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

E.D. Tex.

CLO Virtual Fashion Inc. v. Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00274 (E.D. Tex. July 6, 2025)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:23-cv-00274, Dkt. No. 290
Decided
July 6, 2025
Judge
Roy S. Payne, M.J.
Document
Memorandum Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM ORDER re 106 OPPOSED SEALED MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE REPORT AND OPINIONS OF RON SCHNELL filed by CLO Virtual Fashion Inc.. (Motion(s)106 terminated)
Length
7 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 Exclude Certain Opinions of Defendant’s Expert Ron Schnell, filed by Plaintiff CLO. Dkt. No. 106. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff CLO asserts that Defendant infringes three of its patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,733,773; 11,410,355; and 11,222,448. Dkt. No.1 at 2. On December 31, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Strike, arguing that the report of Defendant’s software expert, Mr. Ron Schnell, should be excluded in its entirety for a variety of reasons.