IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
INNOMEMORY, LLC,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-00667-RWS-RSP v.
*LEAD CASE*
XIAOMI CORPORATION,
Defendant. INNOMEMORY, LLC,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-00671-RWS-RSP v.
*MEMBER CASE*
DATALOGIC S.P.A.,
Defendant.
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Datalogic S.p.A.’s Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim. No. 2:24-CV-00671-RWS-RSP, Docket No. 16. All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636.
On September 5, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation, recommending the motion be denied. No. 2:24-CV-00667-RWS-RSP, Docket No. 35 at 4. The Magistrate Judge held that Plaintiff InnoMemory, LLC’s complaint stated a claim for relief against Defendant for patent infringement. Id. at 3–4. The parties received the Report and Recommendation through the Court’s electronic filing system on the same day that the Report and Recommendation issued, but, to date, no objections have been received.
2Because no objections have been received, Defendant is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017). 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 id.; Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021).
The Court has reviewed the motion, the briefing associated with the motion, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is . correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 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 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (No. 2:24-CV-00667-RWS-RSP, Docket No. 35) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. It is further
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (No. 2:24-CV-00671-RWS-RSP, Docket No. 16) is DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 22nd day of September, 2025.