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 15, 2025)

Adopted in Part Report and recommendation adopted with modification
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:23-cv-00274, Dkt. No. 299
Decided
July 15, 2025
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations for 232 Report and Recommendations re 102 Sealed Motion for Summary Judgment on Monetary Damages filed by Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd.. (Motion(s)102, 232 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

Defendant Linctex previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Monetary Damages (Dkt. No. 102.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 232), recommending grant of Linctex’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Monetary Damages with respect to Plaintiff’s valuation-based approach for calculating damages, and otherwise denying the Motion. Linctex has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 248), with Plaintiff CLO Virtual Fashion Inc. filing a Response (Dkt. No. 260.)

After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Motion for Summary Judgment on Monetary Damages, the Report and Recommendation, and the briefing on Linctex’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 Linctex’s Objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and orders that the Motion for Summary Judgment on Monetary Damages (Dkt. No. 102) is GRANTED that Plaintiff may not maintain its valuation-based approach for calculating damages, but that the Motion is otherwise DENIED.

2.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 15th 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 15, 2025).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00274-8
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00274-8

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.