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

E.D. Tex.

Phenix Longhorn, LLC v. AU Optronics Corporation et al, No. 2:23-cv-00477 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2024)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:23-cv-00477, Dkt. No. 34
Decided
August 12, 2024
Judge
Roy S. Payne, M.J.
Document
Order
Docket Entry
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 12 MOTION to Dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) filed by AU Optronics Corporation. Objections due within 14 days of receipt
Length
4 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 Dismiss Under FRCP 12( b)(6) filed by Defendant AU Optronics Corporation. Dkt. No. 12; Dkt . No. 18 (reply in support). Plaintiff Phenix Longhorn, LLC opposed the Motion and filed a response brief. Dkt. No. 14. For the reasons below, the motion should be DENIED. I. LEGAL STANDARD A party may move to dismiss an action when the complaint fail s “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted . . . .” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).