Falkon Treasures LLC v. Adidas America, Inc.

Filing 37

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 35 Report and Recommendations. Motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corporation (Dkt. No. 15), Adidas America, Inc. (Dkt. No. 20), and Limited Stores, LLC (Dkt. No. 22) are GRANTED, and Falkons Complaints are hereby DISMISSED Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 4/17/2017. (slo, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION FALKON TREASURES LLC, Plaintiff, v. ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., Defendant. § § § § § § § § § Case No. 2:16-CV-00653-JRG-RSP ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Payne on December 26, 2016 (Dkt. No. 35) recommending that motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corporation (Dkt. No. 15), Adidas America, Inc. (Dkt. No. 20), and Limited Stores, LLC (Dkt. No. 22) be granted. Judge Payne found that the patent claims asserted by Plaintiff Falkon Treasures LLC (“Falkon”) fail to recite patentable subject-matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and thus Falkon had failed to state a cognizable claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 35. Having considered the objections to Judge Payne’s Report and Recommendation filed by Falkon and finding them to be without sufficient merit, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. The motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corporation (Dkt. No. 15), Adidas America, Inc. (Dkt. No. 20), and Limited Stores, LLC (Dkt. No. 22) are GRANTED, and Falkon’s Complaints are hereby DISMISSED. A separate Order entering Final Judgment will follow. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 58(a). SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 17th day of April, 2017. ____________________________________ RODNEY GILSTRAP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?