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. 24, 2023)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:21-cv-00413, Dkt. No. 355
Decided
March 24, 2023
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 259 Report and Recommendations, Court OVERRULES Counterclaim Defendants Objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 109) is DENIED
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. CASE NO. 2:21-CV-00413-JRG-RSP

§ §

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,

§

LTD. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS

§

AMERICA, INC.

§ §

Defendants.

ORDER

Staton Techiya, LLC, Synergy IP Corporation, Seung-Ho Ahn, and Sungil Cho (collectively “Counterclaim Defendants”) previously filed a motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens and to for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 109.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 259) recommending that the motion be denied. Counterclaim Defendants have filed Objections (Dkt. No. 307), with Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively “Samsung”) filing a response (Dkt. No. 330).

After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the motion to dismiss, the Report and Recommendation, and the briefing on the 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 Counterclaim Defendants’ Objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 109) is DENIED.

2.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24th day of March, 2023.

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. 24, 2023).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_21-cv-00413-4
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_21-cv-00413-4

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.