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

E.D. Tex.

VoltStar Technologies Inc v AT&T Inc et al, No. 2:12-cv-00082 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2013)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:12-cv-00082, Dkt. No. 39
Decided
August 22, 2013
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER - the Court DENIES AT&Ts Motion to Stay (No. 2:12-cv-00082, Dkt. No. 29) and Superiors Motion to Stay (No. 2:13-cv-00097, Dkt. No. 22)
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 are Defendant AT&T Mobility, LLC’s (“AT&T”) and Superior Communications, Inc.’s (“Superior”) Motions to Stay Proceedings. (No. 2:12-cv-00082, Dkt. No. 29; No. 2:13-cv-00097, Dkt. No. 22.) Given that the two motions involve common questions of law and fact, the Court deems it appropriate to address both motions jointly. Having considered the parties’ written submissions, the Court DENIES both motions. I.