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. T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al, No. 2:23-cv-00347 (E.D. Tex. July 7, 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-00347, Dkt. No. 449
Decided
July 7, 2025
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations for 412
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

§

DAINGEAN TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,

§ §

Plaintiff,

§ § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00347-JRG-RSP v.

§ §

T-MOBILE USA, INC.,

§ §

Defendant,

§

ORDER

Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc (“Defendant”) previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Daingean’s Use of Licensed Android Handsets in its Infringement and Damages Theories (Dkt. No. 264.) And Plaintiff Daingean Technologies ltd. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants’ License Defense Based on Certain Agreements (Dkt. No. 273).

Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 412), recommending denial of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and grant of Plaintiff’s Motion. Defendant has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 426).

After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Motions for Summary Judgment, the Report and Recommendation, and the briefing on Defendant’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 Defendant’s Objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and orders that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 264) is DENIED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 273) is GRANTED.

2.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 7th 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

Daingean Technologies ltd. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al, No. 2:23-cv-00347 (E.D. Tex. July 7, 2025).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00347-8
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00347-8

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.