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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Semcon IP Inc. v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al, No. 2:16-cv-00437 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 4, 2018)

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-00437, Dkt. No. 661
Decided
April 4, 2018
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 567 Report and Recommendations. Denying 301 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Semcon's objections 632 OVERRULED
Length
1 page

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SEMCON IP INC., §

§ Plaintiff, § Case No. 2:16-cv-00437-JRG-RSP (Lead) § v. § Case No. 2:16-cv-00439-JRG-RSP (Member) § STMICROELECTRONICS INC., §

STMICROELECTRONICS N.V., §

§ Defendants. §

ORDER

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Payne’s recommendation to deny Semcon’s motion for summary judgment that the ’627 patent is not invalid in view of the Hitachi SH-4 reference. Dkt. No. 567. For dispositive matters referred to a magistrate judge, the district court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommend disposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Having considered the recommendation de novo, and having reviewed Semcon’s objections thereto, the Court finds no reason to reject or modify the recommended disposition.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

(1) Semcon’s objections, Dkt. No. 632, are OVERRULED. (2) The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 567, is ADOPTED. (3) Semcon’s motion for partial summary judgment, Dkt. No. 301, 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

Semcon IP Inc. v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al, No. 2:16-cv-00437 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 4, 2018).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_16-cv-00437-3
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_16-cv-00437-3

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.