Alexsam, Inc. v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 83 Report and Recommendations,, DENYING 23] SEALED MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment That The MobilGO System Is Not Anticipatory Prior Art Or Evidence of Conception of the Kmart System filed by Alexsam, Inc... Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 4/26/2013. (sm, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BARNES & NOBLE, INC. AND BARNES & NOBLE
MARKETING SERVICES, LLC
Cause No. 2:13-cv-3
THE GAP INC. AND DIRECT CONSUMER
Cause No. 2:13-cv-4
J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC. AND J.C. PENNEY
Cause No. 2:13-cv-5
MCDONALD’S CORPORATION AND P2W, INC.
Cause No. 2:13-cv-6
TOYS “R” US—DELAWARE, INC. AND TRU-SVC,
Cause No. 2:13-cv-7
THE HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC. AND HOME
DEPOT INCENTIVES, INC.
Cause No. 2:13-cv-8
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The above-entitled and numbered civil actions were heretofore referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Caroline M. Craven pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Report of the Magistrate
Judge which contains her proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of
such actions has been presented for consideration. Alexsam, Inc. filed objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation regarding Alexsam’s motion for partial
summary judgment that the MobilGO system is not anticipatory prior art or evidence of
conception of the Kmart system. Defendants filed a response to Alexsam’s objections.
The Court conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
conclusions. Alexsam’s objections are without merit. The Court is of the opinion that the
Page 1 of 2
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. Therefore, the Court hereby adopts
the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court.1
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Alexsam’s Objections to the
Court’s Report and Recommendation Regarding Alexsam’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment that the MobilGO System is Not Anticipatory Prior Art or Evidence of Conception of
the Kmart System (2:13-cv-3, Doc. No. 103); (2:13-cv-4, Doc. No. 104); (2:13-cv-5, Doc. No.
97); (2:13-cv-6, Doc. No. 100); (2:13-cv-7, Doc. No. 100); (2:13-cv-8, Doc. No. 98) are
It is further ORDERED that Alexsam’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that the
MobilGO system is not Anticipatory Prior Art or Evidence of Conception of the Kmart System
(2:13-cv-3, Doc. No. 23); (2:13-cv-4, Doc. No. 24); (2:13-cv-5, Doc. No. 25); (2:13-cv-6, Doc.
No. 25); (2:13-cv-7, Doc. No. 25); (2:13-cv-8, Doc. No. 25) is DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 26th day of April, 2013.
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
With regard to one of Alexsam’s “objections,” the sentence contained in a parenthetical on pages 17-18
of the Report and Recommendation clearly reflects the contentions of Defendants and/or their expert
rather than a reflection of the Court’s position on Alexsam’s infringement contentions.
Page 2 of 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?