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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Vasu Holdings, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, No. 2:24-cv-00034 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 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. 2:24-cv-00034, Dkt. No. 300
Decided
April 30, 2026
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations for 252 Report and Recommendations, 125 Sealed Motion for Summary Judgment of No Doctrine of Equivalents filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 129 Sealed Motion …
Length
1 page

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

VASU HOLDINGS, LLC, §

§

Plaintiff,

§ Case No. 2:24-cv-00034-JRG-RSP v.

§

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,

§

LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS

§

AMERICA, INC.,

§ §

Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of No Obviousness -Type Double Patenting (Dkt. No. 129); Defendants previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of No Doctrine of Equivalents (Dkt. No. 125.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 252), recommending denial of Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion for the ’996 Patent; denial as moot of Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion for the ’281 Patent; and denial as moot for Defendants’ summary judgment motion. Because no objections have been filed and because of the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the . Recommendation is ADOPTED.

It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (Dkt. No. 129) is DENIED as to the ’996 Patent and DENIED AS MOOT as to the ’281 Patent.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Doctrine of Equivalents (Dkt. No. 125) be DENIED AS MOOT.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of April, 2026.

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

Vasu Holdings, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, No. 2:24-cv-00034 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2026).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00034-6
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00034-6

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.