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.

Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. ZTE (USA), Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00946 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2015)

Denied
Motion to Dismiss Willfulness
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:13-cv-00946, Dkt. No. 44
Decided
March 30, 2015
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 43 Report and Recommendations, 35 Motion to Dismiss filed by ZTE (USA), Inc
Length
1 page
Download Opinion (PDF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS §

TECHNOLOGIES, LLC §

§

Case No. 2:13-CV-946-JRG-RSP

v. § § ZTE (USA), Inc. §

ORDER

Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed by the Magistrate Judge on March 5, 2015 (Dkt. No. 43) recommending denial of the ZTE’s Motion to Dismiss Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC’s (“MTEL”) Claims for Willful Infringement (Dkt. No. 35). No objections having been filed and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Report and Recommendation, the Recommendation is adopted. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion (Dkt. No. 35) 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

Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. ZTE (USA), Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00946 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2015).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_13-cv-00946-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_13-cv-00946-0

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

Other documents in this case