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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Decapolis Systems, LLC v. UT Southwestern Health Systems et al, No. 2:22-cv-00159 (E.D. Tex. May 14, 2026)

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. 2:22-cv-00159, Dkt. No. 109
Decided
May 14, 2026
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER Adopting 94 Over 98 Objections and Granting 95 Motion for Extension of Time
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

DECAPOLIS SYSTEMS, LLC, §

§

Plaintiff,

§

v. §

CASE NO. 2:22-CV-00159-JRG-RSP

§

UT SOUTHWESTERN HEALTH

§

SYSTEMS and CHRISTUS HEALTH

§

Defendants.

§

ORDER

Defendant Christus Health previously filed an Opposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (“Fees Motion”) (Dkt. No. 79). Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Memorandum Order (Dkt. No. 94), granting Defendant’s Fees Motion. Plaintiff Decapolis Systems LLC has now filed an Unopposed Motion for Leave to Continue the Deadline to File a Motion for Reconsideration of Memorandum Order (“Extension Motion”) (Dkt. No. 95), and a Motion for Reconsideration of Memorandum Order (“Objection”)1 (Dkt. No. 98). Additionally, Defendant has now filed a Response (Dkt. No. 107) to Plaintiff’s Objection. Having considered the Extension Motion, and noting its unopposed nature, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED such that Plaintiff’s Objection is considered timely filed.

After reviewing the briefing on the Fees Motion, Judge Payne’s Memorandum Order, and the briefing on Plaintiff’s Objection, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Memorandum Order and concludes that the Objection fails to show that the Memorandum Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

2.

The Court therefore OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objection (Dkt. No. 98) and ADOPTS Judge Payne’s Memorandum Order (Dkt. No. 94).

Consequently, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff pay Defendant’s attorneys’ fees in the amount of $643,248.03, together with costs in the amount of $393.25, within thirty (30) days of this Order.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of May, 2026.

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Footnotes

  1. 1The Court construes Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration as an “Objection” to the Memorandum Order of the Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

Decapolis Systems, LLC v. UT Southwestern Health Systems et al, No. 2:22-cv-00159 (E.D. Tex. May 14, 2026).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_22-cv-00159-1
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_22-cv-00159-1

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.