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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Secured Structures, LLC v. alarm Security Group, LLC, No. 6:14-cv-00930 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2016)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division
Case No.
No. 6:14-cv-00930, Dkt. No. 116
Decided
March 29, 2016
Judge
Robert W. Schroeder, III, J. — Texarkana
Document
Report and Recommendation
Docket Entry
nternational, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-940, ECF 12),Defendant Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-941, ECF 1…
Length
3 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

SECURED STRUCTURES, LLC §

§ vs. § CASE NO. 6:14-CV-930 § LEAD CASE

ALARM SECURITY GROUP, LLC §

§ §

SECURED STRUCTURES, LLC §

§ vs. § CASE NO. 6:14-CV-937 § GUARDIAN PROTECTION §

SERVICES, INC. §

§

SECURED STRUCTURES, LLC §

§ vs. § CASE NO. 6:14-CV-938 § INTERFACE SECURITY SYSTEMS, §

LLC §

§

SECURED STRUCTURES, LLC §

§ vs. § CASE NO. 6:14-CV-940 § MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL, §

INC. §

§

2SECURED STRUCTURES, LLC §

§ vs. § CASE NO. 6:14-CV-941 § PROTECTION ONE ALARM §

MONITORING, INC. §

§

SECURED STRUCTURES, LLC §

§ vs. § CASE NO. 6:14-CV-944 § VECTOR SECURITY, INC. §

§ §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains her findings, conclusions, and recommendation for the disposition of the motions to dismiss has been presented for consideration. The Report and Recommendation (ECF 109), filed on March 10, 2016, recommends that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim be denied without prejudice. No written objections have been filed. The Court therefore ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as those of the Court.

In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Defendant Alarm Security Group, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-930, ECF 12), Defendant Guardian Protection Services, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-937, ECF 12), Defendant Interface Security Systems, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-938, ECF 12), Defendant Monitronics International, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-940, ECF 12),

3.

Defendant Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-941, ECF 12) and Defendant Vector Security, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-944, ECF 12) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.1

So ORD ERED and SIGNED this 29th day of March, 2016.

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Footnotes

  1. 1 The Report and Recommendation additionally recommended that Defendant Central Security Group – Nationwide, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-931, ECF 12) and Defendant CPI Security Systems, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-932, ECF 12) be denied without prejudice. After the filing of the Report and Recommendation, the claims against Defendant Central Security Group – Nationwide, Inc. and CPI Security Systems, Inc. were dismissed with prejudice.

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

Secured Structures, LLC v. alarm Security Group, LLC, No. 6:14-cv-00930 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2016).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-6_14-cv-00930-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-6_14-cv-00930-0

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.