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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC v. SK Hynix Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01078 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2026)

Adopted in Part Report and recommendation adopted with modification
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:24-cv-01078, Dkt. No. 122
Decided
March 30, 2026
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations for 114 Report and Recommendations, 42 Sealed Motion,, filed by SK Hynix Inc., 41 Motion to Dismiss, filed by SK Hynix Inc.. (Motion(s)41, 42, 114 terminated)
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

ADVANCED MEMORY §

TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, §

§

Plaintiff,

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-01078-JRG-RSP v.

§

SK HYNIX INC.,

§ §

Defendant.

ORDER

Defendant previously filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 41) and a Motion to Transfer. (Dkt. No. 42.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 114), recommending granting in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and denial of Defendant’s Motion to Transfer. Defendant has now filed Objections. (Dkt. No. 121.) Plaintiff did not file a response.

After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Motion to Dismiss and Transfer, 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. Consequently, the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s Objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and ORDERS that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss should be GRANTED as to pre-suit willfulness and indirect infringement of the ’888 and ’835 patents; the Motion is otherwise DENIED. The Court ORDERS that Defendant’s Motion to Transfer should be DENIED.

2.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of March, 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

Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC v. SK Hynix Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01078 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2026).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-01078-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-01078-0

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.