctions; and challenges the final
    judgment related to trade secret misappropriation and
    patent invalidity. We have considered these and all other
    arguments Mr. Haase raises, and find them to be without
    merit. Accordingly, we affirm.
    AFFIRMED
    COSTS
    Costs are awarded to Appellees.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-2311

Citation Numbers: 546 F. App'x 963

Filed Date: 12/9/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023