Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al

Filing 433

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 371 Sealed Motion filed by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd, 413 Report and Recommendations, Huaweis objections are OVERRULED. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 9/28/2017. (nkl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD, § § § § § § v. T-MOBILE US, INC., T-MOBILE U.S.A., INC., Case No. 2:16-CV-00052-JRG-RSP Case No. 2:16-CV-00055-JRG-RSP Case No. 2:16-CV-00056-JRG-RSP Case No. 2:16-CV-00057-JRG-RSP ORDER Huawei objects to Judge Payne’s recommendation that Huawei’s motion to dismiss TMobile’s counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction be denied. Having reviewed the objections, and having considered the Report and Recommendation de novo, the Court finds no reason to reject or modify the recommended disposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Accordingly, It is ORDERED: (1) Huawei’s objections are OVERRULED. (2) The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (3) Huawei’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED.1 So Ordered this Sep 28, 2017 1 Dkt. 371 in Case No. 2:16-cv-00052; Dkt. 329 in Case No. 2:16-cv-00055; Dkt. 314 in Case No. 2:16-cv-00056; Dkt. 312 in Case No. 2:16-cv-00057.

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?