Back to Blog
CAFC-DCTMay 15, 2026·25-1215·Affirmed.

PerDiemCo LLC v. NexTraq LLC

District Court

Holding

The Federal Circuit affirmed, under Fed. Cir. R. 36, the Northern District of Georgia's decision on appeal by PerDiemCo against NexTraq, so PerDiemCo lost the appeal. The judgment gives no opinion, so the grounds and the subject of the ruling below are not stated.

Why It Matters

The result is a clear loss for the appellant, PerDiemCo, but a Rule 36 judgment gives no reasoning and no guidance on the underlying issues, so readers who need the substance must look to the district court record, which is not included here.

Full Summary

PerDiemCo LLC v. NexTraq LLC The Federal Circuit affirmed, under Fed. Cir. R. 36, the Northern District of Georgia's decision on appeal by PerDiemCo against NexTraq, so PerDiemCo lost the appeal. The judgment gives no opinion, so the grounds and the subject of the ruling below are not stated. The result is a clear loss for the appellant, PerDiemCo, but a Rule 36 judgment gives no reasoning and no guidance on the underlying issues, so readers who need the substance must look to the district court record, which is not included here. Affirmed. PerDiemCo LLC, plaintiff-appellant, appealed from the Northern District of Georgia (No. 1:23-cv-03722-MHC, Judge Cohen) in its case against NexTraq LLC, defendant-appellee. The panel (Lourie, Bryson, and Chen) heard argument and entered judgment of AFFIRMED under Fed. Cir. R. 36 on May 15, 2026, so the district court's ruling stands. The judgment does not identify the patents, claims, technology, or the district court ruling or issues decided, so the legal basis for affirmance cannot be determined from this document. The disposition is nonprecedential and offers no reasoning to apply to other cases. Rule 36 affirmance non-precedential

Key Points

  • PerDiemCo LLC, plaintiff-appellant, appealed from the Northern District of Georgia (No. 1:23-cv-03722-MHC, Judge Cohen) in its case against NexTraq LLC, defendant-appellee.
  • The panel (Lourie, Bryson, and Chen) heard argument and entered judgment of AFFIRMED under Fed. Cir. R. 36 on May 15, 2026, so the district court's ruling stands.
  • The judgment does not identify the patents, claims, technology, or the district court ruling or issues decided, so the legal basis for affirmance cannot be determined from this document.
  • The disposition is nonprecedential and offers no reasoning to apply to other cases.
Rule 36 affirmancenon-precedential

More on this topic