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

E.D. Tex.

Fractus, S.A. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00135 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2019)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:18-cv-00135, Dkt. No. 157
Decided
February 6, 2019
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J.
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 120 Motion for Leave to Supplement Defendants Invalidity Contentions
Length
2 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 Intervenor-Defendant CellMax Technologies AB’s (“CellMax”) Unopposed Motion for Leave to Supplement Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions (the “Motion). (Dkt. No. 120.) On January 17, 2019, the Co urt held a hearing on the above -pending motion. At that hearing, the Parties represented to the Court on the record that this proposed additional prior art reference will not be used to present a new invalidity theory that differs from that of the named Defendant cellular carriers.