Patent Case Watch

Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Maxell, Ltd. v. Fandango Media, LLC, No. 19-1088 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 8, 2019)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 19-1088
Decided
October 8, 2019
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages
Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

MAXELL, LTD.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

FANDANGO MEDIA, LLC,

Defendant-Appellee

2019-1088

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in No. 2:17-cv-07534-AG-SS, Judge Andrew J. Guilford.

JUDGMENT

NICOLE A. SAHARSKY, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by JAMIE B. BEABER, JAMES A. FUSSELL, III, KFIR LEVY.

STEVEN M. LIEBERMAN, Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, PC, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by SHARON DAVIS, JENNIFER MAISEL.

2THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and

WALLACH, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

October 8, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Maxell, Ltd. v. Fandango Media, LLC, No. 19-1088 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 8, 2019).

Record ID
CAFC-19-1088-20191008
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-19-1088-20191008

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.

Source: Federal Circuit opinions and orders · retrieved August 15, 2026 · Report an error