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

E.D. Tex.

Cyandia, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc. et al, No. 2:24-cv-00096 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2025)

Granted in Part
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:24-cv-00096, Dkt. No. 191
Decided
August 19, 2025
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 86 SEALED MOTION Plaintiff Cyandia, Inc.'s Opposed Motion to Compel Documents and Discovery Responses filed by Cyandia, Inc.. (Motion(s)86 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 Compel Documents and Discovery Responses (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Cyandia, Inc. (“Cyandia”). (Dkt. No. 86.) In the Motion, Cyandia asks the Court to compel Defendants SAP America, Inc. and SAP SE (together, “SAP ”) (collectively with Cyandia, the “Parties”) to produce several categories of documents. (Dkt. No. 86 at 4.) Having considered the Motion and its related briefing, and for the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. I.