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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al v. Adtran, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-00618 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 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. 6:15-cv-00618, Dkt. No. 110
Decided
December 10, 2015
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Report and Recommendation
Docket Entry
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 59 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge
Length
2 pages

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC., et al, §

§

v. §

§ Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-618-JRG-JDL ADTRAN, INC. (LEAD CASE) §

§

§

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. On November 18, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. No. 59), recommending that that the following motions be denied: (6:15-cv-618 (Doc. No. 13); 6:15-cv-619 (Doc. No. 13); 6:15-cv-622 (Doc. No. 13); 6:15-cv-627 (Doc. No. 13); 6:15-cv-630 (Doc. No. 14); 6:15-cv-633 (Doc. Nos. 20, 22); 6:15-cv-634 (Doc. No. 17); 6:15-cv-637 (Doc. No. 17); 6:15-cv-638 (Doc. No. 18); 6:15-cv-639 (Doc. Nos. 23, 24); 6:15-cv-620 (Doc. No. 17); 6:15-cv-643 (Doc. No. 17); 6:15-cv-652 (Doc. Nos. 17, 18); 6:15-cv-640 (Doc. No. 14); 6:15-cv-650 (Doc. No. 19); 6:15-cv-653 (Doc. No. 15); 6:15-cv-641 (Doc. No. 13); 6:15-cv-642 (Doc. No. 17)). No objections to the R&R have been presented for consideration within the prescribed time period for such objections. Therefore, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge as the findings of this Court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the following motions be DENIED: (6:15-cv-618 (Doc. No. 13); 6:15-cv-619 (Doc. No. 13); 6:15-cv-622 (Doc. No. 13); 6:15-cv-627 (Doc. No. 13); 6:15-cv-630 (Doc. No. 14); 6:15-cv-633 (Doc. Nos. 20, 22); 6:15-cv-634 (Doc. No. 17);2 6:15-cv-637 (Doc. No. 17); 6:15-cv-638 (Doc. No. 18); 6:15-cv-639 (Doc. Nos. 23, 24); 6:15-cv-620 (Doc. No. 17); 6:15-cv-643 (Doc. No. 17); 6:15-cv-652 (Doc. Nos. 17, 18); 6:15-cv-640 (Doc. No. 14); 6:15-cv-650 (Doc. No. 19); 6:15-cv-653 (Doc. No. 15); 6:15-cv-641 (Doc. No. 13); 6:15-cv-642 (Doc. No. 17)). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate these motions in the referenced member cases.

Given that these matters have been consolidated, for the convenience of the Court and the parties, Plaintiff shall file a single amended complaint with unmodified allegations as to all Defendants in the lead case within 14 days of the issuance of this Order. Defendants shall then respond to that Complaint. The Court cautions Defendants to exercise sound discretion in responding to future pleadings. The Court does not expect that it will receive numerous additional piecemeal motions to dismiss where, at this stage, Defendants have not answered or otherwise responded to several of Plaintiff’s allegations.

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

Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al v. Adtran, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-00618 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2015).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-6_15-cv-00618-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-6_15-cv-00618-0

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.