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

Filing 437

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 389 Report and Recommendations Denying 248 Opposed SEALED MOTION by Defendants and Intervenors for Partial Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of US Patent No. 8,798,575 filed by Nokia Sol utions and Networks US LLC, Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, Denying 252 Opposed MOTION for Summary Judgment of Ineligibility of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,798,575 and 8,531,971 filed by Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC, T-Mobile US, Inc ., Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, T-Mobile USA, Inc., Denying 249 Opposed SEALED MOTION by Defendants and Intervenors NSN for Summary Judgment of Exhaustion of US Patent No. 8,798,575 filed by No kia Solutions and Networks US LLC, Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, Granting 245 SEALED MOTION by Defendants for Partial Summary Judgment of No Pre-Suit Damages filed by Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC, Nokia Solutions and Netw orks Oy, Denying 250 Opposed SEALED MOTION Defendants T-Mobile and Intervenor NSN for Partial Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of US Patents 8,325,675 and 8,908,627 filed by Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC, Nokia Solutions an d Networks Oy, Denying 253 SEALED PATENT MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,325,675 filed by Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC, T-Mobile US, Inc., Ericsson Inc., Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, T-Mobile USA, Inc..The parties objections to the Report and Recommendation, Dkt. Nos. 405, 429, 430, 431, are OVERRULED. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 11/7/2017. (ch, )

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-00055-JRG-RSP

ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Payne, which
provides recommendations on the parties’ pending summary judgment motions. Dkt. No. 389.
Having reviewed the parties’ objections, and having considered the Report and Recommendation
de novo, the Court finds no reason to reject or modify the recommended dispositions. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Accordingly,
It is ORDERED:
(1) The parties’ objections to the Report and Recommendation, Dkt. Nos. 405, 429, 430, 431,
are OVERRULED.
(2) The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 389, is ADOPTED.
(3) T-Mobile’s motion for summary judgment that Huawei is not entitled to presuit damages,
Dkt. 245, is GRANTED.
(4) T-Mobile and Intervenors’ motion for partial summary judgment of noninfringement with
respect to the ’575 patent, Dkt. No. 248, is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 56(g), however, the
CRF does not send “address information” of the first accused charging system to the TPF
simply by providing a “default” indication, which tells the TPF to use the first charging
system, the address of which is already preprogrammed into the TPF.
1

(5) T-Mobile and Nokia’s motion for summary judgment that Huawei’s rights under the ’575
patent are exhausted, Dkt. No. 249, is DENIED.
(6) T-Mobile and Nokia’s motion for partial summary judgment of noninfringement of the
’675 and ’627 patents, Dkt. No. 250, is DENIED.
(7) T-Mobile and Intervenors’ motion for summary judgment that claims of the ’575 and ’971

.
patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Dkt. No. 252, is DENIED.
(8) T-Mobile and Intervenors’ motion for summary judgment that claim 1 of the ’675 patent
is invalid for lack of written description, Dkt. No. 253, is DENIED. However, Huawei is
precluded from presenting any evidence or argument that the boilerplate language in the
’675 patent at column 17, lines 29-35, is sufficient to provide written description of intraRAN handovers.

SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 7th day of November, 2017.

____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2