IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
STINGRAY IP SOLUTIONS LLC, §
§
Plaintiff,
§
v. §
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-00868-JRG-RSP §
HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
§
COMPANY,
§
Defendant.
§
ORDER
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (“Defendant”) previously filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Under 35 U.S.C. Section 101 (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 23.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 46), recommending denial of the Motion. Defendant has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 48), with Stingray IP Solutions LLC (“Plaintiff”) filing a Response (Dkt. No. 58.)
After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Motion, the Report and Recommendation, and the briefing on Defendant’s 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. The Court further finds Defendant’s other grounds to dismiss unpersuasive. Plaintiff’s Complaint never alleges that Plaintiff practices any of the Asserted Patents, excusing them from any marking or notice requirements. Additionally, the Complaint alleges enough to put Defendant on sufficient notice of direct infringement of the ’961
2.
Patent. Consequently, the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s Objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and orders that the Motion (Dkt. No. 23) is DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24th day of September, 2025.