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. Jan. 14, 2026)

Adopted Report and recommendation (or magistrate's order) adopted
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:23-cv-00477, Dkt. No. 446
Decided
January 14, 2026
Judge
Robert W. Schroeder, III, J.
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations for 411 416
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.

The above-captioned action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Now b efore the Court are (1) Defendants AU Optronics Corporation, Hisense Electronica Mexico S.A. de C.V., Hisense USA Corporation, and Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd.’ s (“Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment of Non- Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,566,788 (“Non -Infringement Motion”) (Docket No. 254) and (2) Plaintiff Phenix Longhorn, LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“PSJ Motion”) (Docket No. 259).