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.

GREE, Inc v. Supercell Oy, No. 2:19-cv-00070 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2020)

Adopted Report and recommendation (or magistrate's order) adopted
Daubert / Expert Challenges Damages
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:19-cv-00070, Dkt. No. 405
Decided
August 24, 2020
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER - the Court OVERRULES Defendants Objections Dkt. No. 362 andADOPTS Judge Paynes Memorandum Order Dkt. No. 343
Length
1 page
Download Opinion (PDF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

GREE, INC., §

§ Plaintiff, § § v. §

Case No. 2:19-cv-00070-JRG-RSP § SUPERCELL OY, §

§ Defendant. §

§

ORDER

Defendant Supercell (“Defendant”) previously filed Motion to Exclude the Testimony of GREE, Inc.’s Damages Expert, Stephen Becker. (Dkt. No. 198.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Memorandum Order (Dkt. No. 343), denying Defendant’s Motion to Exclude. Defendant has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 362) to the Memorandum Order, with Plaintiff GREE, Inc. filing a Response. (Dkt. No. 389.) .

After reviewing the briefing on the Motion to Exclude, Judge Payne’s Memorandum Order, and the briefing on Defendant’s Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Memorandum Order and concludes that the Objections fail to show that the Memorandum Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Consequently, the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s Objections (Dkt. No. 362) and ADOPTS Judge Payne’s Memorandum Order (Dkt. No. 343.)

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24th day of August, 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

GREE, Inc v. Supercell Oy, No. 2:19-cv-00070 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2020).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_19-cv-00070-15
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_19-cv-00070-15

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