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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Ameranth, Inc. v. Par Technology Corp et al, No. 2:10-cv-00294 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2011)

Adopted in Part Report and recommendation adopted with modification
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:10-cv-00294, Dkt. No. 119
Decided
September 19, 2011
Judge
See opinion
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 107 Report and Recommendations, granting in part denying in part 53 Motion to Dismiss filed by Kudzu Interactive, Inc, denying as moot 88 MOTION to Dismiss - Partial filed by Partech, Inc, Par T…
Length
2 pages

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

AMERANTH, INC. '

' vs. ' CASE NO. 2:10-CV-294-DF-CE ' PAR TECHNOLOGY CORP., 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. 107) has been presented for consideration. The report recommends that the court grant defendant Kudzu Interactive, Inc.’s (“Kudzu”) motion to dismiss in part. It is recommended that the court grant the motion with regard to the claims of the patents-in-suit that have been previously-litigated and found invalid. The report, however, recommends that the court deny the motion with regard to all other claims of the patents-in-suit. Neither party filed objections to the report.

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 Kudzu’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED-in-PART and DENIED-in-PART. The motion is GRANTED with regard to the following claims of the patents-in-suit: (1) claims 1, 3, and 4 of the ’850 patent; (2) claims 1, 6, 9, and 10 of the ’325 patent; and (3) claims 1 and 3 of the ’733 patent. The motion is DENIED with regard to all other claims of the patents-in-suit that were not found invalid in the first case.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that, in light of the court’s dismissal of the claims enumerated above, defendants Par Technology Corp. and Partech, Inc.’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 88) and defendants Menusoft Systems Corp. and Cash Register Sales & Service of Houston, Inc.’s motion

1

2to dismiss (Dkt. No. 89) are DENIED as moot.

2

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

Ameranth, Inc. v. Par Technology Corp et al, No. 2:10-cv-00294 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2011).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_10-cv-00294-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_10-cv-00294-0

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.