Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Payne on February 21, 2017 (Dkt. No. 162) recommending denial of Dkt. No. 92, Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”). Plaintiff has not filed a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Recommendation is ADOPTED.
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 92) 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
Ultravision Technologies, LLC v. Lamar advertising Company et al, No. 2:16-cv-00374 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 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.