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. 25, 2020)

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. 2:19-cv-00070, Dkt. No. 414
Decided
August 25, 2020
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER - the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objections Dkt. No. 374 andDefendants Objections Dkt. No. 377 and ADOPTS Judge Paynes Memorandum OrderDkt. No. 354
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

GREE, INC., §

§

Plaintiff, §

§ Case No. 2:19-cv-00070-JRG-RSP

v. §

§ SUPERCELL OY, §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER

Plaintiff GREE, Inc. previously filed a Motion to Strike Untimely Disclosed Facts and Opinions Regarding Non-Infringing Alternatives, Fact Witnesses, and Good-Faith Belief Defense (Dkt. No. 201). Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Memorandum Order (Dkt. No. 354), granting-in-part and denying-in-part Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike. Plaintiff and Defendant have filed Objections to the Memorandum Order (Dkt. Nos. 374, 377, respectively) and Responses (Dkt. Nos. 412, 408, respectively).

After reviewing the briefing on the Motion to Strike, Judge Payne’s Memorandum Order, and the briefing on Plaintiff’s and 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 Plaintiff’s Objections (Dkt. No. 374) and Defendant’s Objections (Dkt. No. 377) and ADOPTS Judge Payne’s Memorandum Order (Dkt. No. 354).

2.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 25th 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. 25, 2020).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_19-cv-00070-18
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_19-cv-00070-18

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.