§ vs. § CASE NO. 2:10-CV-474-TJW-CE § JVC AMERICAS, 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. 77) has been presented for consideration. The report recommends that the court deny defendant Lenovo (United States) Inc.’s (“Lenovo”) Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s indirect infringement claims. Lenovo did not file 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 Lenovo’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s indirect infringement claims (Dkt. No. 52) is DENIED.
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
InMotion Imagery Technologies, LLC v. JVC americas, Corp. et al, No. 2:10-cv-00474 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2011).
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.