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

E.D. Tex.

Rmail Limited et al v. Right Signature, LLC et al, No. 2:11-cv-00300 (E.D. Tex. July 5, 2012)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:11-cv-00300, Dkt. No. 52
Decided
July 5, 2012
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER - Defendants Motion for a More Definite Statement (Dkt. No. 16) is DENIED
Length
3 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.

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for More Definite Statement (Dkt. No. 16). On June 24. 2011, Plaintiffs sued Defendants alleging patent infri ngement of four United States Patents: 6,182,219 (the “’219 patent”); 6,571,334 (the “’334 patent”) ; 7,707,624 (the “’624 patent”); and 7,966,372 (the “’372 patent”). Defendants argue that allegations of infringement within the Plaintiffs’ Complaint are so vague and ambiguous that a response cannot reasonably be prepared.