Contour IP Holding, LLC et al v. GoPro, Inc.
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CONTOUR IP HOLDING, LLC and
ION WORLDWIDE, INC.,
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 Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 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 http://www.ded.uscourts.gov.
Dated: September 16, 2016
Christopher J. Burke
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?