Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

E.D. Tex.

Collins et al v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al, No. 2:09-cv-00219 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2011)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:09-cv-00219, Dkt. No. 379
Decided
August 29, 2011
Judge
T. John Ward, J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - the Court DENIES the motion 201 for the reasons discussed herein (see order)
Length
10 pages

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

Pending before the Court is Intervener Suha s Wagal’s (“Dr. Wagal”) Motion to Intervene (Dkt. No. 201). In his motion, Dr. Wagal moves to intervene in this patent infringement lawsuit to establish that he is a co-i nventor of the two asserted pate nts—United States Patent Nos. 5,411,797 (“the ‘797 patent”) and 5,478,650 (“th e ‘660 patent”) (c ollectively the “patents-in-suit”). The Cour t held a hearing on this motion on August 22, 2011.