THORNE RESEARCH, INC. v. XYMOGEN, INC., 2:13-CV-784 TS. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Utah
Number: infdco20160510e81
Visitors: 6
Filed: May 09, 2016
Latest Update: May 09, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO TED STEWART , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Partial Objection to Magistrate Judge Warner's Memorandum Decision and Order Dated March 22, 2016 and Defendant's Objections to Magistrate Judge Warner's Order Denying XYMOGEN'S Motion for Leave to Amend or Supplement Invalidity Contentions. Under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court reviews a Magistrate J
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO TED STEWART , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Partial Objection to Magistrate Judge Warner's Memorandum Decision and Order Dated March 22, 2016 and Defendant's Objections to Magistrate Judge Warner's Order Denying XYMOGEN'S Motion for Leave to Amend or Supplement Invalidity Contentions. Under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court reviews a Magistrate Ju..
More
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO
TED STEWART, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Partial Objection to Magistrate Judge Warner's Memorandum Decision and Order Dated March 22, 2016 and Defendant's Objections to Magistrate Judge Warner's Order Denying XYMOGEN'S Motion for Leave to Amend or Supplement Invalidity Contentions.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court reviews a Magistrate Judge's orders on nondispositive matters under a clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard.1 "The clearly erroneous standard . . . requires that the reviewing court affirm unless it `on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'"2
The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Order, the parties' objections thereto, the underlying briefing, and the relevant case law. The Court also conducted an in camera review of the document designated XYMOGEN_238-242. Having done so, the Court cannot conclude that the Magistrate Judge's decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. It is therefore
ORDERED that the parties' objections (Docket Nos. 142 and 143) are OVERRULED. It is further
ORDERED that motions for summary judgment on infringement and patent invalidity shall be filed by June 6, 2016.
FootNotes
1. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
2. Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).
Source: Leagle
