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

E.D. Tex.

InMotion Imagery Technologies, LLC v. Brain Damage Films et al, No. 2:11-cv-00414 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2012)

Granted in Part
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:11-cv-00414, Dkt. No. 50
Decided
August 10, 2012
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J.
Document
Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER - GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Dkt. No. 8). The Court GRANTS InMotion leave to amend its Complaint within fourteen days of the date of this Order to comply w…
Length
7 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 Defendant Galaxy Internet Group, LLC’s (“Galaxy”) Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Dkt. No. 8). After carefully considering the parties’ written submissions, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART the Motion. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 15, 2011, InMotion Imagery Technologies (“InMotion”) filed this lawsuit accusing thirteen defendants of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,526,219 entitled “Picture -Based Video Indexing System” (“the ‘219 patent”).