Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al

Filing 214

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 192 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 9/29/2015. (ch, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
CORE WIRELESS LICENSING
S.A.R.L.,
v.
LG ELECTRONICS, INC., and LG
ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM
U.S.A., INC.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP (lead case)
Case No. 2:14-cv-912 (consolidated)

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
DENYING-IN-PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court is Defendants’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation Denying-in-Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Defendants’ Objections”). Dkt.
No. 209.

In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge correctly held that Core’s
complaints state claims for inducing infringement and for contributory infringement that satisfy
the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 192 at 4-6. The Magistrate Judge also
correctly held that Defendants bear the burden of establishing that Plaintiff’s breach of contract
claim is not legally cognizable, and that Defendants failed to meet this burden. Id. at 6-9. The
parties have not objected to the other holdings of the Report and Recommendation.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court agrees with the conclusions of the Report and
Recommendation, and the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s rulings neither “clearly erroneous
[n]or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); FED.R.CIV.P. 72(a). Accordingly, Defendants’
Objections are OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
Denying-in-Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 192) is hereby ADOPTED.
So Ordered and Signed on this

Sep 29, 2015