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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Kaist IP US LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al, No. 2:16-cv-01314 (E.D. Tex. June 6, 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-01314, Dkt. No. 457
Decided
June 6, 2018
Judge
See opinion
Document
Report and Recommendation
Docket Entry
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Court therefore OVERRULES Defendants objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 143). Accordingly, the Court DENIES GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc.s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Al…
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

KAIST IP US LLC, §

§ Plaintiff, § § v. § No. 2:16-CV-01314-JRG-RSP § SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., §

LTD., et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court referred the above entitled and numbered civil action to United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Now before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 143) by Judge Payne, which recommends denying two motions: GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Transfer Venue (Dkt. No. 75) and Qualcomm Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Transfer Venue (Dkt. No. 97). The movants jointly objected to that recommendation, and Plaintiff responded. Defs.’ Objs. (Dkt. No. 155); Pl.’s Resp. (Dkt. No. 168).

Having considered the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 143), Defendants’ objections (Dkt. No. 155), and Plaintiff’s response (Dkt. No. 168), the Court concludes Magistrate Judge Payne’s Report and Recommendation is correct. The Court therefore OVERRULES Defendants’ objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 143). Accordingly, the Court DENIES GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the2 Alternative, Transfer Venue (Dkt. No. 75) and Qualcomm Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Transfer Venue (Dkt. No. 97).

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

Kaist IP US LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al, No. 2:16-cv-01314 (E.D. Tex. June 6, 2018).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_16-cv-01314-6
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_16-cv-01314-6

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.