Ultravision Technologies, LLC v. GoVision, LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00100 (E.D. Tex. May 28, 2021)

Defendants Shenzhen Absen Optoelectronic Co., Ltd. and Absen, Inc. (“Absen”) previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment that U.S. Patent Nos. 9,642,272; 9,916,782; 9,978,294; 9,990,869; and 10,248,372 Are Invalid for Improper Inventorship (Dkt. No. 331.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 626), recommending denial of Absen’s Motion for Summary Judgment that U.S. Patent Nos. 9,642,272; 9,916,782; 9,978,294; 9,990,869; and 10,248,372 Are Invalid for Improper Inventorship. Absen has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 632), with Plaintiff Ultravision Technologies, LLC filing a Response (Dkt. No. 636.)

After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Motion for Summary Judgment that U.S. Patent Nos. 9,642,272; 9,916,782; 9,978,294; 9,990,869; and 10,248,372 Are Invalid for Improper Inventorship, the Report and Recommendation, and the briefing on Absen’s Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Report and Recommendation and concludes that the Objections fail to show that the Report and Recommendation was erroneous. Consequently, the Court OVERRULES Absen’s Objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and orders that the Motion for Summary Judgment that U.S. Patent Nos.2 9,642,272; 9,916,782; 9,978,294; 9,990,869; and 10,248,372 Are Invalid for Improper Inventorship (Dkt. No. 331) is DENIED.

So Ordered this May 25, 2021