§ v. § Case No. 2:13CV213-JRG-RSP § SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., ET §
AL. §
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS OF ROY WEINSTEIN
Before the Court is Defendants’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Order Regarding Motion to Exclude Opinions of Roy Weinstein. (“Defendants’ Objections”) (Dkt. No. 264.) After reviewing Defendants’ Objections, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s rulings neither “clearly erroneous [n]or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); FED.R.CIV.P. 72(a). Accordingly, Defendants’ objections are OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions of Roy Weinstein (Dkt. No. 243) is hereby ADOPTED.
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
Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al, No. 2:13-cv-00213 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2015).
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.