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

E.D. Tex.

E2E Processing Inc v. Cabela's Incorporated, No. 2:14-cv-00036 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2016)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:14-cv-00036, Dkt. No. 146
Decided
October 25, 2016
Judge
Roy S. Payne, M.J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Length
10 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 Cabela’s Incorporated’s (“Cabela’s”) Motion for Attorneys’ and Experts’ Fees (Dkt. No. 137, “Cabela’s Fee Motion”), which was responded to by Plaintiff E2E Processing, Inc.’s (“E2E”) in an Opposition (Dkt. No. 141), which was in turn responded to by Cabela’s Reply in Support of Its Motion for Attorneys’ and Experts’ Fees (Dkt. No. 143). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Cabela’s Fee Motion (Dkt. No. 137).