ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 323 Report and Recommendations, 314 Sealed Motion, filed by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd, Huaweis objections are OVERRULED
§ Case No. 2:16-CV-00052-JRG-RSP v. § Case No. 2:16-CV-00055-JRG-RSP
§ Case No. 2:16-CV-00056-JRG-RSP T-MOBILE US, INC., T-MOBILE U.S.A., Case No. 2:16-CV-00057-JRG-RSP
§
INC., §
ORDER
Huawei objects to Judge Payne’s recommendation that Huawei’s motion to dismiss T-Mobile’s counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction be denied. Having reviewed the objections, and having considered the Report and Recommendation de novo, the Court finds no reason to reject or modify the recommended disposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Accordingly, It is ORDERED: (1) Huawei’s objections are OVERRULED. (2) The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (3) Huawei’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED.1
Footnotes
↩1 Dkt. 371 in Case No. 2:16-cv-00052; Dkt. 329 in Case No. 2:16-cv-00055; Dkt. 314 in Case No. 2:16-cv-00056; Dkt. 312 in Case No. 2:16-cv-00057.
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
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al, No. 2:16-cv-00056 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2017).
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.