Patent Case Watch

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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

SynQor, Inc. v. artesyn Technologies, Inc. et al, No. 2:07-cv-00497 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2011)

Adopted Report and recommendation (or magistrate's order) adopted
Motion to Strike Inequitable Conduct
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:07-cv-00497, Dkt. No. 1061
Decided
March 24, 2011
Judge
T. John Ward, J.
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to strike Defendants affirmative defenses and/or counterclaims of inequitable conduct is DENIED as moot
Length
1 page
Download Opinion (PDF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SYNQOR, INC, §

§ v. § CASE NO. 2:07-CV-497-TJW-CE § ARTESYN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET. AL. §

ORDER

The above-titled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Chad Everingham pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The report of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 1031), which contains his recommendation that the court deny the Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ affirmative defenses and/or counterclaims of inequitable conduct as moot (Dkt. No. 462), has been presented for consideration. No party filed an objection to the report and recommendation.

The court is of the opinion that the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. Therefore, the court adopts the report of the United States Magistrate Judge, in its entirety, as the conclusions of this court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ affirmative defenses and/or counterclaims of inequitable conduct is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

SynQor, Inc. v. artesyn Technologies, Inc. et al, No. 2:07-cv-00497 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2011).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_07-cv-00497-3
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_07-cv-00497-3

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

Other documents in this case