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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

SK nexilis Co., Ltd. v. Solus advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al, No. 2:23-cv-00539 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2026)

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-00539, Dkt. No. 358
Decided
April 6, 2026
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations 336 re Motions 141 269 Over Motions 343
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SK NEXILIS CO., LTD., §

§

Plaintiff,

§ §

v.

§

SOLUS ADVANCED MATERIALS CO., §

LTD., VOLTA ENERGY SOLUTIONS §

S.A.R.L., VOLTA ENERGY SOLUTIONS § CASE NO. 2:23-CV-00539-JRG-RSP EUROPE KFT., VOLTA ENERGY §

SOLUTIONS HUNGARY KFT., and § VOLTA ENERGY SOLUTIONS §

CANADA INC., §

§

Defendants.

§

ORDER

Defendants Solus Advanced Materials Co., Volta Energy Solutions Canada Inc., Volta Energy Solutions Europe KFT, Volta Energy Solutions Hungary KFT, and Volta Energy Solutions S.A.R.L. (“Defendants”) previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,457,541 (“Original Motion”) (Dkt. No. 141), and a Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,457,541 (“Supplemental Motion”) (Dkt. No. 269.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 336), recommending that both Motions be denied. Defendants have now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 343.)

After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Original and Supplemental Motions, 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 Recommendation2 and orders that the Original Motion (Dkt. No. 141) and Supplemental Motion (Dkt. No. 269) are DENIED.

So Ordered this Apr 4, 2026

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

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

SK nexilis Co., Ltd. v. Solus advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al, No. 2:23-cv-00539 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2026).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00539-2
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00539-2

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.