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. Holophane Europe Limited, No. 2:19-cv-00291 (E.D. Tex. June 26, 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-00291, Dkt. No. 83
Decided
June 26, 2020
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 63 Report and Recommendations,,,
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

§

ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

§

Plaintiff,

§

v. §

§

HOLOPHANE EUROPE LIMITED,

§

Case No. 2:19-cv-00291-JRG-RSP ACUITY BRANDS LIGHTING DE

§

MEXICOS DE RL DE CV, HOLOPHANE

§

S.A. DE C.V. and ARIZONA (TIANJIN)

§

ELECTRONICS PRODUCTS TRADE

§

COMPANY, LTD.,

§

Defendants. §

ORDER

The Magistrate Judge previously entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), Dkt. No. 63, recommending denial of, among other things, the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), Dkt. No. 27, filed by Defendants Holophane Europe Limited, Acuity Brands Lighting De Mexico S DE RL DE CV, Holophane S.A. De C.V., and Arizona (Tianjin) Electronics Products Trade Co., Ltd. (collectively, the “Defendants”). Defendants have now filed an Objection to the R&R. Dkt. No. 67.

After consideration of the briefing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the R&R, and Defendants’ Objection to the R&R, the Court finds the objections unpersuasive. The Court agrees with the conclusion reached in the R&R that the Motion to Dismiss should be denied. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Payne’s Report and Recommendation and OVERRULES Defendants’ Objections.

2.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th day of June, 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. Holophane Europe Limited, No. 2:19-cv-00291 (E.D. Tex. June 26, 2020).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_19-cv-00291-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_19-cv-00291-0

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.