`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00311-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. 208
`
`Defendant Supercell Oy previously filed a Motion to Strike Portions of GREE, Inc.’s
`
`Technical Expert Dr. Robert Akl Regarding Previously Undisclosed Infringement Opinions.
`
`(Dkt. No. 124.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Memorandum Order (Dkt. No. 191),
`
`denying Supercell’s motion. Supercell has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 208), with Plaintiff
`
`GREE, Inc. filing a Response (Dkt. No. 221).
`
`After reviewing the briefing on the motion, the 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.
`
`Consequently, the Court OVERRULES Supercell’s Objections (Dkt. No. 208) and
`
`ADOPTS Judge Payne’s Memorandum Order (Dkt. No. 191).
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1027
`Page 1
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00311-JRG-RSP Document 246 Filed 04/29/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 8853
`
`II.
`
`OBJECTIONS AT DKT. NO. 211
`
`Supercell previously filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of No Infringement of
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 9,079,107 and 9,561,439. (Dkt. No. 125.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered
`
`a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 199), recommending denial of the motion. Supercell
`
`has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 211), with GREE filing a Response (Dkt. No. 223.)
`
`After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the motion, the Report and
`
`Recommendation, and the briefing on Supercell’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 and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and orders that the Motion
`
`for Partial Summary Judgment of No Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,079,107 and 9,561,439
`
`(Dkt. No. 125) is DENIED.
`
`III. OBJECTIONS AT DKT. NO. 235
`
`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. 126.) Magistrate
`
`Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 230), recommending grant-in-
`
`part of Supercell’s motion. Supercell has now filed Objections. (Dkt. No. 235.)
`
`After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the motion, the Report and
`
`Recommendation, and the briefing on Supercell’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 and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and orders that the Motion
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1027
`Page 2
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00311-JRG-RSP Document 246 Filed 04/29/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 8854
`
`for Summary Judgment of Invalidity for Failure to Claim Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 101 (Dkt. No. 126) is GRANTED-IN-PART.
`
`IV. OBJECTIONS AT DKT. NO. 240
`
`Supercell previously filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Invalidity Contentions and
`
`Expert Reports. (Dkt. No. 168.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Memorandum Order (Dkt.
`
`No. 238), granting Supercell’s motion. GREE has now filed Objections. (Dkt. No. 240.)
`
`After reviewing the briefing on the motion, Judge Payne’s Memorandum Order, and the
`
`briefing on GREE’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. 240) and
`
`ADOPTS Judge Payne’s Memorandum Order (Dkt. No. 238).
`
`V.
`
`OBJECTIONS AT DKT. NO. 224
`
`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. 224),
`
`with Supercell filing a Response (Dkt. No. 228). Judge Payne also has now reconsidered
`
`the preadmission of DX-0130 and confirmed that 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
`
`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.
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1027
`Page 3
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00311-JRG-RSP Document 246 Filed 04/29/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 8855
`
`Consequently, the Court OVERRULES GREE’s Objections (Dkt. No. 224).
`
`.
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 29th day of April, 2021.
`
`