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.

Maxim Integrated Products, Inc v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., No. 13-1495 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2014)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 13-1495
Decided
March 10, 2014
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant.

2013-1495

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 12-CV-0369, Judge Richard A. Schell.

JUDGMENT

MATTHEW D. POWERS, Tensegrity Law Group, LLP, of Redwood Shores, California, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were WILLIAM P. NELSON and AARON M. NATHAN. Of counsel on the brief were PHILIP W. MARSH, JAMES C. OTTESON, DAVID A. CAINE and MICHAEL D.K. NGUYEN, Agility IP Law, LLP, of Menlo Park, California.

DOUGLAS H. HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER, Ropes & Gray LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant.

2With him on the brief were JAMES R. MYERS and HENRY HUANG.

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

PER CURIAM (RADER, Chief Judge, MOORE, and

HUGHES, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT March 10, 2014 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole 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

Maxim Integrated Products, Inc v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., No. 13-1495 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2014).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-ca13-13-01495-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-13-01495-0

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: govinfo.gov USCOURTS collection · retrieved July 25, 2026 · Report an error