EMED Technologies Corporation et al v Repro-Med Systems, Inc.

Filing 87

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 80 Report and Recommendations, denying 66 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Repro-Med Systems, Inc. d/b/a RMS Medical Products, granting 67 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Infringement Contentions asserting claim 9 filed by EMED Technologies Corporation.. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 12/6/2018. (nkl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
EMED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,
v.
EMED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
REPRO-MED SYSTEMS, INC. D/B/A RMS
MEDICAL PRODUCTS,

Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 2:15-CV-01167-JRG-RSP

ORDER
The above entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Roy S. Payne pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Now before the Court is the Report &
Recommendation (Dkt. No. 80) by Magistrate Judge Payne, which recommends that Defendant’s
motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 66) be denied and Plaintiff’s motion to amend its infringement
contentions (Dkt. No. 67) be granted. No party has objected to the Report & Recommendation.
Having reviewed Magistrate Judge Payne’s report, Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff’s
response (Dkt. No. 69) and sur-reply (Dkt. No. 73) to Defendant’s motion (Dkt. No. 66), Plaintiff’s
motion, and Defendant’s response (Dkt. No. 70) and sur-reply (Dkt. No. 72) to Plaintiff’s motion
(Dkt. No. 67), the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Payne’s Report & Recommendation is
correct. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 80) is hereby ADOPTED. Accordingly,
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 66) is DENIED and Plaintiff’s motion to amend its
infringement contentions (Dkt. No. 67) is GRANTED.

So Ordered this
Dec 6, 2018

2