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.

Ultravision Technologies, LLC v. GoVision, LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00100 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2020)

Adopted Report and recommendation (or magistrate's order) adopted
Motion to Dismiss Induced Infringement
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:18-cv-00100, Dkt. No. 233
Decided
March 31, 2020
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 219 Report and Recommendations, 211 Motion to Dismiss filed by Shenzhen Liantronics Co., Ltd., 213 Motion to Dismiss filed by Unilumin Group Co., Ltd., 209 Motion to Dismiss filed by Shenzhen AO…
Length
2 pages
Download Opinion (PDF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, §

LLC, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§ Case No. 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP v. § LEAD CASE

§

GOVISION, LLC, §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER

Defendants Shenzhen AOTO Electronics Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Liantronics Co., Ltd., and Unilumin Group Co., Ltd. each filed Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff Ultravision Technologies, LLC’s Claims of Induced Patent Infringement. (Dkt. Nos. 209, 211, 213.) On January 11, 2020, Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation, recommending that each of these Motions to Dismiss be denied. (Dkt. No. 219.) No objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation, and more than fourteen days have passed since the Report and Recommendation was entered.

After reviewing the briefing for the Motions to Dismiss and the Report and Recommendation, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Report and Recommendation. Consequently, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and therefore DENIES Defendants Shenzhen AOTO Electronics Co., Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 209), Shenzhen Liantronics Co., Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 211), and Unilumin Group Co., Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 213).

2.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 31st day of March, 2020.

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

Ultravision Technologies, LLC v. GoVision, LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00100 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2020).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_18-cv-00100-3
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_18-cv-00100-3

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

Other documents in this case