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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Round Rock Research, LLC v. Oracle Corporation et al, No. 4:11-cv-00332 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2011)

Adopted in Part Report and recommendation adopted with modification
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division
Case No.
No. 4:11-cv-00332, Dkt. No. 51
Decided
November 21, 2011
Judge
Michael H. Schneider, J.
Document
Report and Recommendation
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE - It is ORDERED that defendant Dell, Inc.'s 22 Motion to Dismiss and defendant Oracle Corporation's 25 Motion to Dismiss are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN P…
Length
2 pages

United States District Court

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERM AN DIVISION

ROUND ROCK RESEARCH, LLC §

§ §

v. § Case No. 4:11-CV-332

§ Judge Schneider/Judge Mazzant § ORACLE CORPORATION and §

DELL, INC. §

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On October 25, 2011, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Defendant Dell, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #22) and Defendant Oracle Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #25) should be granted in part and denied in part.

Having received the report of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto having been timely filed, this Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s report as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendant Dell, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #22) and Defendant Oracle Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #25) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

As to Plaintiff’s direct infringement claims against “servers implementing a remote monitoring system,” specifically the products ILOM and DRAC named in the Complaint,2 Defendants’ motions are denied. However, as to any other products potentially accused by Plaintiff, Defendants’ motions are granted. Further, regarding Plaintiff’s indirect infringement claims as to Oracle, the motion is granted. Regarding Plaintiff’s indirect infringement claims against Dell, the motion is denied. Plaintiff’s direct infringement claims against Dell for making, selling, offering to sell, or importing systems in violation of the four (4) method patents asserted by Plaintiff are dismissed with no opportunity to replead.

It is SO ORDERED.

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

Round Rock Research, LLC v. Oracle Corporation et al, No. 4:11-cv-00332 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2011).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-4_11-cv-00332-1
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-4_11-cv-00332-1

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.