IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
PROCOMM INTERNATIONAL PTE. §
LTD., §
§ Plaintiff, § §
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-9-RWS-RSP
§ VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., §
et al., §
§ Defendants. §
ORDER
The above-captioned case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff previously filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Invalidity Defenses (“Validity Motion”) (Docket No. 104), and Defendants previously filed three motions: a Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,724,521 Under Section 101 (“Invalidity Motion”) (Docket No. 102), a Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,497,813 (“ ’813 Noninfringement Motion”) (Docket No. 98), and a Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,724,521 (“ ’521 Noninfringement Motion”) (Docket No. 105).
On February 2, 2026, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation recommending denial of Defendants’ ’813 and ’521 Noninfringement Motions (“Noninfringement R&R”). Docket No. 156. Then, on February 5, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation recommending partial grant of Plaintiff’s Validity Motion and denial of Defendants’ Invalidity Motion (“Validity R&R”). Docket No. 160. The set deadline for objections to be filed—February 11 at 12:00 p.m.—has passed, and no objections have been filed by the2 parties. Because no objections have been filed, any aggrieved party is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Moreover, except upon grounds of plain error, an aggrieved party is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021).
The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Reports and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Reports of the Magistrate Judge are correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Reports of the Magistrate Judge (Docket Nos. 156, 160) are ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ ’813 and ’521 Noninfringement Motions (Docket Nos. 98, 105), and Defendants’ Invalidity Motion (Docket No. 102) are DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Validity Motion (Docket No. 104) is GRANTED to the extent that the uB900 does not qualify as prior art (1) that was “on sale” or in “public use” in the United States, or (2) for purposes of anticipation, and is otherwise DENIED.
3.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 11th day of February, 2026.