Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P.

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division

May 6, 2019

INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P. ET AL, T-MOBILE USA, INC. ET AL, Defendants.

          ORDER

          RODNEY GILSJTRAP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Payne's Report and Recommendation regarding Defendants' Sealed Motion for Summary Judgment of No. Pre-Suit Damages, which has not been objected to. (Dkt. No. 456.) Also before the Court are (1) Objections to the Court's Order on the Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony on Certain Evidence in Support of Defendants' Written Description Defense (Dkt. No. 480); (2) Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment that the Asserted Claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9, 320, 018 and 9, 681, 466 are Patent Ineligible (Dkt. No. 498); and (3) Objections to the Report and Recommendation Denying in Part Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that Certain Disputed References are Prior Art (Dkt. No. 501). The Court will address each of these below.

         1. Report and Recommendation regarding Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of No. Pre-Suit Damages

         Defendants previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of No. Pre-Suit Damages. (Dkt. No. 297.) On April 18, 2019, Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation, which found that the Motion should be granted-in-part. (Dkt. No. 456.) The Report concluded that Defendants' Motion should be granted as to pre-suit damages for U.S. Patent Nos. 8, 897, 828; 8, 953, 641; 9, 532, 330; and 9, 681, 466, but the Report recommended that Defendants' Motion be denied as to pre-suit damages for U.S. Patent Nos. 8, 682, 357 and 9, 320, 018. No. objections have been filed to this Report and Recommendation by any party.

         Because no objections have been filed and because the undersigned agrees with the reasons set forth in the Court's Report and Recommendation, the Recommendation is ADOPTED. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants' Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART. The Motion is GRANTED as to pre-suit damages for U.S. Patent Nos. 8, 897, 828; 8, 953, 641; 9, 532, 330; and 9, 681, 466, but the Motion is DENIED as to pre-suit damages for U.S. Patent Nos. 8, 682, 357 and 9, 320, 018.

         2. Objections to Magistrate Judge Payne's Order on the Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony on Certain Evidence in Support of Defendants' Written Description Defense

         Plaintiff previously filed a Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony on Certain Evidence in Support of Defendants' Written Description Defense. (Dkt. No. 300.) Magistrate Judge Payne issued an Order (Dkt. No. 446) partially granting that Motion to Preclude. Now before the Court are Defendants' Rule 72 Objections to the Court's Order on the Motion to Preclude. (Dkt. No. 480.)

         After consideration of Defendants' Objections (Dkt. No. 480), the Magistrate Judge's Order (Dkt. No. 446), and the underlying briefing (Dkt. Nos. 300, 334, 357, 399), the undersigned agrees with the reasoning provided within the Magistrate Judge's Order. Defendants' Objections are therefore OVERRULED, and the Magistrate Judge's Order is ADOPTED.

         3. Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment that the Asserted Claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9, 320, 018 and 9, 681, 466 are Patent Ineligible

         Defendants previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment that the Asserted Claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9, 320, 018 and 9, 681, 466 are Patent Ineligible. (Dkt. No. 303.) Magistrate Judge Payne issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 455), which recommended that the undersigned deny Defendants' Motion (Dkt. No. 303) in full. Now before the Court are Defendants' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 498.)

         After consideration of Defendants' Objections (Dkt. No. 498), the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 455), and the underlying briefing (Dkt. Nos. 303, 345, 381, 406), the undersigned agrees with the reasoning provided within the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Defendants' Objections are therefore OVERRULED, and the Magistrate Judge's Order is ADOPTED.

         4. Objections to the Report and Recommendation Denying in Part Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that Certain Disputed References are Prior Art

         Defendants previously filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that Certain Disputed References are Prior Art. (Dkt. No. 305.) This Motion sought summary judgment with respect to five references-the Yang, Hwang, Liebetreu, CATT, and LG references. (Id.) Magistrate Judge Payne issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 457), which recommended that Defendants' Motion be granted in part. The Magistrate Judge recommended that summary judgment be granted for the Yang reference as the Plaintiff indicated that it would not contest the public accessibility of that reference. (Dkt. No. 457 at 3 (citing Dkt. No. 343 at 2).) However, the Magistrate Judge recommended that summary judgment be denied for the Hwang, Liebetreu, CATT, and LG references. (Dkt. No. 457 at 6.) Defendants have now filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, contending that the summary judgment was appropriate for the Hwang, Liebetreu, CATT, and LG references. (Dkt. No. 501.)

         a. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.