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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Lionra Technologies Limited v. Fortinet, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00322 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2024)

Adopted in Part Report and recommendation adopted with modification
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:22-cv-00322, Dkt. No. 609
Decided
August 28, 2024
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 580 Report and Recommendations, 479 Report and Recommendations,, 480 Report and Recommendations, 579 Report and Recommendations (Motion(s)258, 260, 259, 262 terminated)
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

LIONRA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§ Case No. 2:22-CV-00322-JRG-RSP v. §

§

FORTINET, INC., §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER

Plaintiff Liorna Technologies Ltd. previously filed motions for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 258, 262) and Defendant Fortinet, Inc. previously filed motions for partial summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 259, 260, 261) and a motion to reconsider (Dkt. No. 554). Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Reports and Recommendations (Dkt. No. 479, 480, 482, 542, 579, 580) on these motions. Lionra and Fortinet have now filed various Objections (Dkt. No. 508, 549, 553, 598).

After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on these motions, the Reports and Recommendations, and the briefing on the parties Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Reports and Recommendations and concludes that the Objections fail to show that the Reports and Recommendations were erroneous. Consequently, the Court OVERRULES the parties’ Objections and ADOPTS the Reports and Recommendations and orders:

  • • the Partial Summary Judgment to Enforce Sotera Stipulations (Dkt. No. 258) is DENIED
  • • the Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §101 (Dkt. No. 259) is DENIED and the Motion for Summary Judgment of No Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Dkt. No. 262) is GRANTED

2.

    • • the Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement (Dkt. No. 260) is DENIED
    • • the Motion regarding License, or in the Alternative, Non-Infringement (Dkt. No. 261) is GRANTED but that the subsequently requested relief is DENIED. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 28th day of August, 2024.

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

Lionra Technologies Limited v. Fortinet, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00322 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2024).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_22-cv-00322-17
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_22-cv-00322-17

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.