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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Palo alto Networks, Inc. v. Taasera Licensing LLC et al, No. 2:22-cv-00314 (E.D. Tex. June 1, 2022)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:22-cv-00314, Dkt. No. 37
Decided
June 1, 2022
Judge
See opinion
Document
Order
Docket Entry
MEMO ENDORSED ORDER denying without prejudice 25 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. ENDORSEMENT: Defendant Quest Patent Research Corporation's motion to dismiss, Doc. 25, is denied without prejudice. Defendant is directed to file a…
Length
2 pages

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,

Case No. 1:22-cv-02306-ER Plaintiff, v.

NOTICE OF MOTION

TAASERA LICENSING LLC and QUEST PATENT RESEARCH CORPORATION, ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED Defendants.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Quest Patent Research Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss Palo Alto Networks, Inc.’s (“Palo Alto” or “Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint (D.I. 21) for Declaratory Judgment of NonInfringement and the exhibits thereto, the Declaration of John C. Scahill, and all prior pleadings and proceedings had herein, Defendant Quest Patent Research Corporation hereby moves this Court, at a time and date determined by the Court, for an order (i) pursuant to 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (a) granting dismissal of Plaintiff Palo Alto Networks, Inc. First Amended Complaint (D.I. 21) for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement as against Defendant Quest Patent Research Corporation in its entirety, and (b) a determination that no alter ego exists between defendants Taasera Licensing LLC and Quest Patent Research Corporation, and (ii) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Defendant Quest Patent Research Corporation's motion to dismiss, Doc. 25, is denied without prejudice. Defendant is directed to file a letter requesting a pre-motion conference in connection with its motion to dismiss pursuant to the Court's Individual Practices. It is SO ORDERED.

Figure on page 1 of the opinion

June 1, 2022

2Dated: New York, New York May 31, 2021

Respectfully submitted, TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP
By: /s/ Mark J. Rosenberg Mark J. Rosenberg 1350 Broadway, 11th Floor New York, New York 10018 Tel. (212) 216-8000 Fax (212) 216-8001 mrosenberg@tarterkrinsky.com Attorneys for Defendant Quest Patent Research Corporation

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

Palo alto Networks, Inc. v. Taasera Licensing LLC et al, No. 2:22-cv-00314 (E.D. Tex. June 1, 2022).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_22-cv-00314-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_22-cv-00314-0

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.