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. 549
Decided
September 3, 2025
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations for 511 Report and Recommendations, re 201 Sealed Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement filed by AT&T Mobility II LLC, AT&T Mobility LLC, Ericsson Inc., Nokia of America Corporation, AT&T …
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

Defendants1 previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement (Dkt. No. 201). Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 511), recommending denial of Defendants ’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non- Infringement. Defendants have now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 527).

After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement, the Report and Recommendation, and the briefing on Defendants’ 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 Defendants ’ Objections and ADOPTS the

2.

Report and Recommendation. The Court ORDERS that the Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement (Dkt. No. 201) is DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 3rd 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. 3, 2025).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00123-9
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00123-9

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.