JACKI EASLICK, LLC v. CJ EMERALD [ERRATA]

JACKI EASLICK, LLC v. CJ EMERALD [ERRATA] The erratum corrects page 3, footnote 1 of the nonprecedential opinion by changing the word "permissible" to "impermissible." The extracted text does not provide the underlying merits holding. Counsel relying on the nonprecedential opinion should use the corrected wording in footnote 1, but the erratum excerpt does not identify any broader patent-law holding. Erratum issued; no merits disposition is stated in the extracted erratum. The Federal Circuit’s document is an erratum, not a new merits opinion. The correction changes "permissible" to "impermissible" on page 3, footnote 1. The underlying opinion was designated nonprecedential. The extracted erratum does not identify the patent issue, technology, or merits disposition. non-precedential non-precedential non-precedential