Stragent, LLC v. BMW of North America, LLC et al

Filing 121

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 111 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Stragent, LLC, 109 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, BMW of North America, LLC signed by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 07/23/2019. (ksd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
STRAGENT LLC,
v.
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, et
al.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 6:16-CV-446-RWS-KNM
LEAD CASE

______________________________________________________________________________
STRAGENT LLC,
v.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, et al.

STRAGENT LLC,
v.
VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA,
LLC

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 6:16-CV-447-RWS-KNM

CASE NO. 6:16-CV-448-RWS-KNM

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket
No. 120)

containing

her

findings,

conclusions

and

recommendations

regarding

the

BMW Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity and Noninfringement
(Docket No. 109) and Plaintiff Stragent LLC’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
(Docket No. 111). The Report, filed on June 10, 2019, recommends that Plaintiff’s claims

against the BMW Defendants1 be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of
The Report further recommends finding that the BMW

Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

Defendants are the prevailing parties
Report

and are

entitled to an award of costs. The

additionally recommends denying the BMW Defendants’ request to bifurcate the

quantum with respect to moving
recommends

denying

the

for

attorneys’

fees.

Lastly,

the

Report

BMW Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of

Invalidity and Noninfringement (Docket No. 109) as moot.
The Report recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
(Docket No. 111) be granted-in-part and that Plaintiff’s claims against Volvo Cars of North
America, LLC (“Volvo”) and the Mercedes-Benz Defendants2 be dismissed with prejudice
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The
Report also recommends finding that Volvo and the Mercedes-Benz Defendants are
prevailing parties and are entitled to an award of costs.
No written objections have been filed. Having reviewed the Report and relevant
documents, the Court hereby ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge
as those of the Court. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against the BMW Defendants are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

The BMW

Defendants are the prevailing parties and are entitled to an award of costs.

The BMW

Defendants’ request to bifurcate the quantum with respect to moving for attorneys’ fees is
DENIED. It is further

1

The “BMW Defendants” include BMW of North America, LLC and BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC.
The “Mercedes-Benz Defendants” include Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc.,
and Daimler North America Corporation.

2

2

.

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Docket No. 111)

is GRANTED-IN-PART, and Plaintiff’s claims against Volvo and the Mercedes-Benz
Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Volvo and the Mercedes-Benz Defendants are
the prevailing parties and are entitled to an award of costs. It is further
ORDERED that the BMW Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity
and Noninfringement (Docket No. 109) is DENIED AS MOOT.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23rd day of July, 2019.

____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3