throbber
Case 2:19-cv-00311-JRG-RSP Document 246 Filed 04/29/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 8852
`
`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.
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket