CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L. v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC., 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP (lead case) (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
Number: infdco20151005657
Visitors: 2
Filed: Sep. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 30, 2015
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING-IN-PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS RODNEY GILSTRAP , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendants' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation Denying-in-Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Defendants' Objections"). Dkt. No. 209. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge correctly held that Core's complaints state claims for inducing infringement and for contributory infringement that
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING-IN-PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS RODNEY GILSTRAP , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendants' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation Denying-in-Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Defendants' Objections"). Dkt. No. 209. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge correctly held that Core's complaints state claims for inducing infringement and for contributory infringement that ..
More
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING-IN-PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
RODNEY GILSTRAP, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendants' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation Denying-in-Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Defendants' Objections"). Dkt. No. 209.
In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge correctly held that Core's complaints state claims for inducing infringement and for contributory infringement that satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 192 at 4-6. The Magistrate Judge also correctly held that Defendants bear the burden of establishing that Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is not legally cognizable, and that Defendants failed to meet this burden. Id. at 6-9. The parties have not objected to the other holdings of the Report and Recommendation.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court agrees with the conclusions of the Report and Recommendation, and the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's rulings neither "clearly erroneous [n]or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); FED.R.CIV.P. 72(a). Accordingly, Defendants' Objections are OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation Denying-in-Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 192) is hereby ADOPTED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
