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 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-00347, Dkt. No. 450
Decided
July 7, 2025
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations on Interference Sensing 384
Length
1 page

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., and Intervenors Nokia of America Corporation and Ericsson Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement Regarding the Non-Implemented and Never Used Interference Sensing Feature (Dkt. No. 186.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 384), recommending denial of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants have now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 391), with Daingean filing a Response (Dkt. No. 397.) .

After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Motion for Summary Judgment, 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 Report and Recommendation and orders that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 186) is DENIED.

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-00347-9
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00347-9

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.