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. 3, 2025)

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. 2:23-cv-00123, Dkt. No. 546
Decided
September 3, 2025
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
&T Communications LLC. (Motion(s)204, 443 terminated)
Length
2 pages

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

AT&T Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Mobility II LLC, and AT&T Services Inc. previously filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Daingean’s Use of Licensed Android Handsets. (Dkt. No. 204.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 443), recommending denial of AT&T’ s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Daingean’s Use of Licensed Android Handsets. AT&T has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 446), with Daingean filing a Response (Dkt. No. 451).

After conducting a de novo review of the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Daingean’s Use of Licensed Android Handsets, the Report and Recommendation, and the briefing on AT&T’s Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Report and Recommendation and concludes that the Objections

2Cas. e 2:23-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 546 Filed 09/03/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

fail to show that the Report and Recommendation was erroneous. Consequently, the Court OVERRULES AT&T’s Objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. The Court ORDERS that the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Daingean’s Use of Licensed Android Handsets (Dkt. No. 204) is DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 3rd day of September, 2025.

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

Daingean Technologies Ltd. v. AT&T Inc. et al, No. 2:23-cv-00123 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2025).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00123-7
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00123-7

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.