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

E.D. Tex.

Plasmacam, Inc. v. Cncelectronics, LLC, et al al, No. 4:19-cv-00037 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 9, 2020)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division
Case No.
No. 4:19-cv-00037, Dkt. No. 81
Decided
December 9, 2020
Judge
Amos L. Mazzant, III, J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification (Dkt. 69) is DENIED
Length
6 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.

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Motion to Enforce Settlement (Dkt. #69). Having considered the M otion and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that it should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On December 23, 2019, counsel for Plaintiff PlasmaCAM, Inc . notified the Court via telephone that the parties reached a settlement. That same day, the Court ordered the parties to file all papers necessary for the closing of this case by January 23, 2020 (Dkt. #50).