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

E.D. Tex.

ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-01112 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2014)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:13-cv-01112, Dkt. No. 109
Decided
April 15, 2014
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER; denying Motion to Stay (Dkt. No. 15) in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00061, denying Motion for Consolidation (Dkt. No. 14) in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00061; and carrying 55 Motorola Mobility LLC's Motion to Sever …
Length
13 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 three related motions in two related cases – Google, Inc.’s (“Google”) 2 Motion to Stay (Dkt. No. 15) in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00061 (the “Google Action”); 1 ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.’s (“ContentGuard”) Motion for Consolidation (Dkt. No. 14) in the Google Action; and Motorola Mobi lity LLC’s (“Motorola”) Motion to Sever Plaintiff’s Claims Against Motorola (Dkt. No. 55) in Civil Ac tion No. 2:13-cv-01112 (the “Amazon Action”).