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.

Datatern, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company et al, No. 2:10-cv-00413 (E.D. Tex. May 8, 2017)

Adopted Report and recommendation (or magistrate's order) adopted
Motion to Dismiss
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:10-cv-00413, Dkt. No. 265
Decided
May 8, 2017
Judge
Robert W. Schroeder, III, J. — Texarkana
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 262 Report and Recommendation. Volkswagen, Aflac, and Walgreen Companys motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute, Docket Nos. 253-255, are GRANTED. Dataterns Complaints against these Defendant…
Length
1 page
Download Opinion (PDF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

DATATERN, INC., § §

Plaintiff, § Case No. 2:10-CV-00413-RWS-RSP § v. § § ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, et al., § §

Defendants. §

ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Payne on April 9, 2017 (Docket No. 262) recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution be granted, and that Datatern’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice. No objections have been filed by Datatern. Defendant Volkswagen objects to Judge Payne’s . recommendation to dismiss Datatern’s complaint without prejudice, see Docket No. 263, but as the Report explains, a dismissal without prejudice is “usually appropriate before dismissing with prejudice.” Docket No. 262 at 2 (quoting Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 441 (5th Cir. 2016)). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Volkswagen, Aflac, and Walgreen Company’s motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute, Docket Nos. 253-255, be GRANTED. Datatern’s Complaints against these Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The clerk is directed to close this case.

SIGNED this 8th day of May, 2017.

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

Datatern, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company et al, No. 2:10-cv-00413 (E.D. Tex. May 8, 2017).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_10-cv-00413-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_10-cv-00413-0

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