Patent Case Watch

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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Daingean Technologies Ltd. v. AT&T Inc. et al, No. 2:23-cv-00123 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 4, 2025)

Adopted Report and recommendation (or magistrate's order) adopted
Daubert / Expert Challenges Damages
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:23-cv-00123, Dkt. No. 559
Decided
September 4, 2025
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations 523 MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 198 Sealed Motion to Strike #2: Daubert Motion
Length
2 pages
Download Opinion (PDF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

DAINGEAN TECHNOLOGIES LTD., §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00123-JRG-RSP

§

AT&T CORP., AT&T MOBILITY §

LLC, AT&T MOBILITY II LLC, and § AT&T SERVICES INC., §

§

Defendants, §

§

ERICSSON INC. and NOKIA OF § AMERICA CORP., §

§

Intervenors. §

ORDER

Defendants1 previously filed a Daubert Motion to Exclude Damages Expert Opinions of Stephen E. Dell. (Dkt. No. 198.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Memorandum Order (Dkt. No. 523), denying Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Damages Expert Opinions of Stephen E. Dell. Defendants have now filed Objections. (Dkt. No. 556.)

After reviewing the briefing on the Daubert Motion to Exclude Damages Expert Opinions of Stephen E. Dell, Judge Payne’s Memorandum Order, and the briefing on Defendants’ Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Memorandum Order and concludes that the Objections fail to show that the Memorandum Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

2.

Consequently, the Court OVERRULES Defendants’ Objections (Dkt. No. 556)

and ADOPTS Judge Payne’s Memorandum Order. (Dkt. No. 523).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 4th day of September, 2025.

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Footnotes

  1. ↩ 1 “Defendants” include the named AT&T Defendants, and Intervenors Nokia and Ericsson.

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

Daingean Technologies Ltd. v. AT&T Inc. et al, No. 2:23-cv-00123 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 4, 2025).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00123-13
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00123-13

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.

Source: govinfo.gov USCOURTS collection · retrieved July 25, 2026 · Report an error

Other documents in this case