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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

CLO Virtual Fashion Inc. v. Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00274 (E.D. Tex. July 21, 2025)

Granted in Part
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:23-cv-00274, Dkt. No. 305
Decided
July 21, 2025
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations for 289 Report and Recommendations re 109 Sealed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by CLO Virtual Fashion Inc.. (Motion(s)109, 289 terminated)
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

CLO VIRTUAL FASHION INC., §

§ Plaintiff, § v. § CASE NO. 2:23-CV-00274-JRG-RSP § ZHEJIANG LINGDI DIGITAL §

TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. d/b/a § LINCTEX, §

§ Defendant. §

ORDER

Previously, Plaintiff CLO Virtual Fashion Inc. (“CLO”) filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 109.) In the Motion, CLO moves to foreclose Defendant Linctex’s (“Linctex”) defenses of ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102. (Id. at 20.) Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Motion should be granted-in-part as to Linctex’s ineligible subject matter defense but otherwise denied. (Dkt. No. 289.) Linctex has now filed its Objections. (Dkt. No 296.)

Having conducted a de novo review of the briefing on the Motion, the Report and Recommendation, and the briefing on the Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Report and Recommendation. The Court also finds that the Objections have not shown that the Report and Recommendation is erroneous. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Linctex’s Objections (Dkt. No. 296) and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 289). The Court further ORDERS that the Motion (Dkt. No. 296) is GRANTED as to the ineligible subject matter defense under 35 U.S.C. § 101 but is otherwise DENIED.

2.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 21st day of July, 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

CLO Virtual Fashion Inc. v. Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00274 (E.D. Tex. July 21, 2025).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00274-10
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00274-10

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.