Charge Lion LLC v. Semtech Corporation

Filing 87

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 83 Report and Recommendations, and denying 80 Motion to Dismiss filed by Charge Lion LLC. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 11/27/13. (mjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
CHARGE LION, LLC,
Plaintiff,

v.
SEMTECH CORPORATION
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 6:12-CV-769-LED-JDL

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The above entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 83) has been presented for consideration. The Magistrate Judge
recommends denying Plaintiff Charge Lion, LLC’s (“Charge Lion”) Opposed Motion to Dismiss
Defendant Linear Technology Corporation (“Linear”) (Doc. No. 80).

Charge Lion has filed

objections (Doc. No. 85), arguing that the “Court [] lost its subject matter jurisdiction [because]
any actual controversy has been vacated by Plaintiff Charge Lion’s covenant not to sue for patent
infringement.” Doc. No. 85 at 1.
Charge Lion has apparently overlooked Linear’s counterclaims for declaratory judgment
of noninfringement and invalidity. See Doc. No. 46, Doc. No. 84 at 7 (seeking summary
judgment on its counterclaim for declaratory judgment of noninfringment). Moreover, the mere
fact Linear filed a Motion seeking summary judgment of noninfringement as to all of Charge
Lion’s claims (Doc. No. 84), including “the unspecified acts contained within the ‘by, among
other things’ language in the Amended Complaint,” on the same day Charge Lion filed its

1

Objections (Doc. No. 83) belies Charge Lion’s position that the Court now somehow lacks
subject matter jurisdiction. See Doc. No. 84 at 6.
The Court encourages Charge Lion and Linear to pursue development of settlement
language that will finally resolve this dispute via mediation, however, in the absence of a finding
of fact or law there is nothing for the Court to enforce. Having carefully considered the Parties’
arguments, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge
are correct. Therefore, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge as the findings of this Court.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion to Dismiss be
DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 27th day of November, 2013.

__________________________________
LEONARD DAVIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2