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. ADT LLC, No. 2:22-cv-00412 (E.D. Tex. May 1, 2024)

Granted in Part
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:22-cv-00412, Dkt. No. 167
Decided
May 1, 2024
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 114 SEALED MOTION to Compel Responses to Fractus's Interrogatory No. 10 and Production of Documents filed by Fractus, S.A.. (Motion(s)114 terminated)
Length
11 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 Plaintiff Fractus, S.A.’s (“Fractus”) Motion to Compel Responses to Fractus’s Interrogatory No. 10 and Production of Documents Regarding the Benefits of Cellular Connectivity to ADT and its Customers (the “Motion to Compel”). (Dkt. No. 114.) In the Motion to Compel, Fractus moves to compel ADT LLC (“ADT”) to supplement its response to Fractus’s Interrogatory No. 10 and to compel ADT to produce documents related to the benefits of cellular connectivity in the Accused Products to ADT and i ts customers.