Smartflash LLC et al v. Apple Inc, et al

Filing 480

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 391 Report and Recommendations, and denying Apple's and Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment Regarding Indefiniteness (6:13CV447, 269 ; 6:13CV448, Doc. No. 323). Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 2/13/15. (mjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
SMARTFLASH LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
APPLE INC., et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

§
§
§
§
Plaintiffs,
v.
§
§
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. §
et al.,
§
§
Defendants.
§
§

CASE NO. 6:13cv447-JRG-KNM

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

SMARTFLASH LLC, et al.,

CASE NO. 6:13cv448-JRG-KNM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER
Before the Court are Apple’s and Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment Regarding
Indefiniteness (6:13CV447, Doc. Nos. 269; 6:13CV448, Doc. No. 323) and the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (6:13CV447, Doc. No. 391; 6:13CV448 Doc. No. 437)
recommending that the Motions be denied. Having considered Defendants’ Objections to the
Report and Recommendation Regarding Apple’s and Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment
Regarding Indefiniteness (6:13CV447; Doc. No. 416; 6:13CV448, Doc. No. 449), and having
conducted a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation as to
which objection was made, the Magistrate Judge correctly found that the terms “data carrier,”
“portable data carrier,” and “payment data” are not indefinite as a matter of law. The Court does
hereby adopt the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Apple’s and Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment of
Regarding Indefiniteness (6:13CV447, Doc. Nos. 269; 6:13CV448, Doc. No. 323) are DENIED.

SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 13th day of February, 2015.

____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2