Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Neodron Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America, No. 2:20-cv-00241 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2021)

Granted
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:20-cv-00241, Dkt. No. 72
Decided
September 28, 2021
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
8/2021. (klc, )ORDER granting 71 Motion to Dismiss. It is further ORDERED that each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys fees. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case
Length
1 page

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

NEODRON, LTD., §

§

Plaintiff, §

§ v. § § Case No. 2:20-cv-00241-JRG-RSP PANASONIC CORPORATION and § PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH §

AMERICA, §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER

Before the Court is the Joint Stipulated Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice (“Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Neodron, Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America (“Defendants”) (together with Plaintiff, the “Parties”). (Dkt. No. 71.)

Having considered the Motion, and in light of its joint nature, the Court is of the opinion that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, this action, including all claims that were . or could have been brought in this action, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, pursuant to the Settlement and License Agreement, whose terms shall remain confidential. It is ORDERED that this Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Parties and the subject matter to enforce the Settlement and License Agreement. It is further ORDERED that each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 28th day of September, 2021.

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

Neodron Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America, No. 2:20-cv-00241 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2021).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_20-cv-00241-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_20-cv-00241-0

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.