Groove Digital, Inc. v. United Bankshares, Inc.
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 07/23/2018. (walk, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
GROOVE DIGITAL, INC.,
Plaintiff,
V.
Civil Action No. 3:17cv794
UNITED BANKSHARES, INC.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant United Bankshares, Inc.'s ("United
Bankshares") Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff Groove Digital, Inc. ("Groove")
responded, and United Bankshares replied. (ECF Nos. 16,17.) Accordingly, this matter is ripe
for disposition. The Court dispenses with oral argumentbecausethe materials before it
adequately present the facts and legal contentions, and argument would not aid the decisional
process. The Court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331^ and 1338.^ For the
reasons that follow, the Court will deny the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice and order
jurisdictional discovery.^
^"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
^"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any
Act of Congress relating to patents
" 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). Groove alleges one count of
patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
^After briefing onthe Motion to Dismiss completed. Groove filed a Motion for Leave to
File Notice of Supplemental Authority (the "Motion for Leave"). (ECF No. 18.) Groove
attached an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, asserting
that the opinion "is directly related to the Court's determination of Defendant United
Bankshares, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss." (Mem. Supp. Mot. Leave 1, ECF No. 19.) United
Bankshares opposed the Motion for Leave, contending that the proffered supplemental authority
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?