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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Ring Plus, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless LLC et al, No. 5:08-cv-00042 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2007)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division
Case No.
No. 5:08-cv-00042, Dkt. No. 160
Decided
October 11, 2007
Judge
Caroline Craven, M.J.
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER re Court ordered an in camera inspection of the disputed documents. The Court has reviewed the documents at issue and finds Plaintiff properly withheld the documentsunder either the work product or attorney/client privilege as claimed…
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

RING PLUS, INC §

Plaintiff § §

V. § No. 2:06CV159 § CINGULAR WIRELESS, LLC. ET AL. §

Defendants §

ORDER

The Court enters the following sua sponte. On August 29, 2007, the Court ordered Plaintiff Ring Plus, Inc. to provide the Court and Defendants with a supplement to its privilege log with respect to certain documents being withheld as privileged. Ring Plus produced the supplemental privilege log to Defendants on September 4, 2007. On September 10, 2007, Defendants filed its Brief in Support of Compelling Discovery of Certain Withheld Documents (Docket Entry # 148). Defendants focused on (1) documents related to the identity of prior art to the patent in suit and to the patent applicants’ and/or their patent attorney’s knowledge of this prior art and intent to deceive the United States Patent Office (Document No. 21 for RFP 1 and Document No. 1 for RFP 4) and (2) transmittal letters (Document Nos. 54, 56, and 63 for RFP 1). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ motion, requesting an in camera inspection of the documents by this Court.

The Court ordered an in camera inspection of the disputed documents. Thereafter, Plaintiff submitted to the Court for in camera review the documents contained in its amended privilege log. The Court has reviewed the documents at issue and finds Plaintiff properly withheld the documents under either the work product or attorney/client privilege as claimed by Plaintiff.

2IT 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

Ring Plus, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless LLC et al, No. 5:08-cv-00042 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2007).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-5_08-cv-00042-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-5_08-cv-00042-0

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.