Plastronics Socket Partners, Ltd. et al v Dong Weon Hwang et al

Filing 317

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 295 Report and Recommendations, 302 ORDER. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 7/3/2019. (nkl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
PLASTRONICS SOCKET PARTNERS,
LTD. ET AL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONG WEON HWANG ET AL,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 2:18-CV-00014-JRG-RSP

ORDER
This case involves patent infringement claims and various breach of contract claims and
counterclaims between Plaintiffs Plastronics Socket Partners, Ltd. (“Plastronics Socket”) and
Plastronics H-Pin, Ltd. (“Plastronics H-Pin”) as well as Defendants Dong Weon Hwang, HiCon
Co., Ltd. (“HiCon Limited”), and HiCon Company. Before the Court are (1) Defendants’
Objection (Dkt. No. 306) to Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 295); and (2) Defendant
Hwang’s Objection (Dkt. No. 303) to Order (Dkt. No. 302). The Court will address each of these
filings below.
I.

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION (DKT. NO. 306) TO REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (DKT. NO. 295)
Defendants filed an Objection (Dkt. No. 306) to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (Dkt. No. 295), which resolved Plaintiffs’ First Motion for Summary Judgment
(Dkt. No. 204). This Objection was solely directed to the recommendation that summary judgment
be granted with respect to the issue of standing. After a review of the record, the Court concludes
that Defendants did not waive any standing argument. However, the Court concludes that the lack

1/2

of standing argument lacks merit as detailed in the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No.
165), which has been adopted by the Court. Consequently, the Court now ADOPTS the Report
and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 295) with the modification provided above.

II.

DEFENDANT HWANG’S OBJECTION (DKT. NO. 303) TO ORDER (DKT.
NO. 302)
Defendant Hwang also filed an Objection (Dkt. No. 303) to the Court’s Order (Dkt. No.

.
302), which addressed Defendant Hwang’s Notice of Dispute Regarding Case Scope After
Dispositive Motion Rulings (Dkt. No. 298). After consideration of the record, including Defendant
Hwang’s notice, the underlying briefing for the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
Regarding Patent Infringement and Breach of Contract (Dkt. Nos. 209, 224, 241, 251), and the
relevant transcripts, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Order. The Court therefore
OVERRULES any objections to that Order.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 3rd day of July, 2019.

____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2