Semcon IP Inc. v. STMicroelectronics Inc., 2:16-cv-00437-JRG-RSP (Lead) (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
Number: infdco20180405c73
Visitors: 10
Filed: Apr. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 04, 2018
Summary: ORDER RODNEY GILSTRAP , District Judge . Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Payne's recommendation to deny Semcon's motion for summary judgment that the `627 patent is not invalid in view of the Hitachi SH-4 reference. Dkt. No. 567. For dispositive matters referred to a magistrate judge, the district court must "determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C). "The district judge may
Summary: ORDER RODNEY GILSTRAP , District Judge . Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Payne's recommendation to deny Semcon's motion for summary judgment that the `627 patent is not invalid in view of the Hitachi SH-4 reference. Dkt. No. 567. For dispositive matters referred to a magistrate judge, the district court must "determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C). "The district judge may a..
More
ORDER
RODNEY GILSTRAP, District Judge.
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Payne's recommendation to deny Semcon's motion for summary judgment that the `627 patent is not invalid in view of the Hitachi SH-4 reference. Dkt. No. 567. For dispositive matters referred to a magistrate judge, the district court must "determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). "The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommend disposition." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Having considered the recommendation de novo, and having reviewed Semcon's objections thereto, the Court finds no reason to reject or modify the recommended disposition.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1) Semcon's objections, Dkt. No. 632, are OVERRULED.
(2) The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 567, is ADOPTED.
(3) Semcon's motion for partial summary judgment, Dkt. No. 301, is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
