Contour IP Holding, LLC et al v. GoPro, Inc.

Filing 77

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION recommending GRANTING D.I. 73 MOTION to Dismiss Based upon Lack of Standing filed by iON Worldwide, Inc., Contour IP Holding, LLC. Please note that when filing Objections pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), briefing consists solely of the Objections (no longer than ten (10) pages) and the Response to the Objections (no longer than ten (10) pages). No further briefing shall be permitted with respect to objections without leave of the Court. Objections to R&R due by 10/3/2016. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/16/2016. (mlc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE CONTOUR IP HOLDING, LLC and ION WORLDWIDE, INC., Plaintiffs, v. GOPRO,INC. Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 15-1108-LPS-CJB REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court, having reviewed and considered: (1) Plaintiffs Contour IP Holding, LLC ("CIPH") and iON Worldwide, Inc.'s ("iON") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") Motion to Dismiss iON as a Co-Plaintiff (the "Motion"), (D.I. 73), in which Plaintiffs request that "the Court dismiss with prejudice iON [] from the lawsuit" on the basis that iON is not a necessary party and lacks standing to maintain infringement claims against Defendant GoPro, Inc. ("GoPro") relating to the Asserted Patents, (id. at 2); (2) GoPro's Response in which it notes that it "does not in principle oppose" Plaintiffs' Motion, provided that: "(a) the dismissal is with prejudice, as indicated in the Motion; [] (b) GoPro reserves all rights and remedies it may have against iON in connection with this case, including the right to seek recovery of attorneys' fees and costs; [and (c)] GoPro reserves all rights and remedies it may have against CIPH in connection with adding iON as a Plaintiff to this case[,]" (D.I. 75 at 1); and (3) Plaintiffs' Reply, (D.I. 76), recommends that Plaintiffs' Motion be GRANTED and that iON be dismissed as a co-Plaintiff with prejudice from this lawsuit. This Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(l)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(l), and D. Del. LR 72.1. The parties may serve and file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The failure of a party to object to legal conclusions may result in the loss of the right to de nova review in the district court. See Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987); Sincavage v. Barnhart, 171 F. App'x 924, 925 n. l (3d Cir. 2006). The parties are directed to the Court's Standing Order for Objections Filed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, dated October 9, 2013, a copy of which is available on the District Court's website, located at Dated: September 16, 2016 Christopher J. Burke UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?