IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, §
LLC, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-CV-00100-JRG-RSP v.
§ LEAD CASE
§
GOVISION, LLC,
§ §
Defendant.
§
ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, §
LLC, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v.
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-CV-00112-JRG-RSP § CONSOLIDATED CASE
SHENZHEN ABSEN
§
OPTOELECTRONIC CO., LTD. and
§
ABSEN, INC.,
§ §
Defendants.
§
ORDER .
Defendants Absen, Inc. and Shenzhen Absen Optoelectronic Co., Ltd. (collectively “Defendants”) previously filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint Under Rules 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or in the Alternative to Transfer, and Memorandum in Support (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 83.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report & Recommendation and Order. (Dkt. No. 191.) The Magistrate Judge denied the Motion to the extent that it sought transfer to the Middle District of Florida, and recommended denying the remaining portions of the Motion that addressed dispositive issues.
After reviewing the briefing for the Motion and Judge Payne’s Report & Recommendation and Order, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Memorandum Order for2 dispositive issues. Consequently, the Court ADOPTS Judge Payne’s Memorandum Order. Defendants’ Motion is therefore DENIED in full.
So Ordered this Feb 21, 2020
