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

E.D. Tex.

Polaris Powerled Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al, No. 2:22-cv-00469 (E.D. Tex. July 9, 2024)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:22-cv-00469, Dkt. No. 183
Decided
July 9, 2024
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Motion(s)106 terminated)
Length
8 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 the Motion to Strike Defendants’ Second Supplemental Invalidity Contentions (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 106). In the Motion, Plaintiff moves to strike Defendants’ Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (“Samsung” or “Defendants”) Second Supplemental Invalidity Contentions’ inclusion of PCT International Publication No. WO 2007/125451 (“Groot Hulze ’451”) and U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2007/0262732 (“Shen ’732”) .