Crystaphase Products, Inc v. Criterion Catalysts & Technologies, LP et al

Filing 48

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 46 Memorandum and Recommendations, 27 MOTION to Dismiss 22 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc. Defendants Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Plaintiffs patent infringement claims (Counts I and II) are DISMISSED without prejudice; and Plaintiffs Lanham Act claim (Count III) shall proceed.(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(dwilkerson, 3)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
CRYSTAPHASE PRODUCTS, INC.
Plaintiff.
VS.
CRITERION CATALYSTS &
TECHNOLOGIES, LP; CRITERION
CATALYST COMPANY; SHELL
GROUP; AND SHELL GLOBAL
SOLUTIONS, INC.
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

September 06, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17–CV–00265

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Crystaphase Products, Inc.’s Objections to
Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“Objections”). On June 26,
2018, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“Motion
to Dismiss”) (Dkt. 27) was referred to Judge Andrew M. Edison pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).

On August 20, 2018, Judge Edison filed a Memorandum and

Recommendation recommending that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Judge Edison recommended that the
patent infringement claims (Counts I and II) be dismissed and the Lanham Act claim
(Count III) survive the Motion to Dismiss.
On September 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed its Objections. In its Objections, Plaintiff
does not contest the substance of Judge Edison’s decision; rather, Plaintiff merely

“objects . . . to the extent that [Judge Edison] recommend[ed] dismissal of Crystaphase’s
patent infringement claims with prejudice.” Dkt. 47 at 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C), this Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions
of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection [has been] made.” After conducting this de novo review, the Court may
“accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3).
The Court has carefully considered the Objections; the Memorandum and
Recommendation; the pleadings and summary judgment record; and the briefing and
arguments of the parties. The Court ACCEPTS Judge Edison’s Memorandum and
Recommendation and ADOPTS it as the opinion of the Court.

It is therefore

ORDERED that:
(1)

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART;

(2)

Plaintiff’s patent infringement claims (Counts I and II) are DISMISSED
without prejudice; and

(3)

Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim (Count III) shall proceed;

It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED at Galveston, Texas, this 6th day of September, 2018.

___________________________________
George C. Hanks Jr.
United States District Judge

2