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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

PanOptis Patent Management, LLC et al v. Kyocera Communications Inc. et al, No. 2:16-cv-00059 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2017)

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. 2:16-cv-00059, Dkt. No. 118
Decided
February 28, 2017
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 110 Report and Recommendations Blackberrys Motion to Dismiss 43 is hereby DENIED
Length
1 page

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

PANOPTIS PATENT MANAGEMENT, §

LLC, OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, §

LLC, Case No. 2:16-CV-00059-JRG-RSP

§

(Lead Case)

§

Plaintiffs,

§

Case No. 2:16-CV-00060-JRG-RSP

§

v. (Consolidated Case)

§ §

BLACKBERRY CORPORATION,

§

BLACKBERRY LIMITED,

§ §

Defendants.

§

ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Payne on February 10, 2017 (Dkt. No. 110) recommending that Blackberry’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 43) be denied. Having reviewed the objections filed by Blackberry (Dkt. No. 116) and finding them to be without sufficient merit, the Recommendation is ADOPTED.

Blackberry’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 43) is hereby 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

PanOptis Patent Management, LLC et al v. Kyocera Communications Inc. et al, No. 2:16-cv-00059 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2017).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_16-cv-00059-1
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_16-cv-00059-1

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.