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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Optis Wireless Technology, LLC et al v. Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd, No. 2:17-cv-00123 (E.D. Tex. May 15, 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. 2:17-cv-00123, Dkt. No. 149
Decided
May 15, 2018
Judge
See opinion
Document
Order
Docket Entry
strict Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 5/14/2018. (nkl, )ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 137 Report and Recommendations, 76 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed by Optis Cellular Technology, LLC., Optis Wireless Technology, LLC, Pa…
Length
1 page

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

OPTIS WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, LLC, §

PANOPTIS PATENT MANAGEMENT, §

LLC, OPTIS CELLULAR § Case No. 2:17-cv-00123-JRG-RSP TECHNOLOGY, LLC., §

§ Plaintiffs, § § v. § § HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD., §

HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., HUAWEI §

DEVICE CO. LTD., §

§ Defendants. §

ORDER

Before the court is the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Payne, which recommends that Plaintiffs’ motion for an anti-suit injunction be denied without prejudice. ECF No. 137. 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). No objections have been filed, and the time to do so has now passed. Accordingly, upon de novo review, the report and recommendation is ADOPTED, and Plaintiffs’ motion for an anti-suit injunction, ECF No. 76, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Optis Wireless Technology, LLC et al v. Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd, No. 2:17-cv-00123 (E.D. Tex. May 15, 2018).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_17-cv-00123-1
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_17-cv-00123-1

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.