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. 38
Decided
June 1, 2022
Judge
See opinion
Document
Order
Docket Entry
MEMO ENDORSED ORDER denying without prejudice 32 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. ENDORSEMENT: Defendant Taasera Licensing LLC's motion to dismiss, Doc. 32, is denied without prejudice. Defendant is directed to file a letter requ…
Length
2 pages

Alfred R. Fabricant FABRICANT LLP

411 Theodore Fremd Avenue, Defendant Taasera Licensing LLC's motion to dismiss, Suite 206 South Doc. 32, is denied without prejudice. Defendant is Rye, New York 10580

directed to file a letter requesting a pre-motion

Tel. (212) 257-5797

conference in connection with its motion to dismiss Fax (212) 257-5796

pursuant to the Court's Individual Practices. It is SO ffabricant@fabricantllp.com

ORDERED.

Figure on page 1 of the opinion

Attorneys for Defendant Taasera Licensing LLC

June 1, 2022

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02306-ER/SDA

Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION v. ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED TAASERA LICENSING LLC and QUEST PATENT RESEARCH CORPORATION,

Defendants.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Taasera Licensing LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Palo Alto Networks, Inc.’s (“Palo Alto” or “Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint (D.I. 21) for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement and all prior pleadings and proceedings had herein, Defendant Taasera Licensing LLC hereby moves this Court, at a time and date determined by the Court, for an order (i) pursuant to 12(b)(2) 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 relative to Defendant Taasera Licensing LLC in its entirety, and (b) a determination of no alter ego exists between defendants Taasera Licensing LLC and Quest Patent Research Corporation, and2 (ii) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: Rye, New York

May 31, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

FABRICANT LLP

By: /s/ Alfred R. Fabricant Alfred R. Fabricant Attorneys for Defendant Taasera Licensing LLC

TO: Counsel for Defendant (by ECF)

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-00314-1
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_22-cv-00314-1

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.