Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of america, Inc. et al, No. 2:15-cv-01278 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2016)

Adopted Report and recommendation (or magistrate's order) adopted
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:15-cv-01278, Dkt. No. 28
Decided
September 13, 2016
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 24 Motion to Dismiss, filed by Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC, 27 Report and Recommendations,
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC, §

§ Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 2:15-cv-1274-JRG-RSP § [Lead Case] VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, § Case No. 2:15-cv-1278-JRG-RSP INC. & VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF § [Member Case] AMERICA CHATTANOOGA §

OPERATIONS, LLC., §

§ Defendants. §

ORDER

The Magistrate Judge’s Report recommended that Defendants Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Blitzsafe Texas, LLC’s First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim. (Dkt. No. 24 (2:15-cv-1278)) be DENIED. The Magistrate Judge’s Report found that the complaint stated a plausible claim for relief under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Defendants have not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report. The Court further finds there is no clear error in the Report. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 135 (2:15-cv-1274); Dkt. No. 272 (2:15-cv-1278)) and finds Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. No. 24 (2:15-cv-1278)) 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

Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of america, Inc. et al, No. 2:15-cv-01278 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2016).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_15-cv-01278-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_15-cv-01278-0

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.