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.

Plastronics Socket Partners, Ltd. v. Hwang

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

July 3, 2019

PLASTRONICS SOCKET PARTNERS, LTD. ET AL, Plaintiffs,
v.
DONG WEON HWANG ET AL, Defendants.

          ORDER

          RODNEY GILSCRAP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This case involves patent infringement claims and various breach of contract claims and counterclaims between Plaintiffs Plastronics Socket Partners, Ltd. (“Plastronics Socket”) and Plastronics H-Pin, Ltd. (“Plastronics H-Pin”) as well as Defendants Dong Weon Hwang, HiCon Co., Ltd. (“HiCon Limited”), and HiCon Company. Before the Court are (1) Defendants' Objection (Dkt. No. 247) to the Order (Dkt. No. 223); (2) the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 280), which was not objected to; (3) Defendants' Objections (Dkt. No. 297) to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 281); (4) Defendants' Objection (Dkt. No. 301) to the Magistrate Judge's Order (Dkt. No. 282); (5) Plaintiffs' Objection (Dkt. No. 308) to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 287); and (6) Defendants' Objection (Dkt. No. 307) to Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 300). The Court will address each of these filings below.

         I. OBJECTION (DKT. NO. 247) TO ORDER (DKT. NO. 223)

         Defendants filed an Objection (Dkt. No. 247) to the Order (Dkt. No. 223) on Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 213). Defendants' Objection was directed to ensuring that Defendants were permitted to argue that HiCon Company is indistinguishable from Defendant Hwang as a defense. The Magistrate Judge subsequently entered an Order clarifying this issue, stating that Defendants' argument that HiCon Company and Hwang are indistinguishable may still be used as a defense. (Dkt. No. 265.) Furthermore, this defense played a key role in the June 17, 2019 Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 287 at 7-9.)

         In light of the Order clarifying this issue and the Magistrate Judge's subsequent reliance on this defense in its reasoning in the June 17, 2019 Report and Recommendation, all concerns raised by Defendants in their Objections (Dkt. No. 247) have been addressed. The Court therefore OVERRULES Defendants' Objections as they are now moot, and the Court ADOPTS the Order (Dkt. No. 223) as clarified by the subsequent Order (Dkt. No. 265).

         II. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. NO. 280)

         In the June 11, 2019 Report and Recommendation, Judge Payne recommended that Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 180) be granted with respect to Defendant Hwang's claims that (1) “Plastronics Socket breached the Royalty Agreement by licensing the invention of the '602 Patent to Plastronics H-Pin from on or around December 31, 2012 to the present without obtaining Mr. Hwang's consent” and (2) Plastronics Socket breached the Assignment and Agreement “by transferring its interest in the invention of the '602 Patent to Plastronics H-Pin from on or around December 31, 2012 to the present without obtaining Mr. Hwang's written consent.” (Dkt. No. 280 at 9.)

         No objections were filed to this Report and Recommendation. For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation and because no objections have been filed, the Recommendation is ADOPTED. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED with respect to Defendant Dong Weon Hwang's claims that (1) “Plastronics Socket breached the Royalty Agreement by licensing the invention of the '602 Patent to Plastronics H-Pin from on or around December 31, 2012 to the present without obtaining Mr. Hwang's consent” and (2) Plastronics Socket breached the Assignment and Agreement “by transferring its interest in the invention of the '602 Patent to Plastronics H-Pin from on or around December 31, 2012 to the present without obtaining Mr. Hwang's written consent.”

         III. OBJECTION (DKT. NO. 297) TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. NO. 281)

         Defendants filed an Objection (Dkt. No. 297) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 281) on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding the Statute of Limitations and Damages (Dkt. No. 201). After consideration of the underlying briefing, the Report and Recommendation, and the arguments raised by Defendants in their Objection, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Report and Recommendation. The Court therefore OVERRULES the Defendants' Objection and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.

         IV. OBJECTION (DKT. NO. 301) TO ORDER (DKT. NO. 282)

         Defendants filed an Objection (Dkt. No. 301) to the Magistrate Judge's Order (Dkt. No. 282), which denied Defendants' Motion to Strike Expert Testimony of Chase Perry (Dkt. No. 211). After consideration of the underlying briefing, the Order, and the arguments raised by Defendants in their Objection, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Order and concludes that it is not clearly erroneous. The Court therefore OVERRULES the Defendants' Objection and ADOPTS the Order.

         V. PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION (DKT. NO. 308) TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. NO. 287)

         Plaintiffs filed an Objection (Dkt. No. 308) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 287). Plaintiff Objects to the Report and Recommendation's conclusion that (1) HiCon Company is a Sole Proprietorship; and (2) that Defendant Hwang is entitled to summary judgment ...


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.