GeoTag Inc v. Starbucks Corp et al, No. 2:10-cv-00572 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 2013)

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.

The Court having considered the Defendants’ Motion to Strike Insufficient Contentions, or in the Alternative, Compel Meaningful Infrin gement Contentions That Comply with P.R. 3-1 (Dkt. No. 495, filed November 19, 2012) finds that the motion should be DENIED. DISCUSSION The Moving Defendants1 argue that GeoTag’s June 27, 2012 infringement contentions do not comply with P. R. 3-1. (Mot. at 20).