United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
ALEXSAM, INC.
v. BARNES & NOBLE, INC. AND BARNES & NOBLE Cause No. 2:13-cv-3 MARKETING SERVICES, LLC
THE GAP INC. AND DIRECT CONSUMER Cause No. 2:13-cv-4 SERVICES, LLC
J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC. AND J.C. PENNEY Cause No. 2:13-cv-5
CORPORATION
MCDONALD’S CORPORATION AND P2W, INC. Cause No. 2:13-cv-6 NFP
TOYS “R” US—DELAWARE, INC. AND TRU-SVC, Cause No. 2:13-cv-7 LLC
THE HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC. AND HOME Cause No. 2:13-cv-8 DEPOT INCENTIVES, INC.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The above-entitled and numbered civil actions were heretofore referred to United States Magistrate Judge Caroline M. Craven pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Report of the Magistrate Judge which contains her proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of such actions has been presented for consideration. Alexsam, Inc. filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation regarding Alexsam’s motion for partial summary judgment that the MobilGO system is not anticipatory prior art or evidence of conception of the Kmart system. Defendants filed a response to Alexsam’s objections. The Court conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions. Alexsam’s objections are without merit. The Court is of the opinion that the2 findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court.1
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Alexsam’s Objections to the Court’s Report and Recommendation Regarding Alexsam’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that the MobilGO System is Not Anticipatory Prior Art or Evidence of Conception of the Kmart System (2:13-cv-3, Doc. No. 103); (2:13-cv-4, Doc. No. 104); (2:13-cv-5, Doc. No. 97); (2:13-cv-6, Doc. No. 100); (2:13-cv-7, Doc. No. 100); (2:13-cv-8, Doc. No. 98) are OV.ERRULED.
It is further ORDERED that Alexsam’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that the MobilGO system is not Anticipatory Prior Art or Evidence of Conception of the Kmart System (2:13-cv-3, Doc. No. 23); (2:13-cv-4, Doc. No. 24); (2:13-cv-5, Doc. No. 25); (2:13-cv-6, Doc. No. 25); (2:13-cv-7, Doc. No. 25); (2:13-cv-8, Doc. No. 25) is DENIED. It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 26th day of April, 2013.
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Footnotes
- ↩ 1 With regard to one of Alexsam’s “objections,” the sentence contained in a parenthetical on pages 17-18 of the Report and Recommendation clearly reflects the contentions of Defendants and/or their expert rather than a reflection of the Court’s position on Alexsam’s infringement contentions.