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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Dynocom Industries, Inc. v. Mainline automotive Equipment Pty. Ltd. t/a Mainline DynoLog..., No. 2:16-cv-00553 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 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-00553, Dkt. No. 47
Decided
March 21, 2017
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 45 Report and Recommendations, Denying 17 Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim
Length
1 page

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

DYNOCOM INDUSTRIES, INC., §

§ v. § Case No. 2:16-CV-00553-JRG-RSP § MAINLINE AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT §

PTY. LTD. T/A MAINLINE DYNOLOG

§

DYNAMOMETERS, et al.

§

ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Payne on February 14, 2017 (Dkt. No. 45) recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Dkt. No. 17) be denied. No objections have been filed.

Accordingly, the Recommendation is ADOPTED. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Dkt. No. 17) 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

Dynocom Industries, Inc. v. Mainline automotive Equipment Pty. Ltd. t/a Mainline DynoLog..., No. 2:16-cv-00553 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2017).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_16-cv-00553-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_16-cv-00553-0

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.