`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00310-JRG-RSP
`
`§§§§§§§§§
`
`ORDER
`
`GREE, INC.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`
` Defendant.
`
`Currently before the Court are Objections filed by the parties to the following orders and
`
`reports of the Magistrate Judge:
`
`I.
`
`OBJECTIONS AT DKT. NO. 187
`
`Defendant Supercell Oy previously filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff GREE,
`
`Inc.’s Technical Expert, Dr. Robert Akl, for Improper Claim Construction. (Dkt. No. 115.)
`
`Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Memorandum Order denying Supercell’s motion. (Dkt. No.
`
`179.) Supercell has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 187), with Plaintiff GREE, Inc. filing a
`
`Response (Dkt. No. 200).
`
`After reviewing the briefing on the motion, and the briefing on Supercell’s Objections, the
`
`Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Memorandum Order and concludes that the
`
`Objections fail to show that the Memorandum Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
`
`Consequently, the Court OVERRULES Supercell’s Objections (Dkt. No. 187) and
`
`ADOPTS Judge Payne’s Memorandum Order (Dkt. No. 179).
`
`1
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1044
`Page 1
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00310-JRG-RSP Document 263 Filed 04/29/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 8851
`
`II.
`
`OBJECTIONS AT DKT. NOS. 191 AND 192
`
`Supercell previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of No Infringement of U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 10,076,708 and 10,413,832 (Dkt. No. 120). Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report
`
`and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 183), recommending denial of Supercell’s motion. Supercell has
`
`now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 192), with GREE filing a Response (Dkt. No. 209). GREE,
`
`Inc. has also filed Objections (Dkt. No. 191), with Supercell filing a Response (Dkt. No. 208).
`
`After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the motion, the Report and
`
`Recommendation, and the briefing on both Supercell’s and GREE’s Objections, the Court agrees
`
`with the reasoning provided within the Report and Recommendation and concludes that the
`
`Objections fail to show that the Report and Recommendation was erroneous. Consequently,
`
`the Court OVERRULES Supercell’s Objections, OVERRULES GREE’s Objections, ADOPTS
`
`the Report and Recommendation and orders that the Motion for Summary Judgment of
`
`No Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,076,708 and 10,413,832 (Dkt. No. 120) is DENIED.
`
`III. OBJECTIONS AT DKT. NO. 231
`
`Supercell previously filed a Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff GREE, Inc.’s Technical
`
`Expert Dr. Robert Akl Regarding Previously Undisclosed Infringement Opinions (Dkt. No. 116).
`
`Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Memorandum Order (Dkt. No. 211), denying Supercel l’s
`
`motion. Supercell has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 231), with GREE filing a Response (Dkt.
`
`No. 240).
`
`After reviewing the briefing on the motion, Judge Payne’s Memorandum Order, and the
`
`briefing on Supercell’s Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the
`
`Memorandum Order and concludes that the Objections fail to show that the Memorandum Order
`
`was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
`
`2
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1044
`Page 2
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00310-JRG-RSP Document 263 Filed 04/29/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 8852
`
`Consequently, the Court OVERRULES Supercell’s Objections (Dkt. No. 231) and
`
`ADOPTS Judge Payne’s Memorandum Order (Dkt. No. 211).
`
`IV. OBJECTIONS AT DKT. NO. 250
`
`Supercell previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity for Failure to
`
`Claim Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (Dkt. No. 119.) Magistrate
`
`Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 243), recommending grant-in-
`
`part of Supercell’s motion. Supercell has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 250).
`
`After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the motion, the Report and
`
`Recommendation, and the briefing on GREE’s Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning
`
`provided within the Report and Recommendation and concludes that the Objections fail to show
`
`that the Report and Recommendation was erroneous. Consequently, the Court OVERRULES
`
`GREE’s Objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and orders that the Motion
`
`for Summary Judgment of Invalidity for Failure to Claim Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 101 (Dkt. No. 119) is GRANTED-IN-PART.
`
`V.
`
`OBJECTIONS AT DKT. NO. 234
`
`On March 10, 2021, Magistrate Judge Payne overruled GREE’s objection to Supercell’s
`
`trial exhibit DX-0130, and preadmitted the exhibit. On April 23, 2021, GREE requested
`
`reconsideration of the preadmission of DX-0130. GREE has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 234),
`
`with Supercell filing a Response (Dkt. No. 241). Judge Payne also has now reconsidered the
`
`preadmission of DX-0130 and ordered the preadmission proper (Case No. 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-
`
`RSP, Dkt. No. 269 at 11–13).
`
`After reviewing the briefing on GREE’s Objections, the Transcript of Proceedings held on
`
`March 10, 2021 (Case No. 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP, Dkt. No. 251), and Judge Payne’s Order, the
`
`3
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1044
`Page 3
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00310-JRG-RSP Document 263 Filed 04/29/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 8853
`
`Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Order and concludes that the Objections fail
`
`to show that the Memorandum Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
`
`Consequently, the Court OVERRULES GREE’s Objections (Dkt. No. 230.)
`
`4
`
`.
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 29th day of April, 2021.
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1044
`Page 4
`
`