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.

WebMap Technologies LLC v. City accomodations Network Inc et al, No. 2:09-cv-00343 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2010)

Adopted in Part Report and recommendation adopted with modification
Motion to Dismiss Willfulness
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:09-cv-00343, Dkt. No. 267
Decided
September 28, 2010
Judge
David Folsom, J.
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER adopting 260 Report and Recommendations, granting in part and denying in part 196 Motion to Dismiss filed by Yahoo! Inc., granting in part and denying in part114 Motion to Dismiss filed by Yahoo! Inc.,
Length
2 pages
Download Opinion (PDF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

WEBMAP TECHNOLOGIES, LLC § § vs. § CASE NO. 2:09-CV-343-DF-CE § GOOGLE, 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. 260), which contains his recommendation that the court grant in part and deny in party Yahoo!, Inc.’s (“Yahoo”) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as to willful infringement (Dkt. Nos. 114, 196), has been presented for consideration.

Neither party objected to the report of the Magistrate Judge. The court is of the opinion that the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. Therefore, the court adopts, in its entirety, the report of the United States Magistrate Judge as the conclusions of this court. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The claim for post-filing willful infringement should be DISMISSED without prejudice until Plaintiff seeks and the court rules upon a preliminary injunction in accord with Seagate1 or Plaintiff pleads other extraordinary circumstances sufficient to show an objectively high likelihood of infringing a valid patent arising after filing as in St. Clair.2

Footnotes

  1. ↩ 1 In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
  2. ↩ 2 St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Palm, Inc., 2009 WL 1649751, at *1 (D. Del. Jun. 10, 2009)

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

WebMap Technologies LLC v. City accomodations Network Inc et al, No. 2:09-cv-00343 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2010).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_09-cv-00343-2
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_09-cv-00343-2

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