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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Mojo Mobility Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, et al, No. 2:22-cv-00398 (E.D. Tex. July 9, 2024)

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-00398, Dkt. No. 235
Decided
July 9, 2024
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 190 Report and Recommendations, Court OVERRULES SamsungsObjections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and orders that the Motion for Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement or Enhanced…
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

MOJO MOBILITY INC, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Case No. 2:22-cv-00398-JRG-RSP

§

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., § and § SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, §

INC., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER

Defendants Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement or Enhanced Damages (Dkt. No. 93.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 190), recommending denial of the motion. Samsung has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 209).

After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Motion for Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement or Enhanced Damages, the Report and Recommendation, and the briefing on Samsung’s Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Report and Recommendation and concludes that the Objections fail to show that the Report and Recommendation was erroneous. Consequently, the Court OVERRULES Samsung’s Objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and orders that the Motion for Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement or Enhanced Damages (Dkt. No. 93) is DENIED.

2.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of July, 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

Mojo Mobility Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, et al, No. 2:22-cv-00398 (E.D. Tex. July 9, 2024).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_22-cv-00398-7
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_22-cv-00398-7

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.