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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Nearby Systems LLC v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00224 (E.D. Tex. May 2, 2023)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:22-cv-00224, Dkt. No. 49
Decided
May 2, 2023
Judge
Roy S. Payne, M.J. — Marshall
Document
Report and Recommendation
Docket Entry
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement filed by Rent-A-Center, Inc
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

NEARBY SYSTEMS LLC, §

§ Plaintiff, § §

Case No. 2:22-cv-00224-JRG-RSP

v. §

(Lead Case)

§ RENT-A-CENTER, INC., §

§ Defendant. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc. (“RAC”) moves for summary judgment of noninfringement. Dkt. No. 37. The motion is fully briefed. See Dkt. Nos. 41 (response), 44 (reply), & 47 (sur-reply). For the reasons set forth below, the motion should be denied.

In sum, RAC argues (1) for a plain and ordinary meaning of the claims, Dkt. No. 37 pp 4-7, 10, 14-26, and (2) that narrowing amendments during prosecution preclude the application of the doctrine of equivalents, Id. at 5, 7, 11, 26-29. Defendant further disputes Plaintiff’s description of the operation of the accused system. Plaintiff Nearby Systems LLC in response argues that RAC’s position before claim construction by the Court is premature and otherwise refutes RAC’s interpretation of the claims and limits imposed by prosecution. There are serious disputes as to the interplay between claims and the accused system, as reflected in the affidavits offered by each side.

In light of these factual disputes and the arguments relying on prosecution history that has not yet been explored through claim construction, RAC has not shown that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the undersigned that the motion be DENIED.

2.

A party’s failure to file written objections to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report within 14 days bars that party from de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except on grounds of plain error, from appellate review of unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Any objection to this Supplemental Report and Recommendation must be filed in ECF under the event “Objection to Report and Recommendations [cv, respoth]” or it may not be considered by the District Judge.

SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.

SIGNED this 2nd day of May, 2023.

ROY S. PAYNE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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

Nearby Systems LLC v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00224 (E.D. Tex. May 2, 2023).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_22-cv-00224-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_22-cv-00224-0

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.