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.

Integrated Technological v. First Internet Bank of, No. 17-1795 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 20, 2018)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 17-1795
Decided
February 20, 2018
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

FIRST INTERNET BANK OF INDIANA,

Defendant-Appellee

2017-1795

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:16-cv-00417-JRG-RSP, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

JUDGMENT

MATTHEW ZAPADKA, Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, PC, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by RICHARD J. OPARIL, KEVIN M. BELL, SCOTT A. M. CHAMBERS.

DANIEL M. LECHLEITER, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Indianapolis, IN, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN JAMES PAUL; DOOWON R. CHUNG, Minneapolis, MN; JUSTIN DEAN SCHNEIDER, Denver, CO.

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

PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, LOURIE, and DYK, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT February 20, 2018 /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

Integrated Technological v. First Internet Bank of, No. 17-1795 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 20, 2018).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-ca13-17-01795-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-17-01795-0

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