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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Eidos Display, LLC et al v. AU Optronics Corporation et al, No. 6:11-cv-00201 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2014)

Adopted Report and recommendation (or magistrate's order) adopted
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division
Case No.
No. 6:11-cv-00201, Dkt. No. 419
Decided
January 22, 2014
Judge
Leonard Davis, J.
Document
Report and Recommendation
Docket Entry
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: granting 314 Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness; granting 418 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief. Plaintiff's objections are overruled. The Court adopts the Order of the United States …
Length
1 page

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

EIDOS DISPLAY, LLC, § and EIDOS III, LLC §

§

v. § No. 6:11-cv-00201-LED-JDL § AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION; §

AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION §

AMERICA; §

CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES, LTD. §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The above entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (“Report”), which contains his proposed findings of fact and recommendation for the disposition of such action, has been presented for consideration (Doc. No. 412). The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness (Doc. No. 314). Plaintiff filed objections (Doc. No. 415) to which Defendants replied (Doc. No. 416). Plaintiff filed a response (Doc. No. 417) accompanied by a Motion for Leave to Allow a Reply Brief (Doc. No. 418) which is hereby GRANTED.

The Court is of the opinion that the conclusion of the Magistrate Judge is correct. Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the Order of the United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness is GRANTED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 22nd day of January, 2014.

Figure on page 1 of the opinion

LEONARD DAVIS

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

Eidos Display, LLC et al v. AU Optronics Corporation et al, No. 6:11-cv-00201 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2014).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-6_11-cv-00201-1
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-6_11-cv-00201-1

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.