STC.UNM v. Intel Corporation
ORDER by District Judge Robert C. Brack denying 45 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice and adopting Report and Recommendations re 140 Report and Recommendations. (bc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Civil No. 10-CV-01077-RB-WDS
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation recommending denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Intel’s Amended
Counterclaim and Strike Intel’s Affirmative Defense for Unenforceability. (Document 140) The
Court, having reviewed the record de novo and considered the United States Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendations, Plaintiff’s objections thereto (Document 141), Intel’s response to
Plaintiff’s objections (Document 143) and being otherwise fully advised, finds that Plaintiff’s
motion should be denied. The Court acknowledges the new standard for evaluating claims of
inequitable conduct set forth in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS
10590 (Fed. Cir. May 25, 2011). However, in the Court’s opinion that new standard is properly
applied in this case in the summary judgment setting with all relevant facts before the Court. There
is no part of the Therasense opinion which changed the standard by which Courts consider motions
to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
The Court acknowledges Defendant’s withdrawal of that part of its affirmative defenses and
counterclaims related to allegations that prior art was withheld from the Patent Office. In view of
the above findings, there is no need for Defendant to replead its affirmative defenses and
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, except as noted above, the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation are adopted by the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss is denied without
DATED this 23rd day of September, 2011.
Robert C. Brack
United States District 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?