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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Staton Techiya, LLC et al v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, No. 2:21-cv-00413 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2024)

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. 2:21-cv-00413, Dkt. No. 852
Decided
March 1, 2024
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 731 Report and Recommendations,, Court OVERRULES Staton Techiyas Objections, OVERRULES Synergys Objections, andADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and orders that the Motion for Summary Judgmen…
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

STATON TECHIYA, LLC and § SYNERGY IP CORPORATION, §

§

Plaintiffs, §

§

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-cv-00413-JRG-RSP

§

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. § and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS § AMERICA, INC., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER

Staton Techiya, LLC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Non-patent Counterclaims (Dkt. No. 426) and a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Defendants’ Fifth and Tenth Affirmative Defenses (Dkt. No. 427). Synergy IP Corporation filed a Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the Non-patent Claims (Dkt. No. 437). Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 731), recommending denial of Staton Techiya and Synergy’s motions. Staton Techiya has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 764), Synergy has also filed objections (Dkt. No. 763), and Samsung has filed Responses (Dkt. Nos. 790, 791.)

After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the motions, the Report and Recommendation, and the briefing on Staton Techiya and Synergy’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 Staton Techiya’s Objections, OVERRULES Synergy’s Objections, and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and orders that the Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Non-patent Counterclaims (Dkt. No. 426) is DENIED, the Motion for Partial Summary

2.

Judgment Regarding Defendants’ Fifth and Tenth Affirmative Defenses (Dkt. No. 427) is DENIED, and the Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the Non-patent Claims (Dkt. No. 437) is DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 1st day of March, 2024.

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

Staton Techiya, LLC et al v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, No. 2:21-cv-00413 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2024).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_21-cv-00413-10
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_21-cv-00413-10

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.