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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Smartflash LLC et al v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, No. 6:13-cv-00448 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2015)

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. 6:13-cv-00448, Dkt. No. 483
Decided
February 13, 2015
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 437 Report and Recommendations, and denying Apple's and Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment Regarding Indefiniteness (6:13CV447, Doc. No. 269; 6:13CV448, 323)
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

SMARTFLASH LLC, et al., § § Plaintiffs, § CASE NO. 6:13cv447-JRG-KNM § v. § § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

APPLE INC., et al., § § Defendants. § § SMARTFLASH LLC, et al., § § Plaintiffs, § CASE NO. 6:13cv448-JRG-KNM v. § § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. § et al., § § Defendants. § §

ORDER

Before the Court are Apple’s and Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment Regarding Indefiniteness (6:13CV447, Doc. Nos. 269; 6:13CV448, Doc. No. 323) and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (6:13CV447, Doc. No. 391; 6:13CV448 Doc. No. 437) recommending that the Motions be denied. Having considered Defendants’ Objections to the Report and Recommendation Regarding Apple’s and Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment Regarding Indefiniteness (6:13CV447; Doc. No. 416; 6:13CV448, Doc. No. 449), and having conducted a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation as to which objection was made, the Magistrate Judge correctly found that the terms “data carrier,” “portable data carrier,” and “payment data” are not indefinite as a matter of law. The Court does hereby adopt the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,

2IT IS ORDERED that Apple’s and Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment of Regarding Indefiniteness (6:13CV447, Doc. Nos. 269; 6:13CV448, Doc. No. 323) are DENIED.

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

Smartflash LLC et al v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, No. 6:13-cv-00448 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2015).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-6_13-cv-00448-3
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-6_13-cv-00448-3

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.