Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Swivel Rental & Supply LLC v. Petro Bull LLC, 18-1141. (2019)

Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana Number: infdco20190718a13 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jul. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 17, 2019
Summary: JUDGMENT MICHAEL J. JUNEAU , District Judge . Upon consideration of the Objection filed by Bacchus Lifting LLC, Jason Bellard, Bowls Slips & Grips LLC, Dow Drobish, Petro Pull LLC, (collectively "defendants") Rec. Doc. [32], to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein, Rec. Doc. [31], recommending that the RENEWED MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim filed by Swivel Rental & Supply LLC ("plaintiff"), Rec. Doc. [23], be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIE
More

JUDGMENT

Upon consideration of the Objection filed by Bacchus Lifting LLC, Jason Bellard, Bowls Slips & Grips LLC, Dow Drobish, Petro Pull LLC, (collectively "defendants") Rec. Doc. [32], to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein, Rec. Doc. [31], recommending that the RENEWED MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim filed by Swivel Rental & Supply LLC ("plaintiff"), Rec. Doc. [23], be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; the Court having conducted an independent review of the record, adopts in part the Report and Recommendation.

The Court finds that the motion to dismiss the defendants' counterclaims alleging patent invalidity, to the extent such claims are premised on 35 U.S.C. §§101, 102, 103, and 112, should be DENIED AND DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The Court adopts all remaining reasons of the Report and Recommendation having determined that the findings and recommendations are correct under applicable law.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Renewed Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Rec. Doc. [23] filed by plaintiff Swivel Rental & Supply, LLC is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows. Defendants' counterclaims alleging patent invalidity, to the extent such claims are premised on 35 U.S.C. §§101, 102, 103, and 112, is GRANTED, and these counterclaims are DENIED AND DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The defendants' counterclaim alleging patent invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §132 is not dismissed, as the plaintiff has not sought dismissal of this counterclaim.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss defendants' LUTPA counterclaims is DENIED on grounds that the defendants fail to state a claim and on grounds that the LUTPA claims are prescribed/preempted, but is GRANTED on grounds of preemption only to the extent that these counterclaims are based on plaintiff's alleged improper use of patent rights.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer