Patent Case Watch

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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Cypaleo, LLC v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00545 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2017)

Denied
Motion to Dismiss
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:16-cv-00545, Dkt. No. 70
Decided
February 14, 2017
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Report and Recommendation
Docket Entry
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 51 Motion to Dismiss, filed by Panasonic Corporation of North America
Length
1 page
Download Opinion (PDF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

CYPALEO, LLC, §

§ Plaintiff, § Case No. 2:16-CV-00545-JRG-RSP § (Lead Case) v.

§

Case No. 2:16-CV-00550-JRG-RSP §

(Member Case)

PANASONIC CORPORATION OF §

NORTH AMERICA,

§ §

Defendant.

§

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. NO. 56)

Magistrate Judge Payne filed a Report and Recommendation, which recommended denying Panasonic Corporation’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. See Dkt. No. 56. Given that the Report and Recommendation was filed on December 27, 2016, the parties had until January 10, 2017, to file any objections. Neither party filed an objection, and the time to do so has now passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted. Panasonic’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 51, 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

Cypaleo, LLC v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00545 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2017).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_16-cv-00545-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_16-cv-00545-0

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.

Source: govinfo.gov USCOURTS collection · retrieved July 25, 2026 · Report an error