Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al
ORDER re Defendants' Objections 258 , 260 , 267 and Plaintiff's Objections 261 , 262 , 265 . Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 3/20/2016. (jrg2, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORE WIRELESS LICENSING
LG ELECTRONICS, INC., AND LG
Case No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP
Case No. 2:14-cv-912-JRG-RSP
Before the Court are Defendants’ Objections to Magistrate Judge Payne’s Claim
Construction Orders for the Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 Patents (“Defendants’ Objections”)
(Dkt. Nos. 258, 260, 267) and Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Payne’s Claim
Construction Orders for the Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 Patents (“Plaintiff’s Objections”) (Dkt.
Nos. 261, 262, 265). In the Magistrate Judge’s Claim Construction Orders (“Claim Construction
Orders”) (Dkt. Nos. 246, 247, 251), the Magistrate Judge construed certain claim terms of United
States Patent Nos. 5,907,823; 5,946,634; 6,266,321; 6,477,151; 6,633,536; 6,978,143; 7,072,667;
7,383,022; 7,599,664; 7,782,818; 7,804,850; 8,165,049; 8,434,020; 8,498,671; 8,713,476;
8,792,398; and RE44,828.
In their objections, Defendants object to the Court’s decision not to construe terms
identified only by Apple (no longer a party), but not by LG, in the parties’ joint claim construction
charts. Defendants also object to the Court’s constructions of several terms, re-urging only the
arguments previously raised in their claim construction briefs. In its objections, Plaintiff objects to
the Court’s constructions of several terms, and likewise re-urges only the arguments it previously
raised in its claim construction briefs.
Upon review of the parties’ objections, this Court observes that the Magistrate Judge’s
Claim Construction Orders properly construed these terms. Because the findings of the Magistrate
Judge were neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to the law, the Court need not modify or set
aside any part of the Claim Construction Orders in light of the parties’ objections. See FED. R. CIV.
After reviewing Plaintiff’s Objections and Defendants’ Objections, and finding no part of
the Claim Construction Orders to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to law,” 1 both Plaintiff’s and
Defendants’ Objections to the Claim Construction Orders are DENIED.
So Ordered this
Mar 20, 2016
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a).
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?