ADR International Limited v. Institute for Supply Management Inc.

S.D. Texas

ADR International Limited v. Institute for Supply Management Inc.

DecidedMarch 30, 2023

Docket4:22-cv-01914

StatusUnknown

This text of ADR International Limited v. Institute for Supply Management Inc. (ADR International Limited v. Institute for Supply Management Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

ADR International Limited v. Institute for Supply Management Inc., (S.D. Tex. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT March 30, 2023 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION

ADR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-01914 § INSTITUTE FOR SUPPLY § MANAGEMENT INC., et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants. ECF No. 20. On February 27, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in this case, recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part. Judge Palermo recommended that ISM-Houston be dismissed without prejudice as a Defendant in this case. However, she recommended that the Court deny ISM’s Motion to Dismiss, both with respect to ADR’s copyright-infringement claim and with respect to ADR’s claim based on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA). Defendants filed objections to the portion of the R&R that addressed ADR’s DMCA claim. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the portions of the R&R to which Defendants objected and reviewed the remainder of the R&R for clear error. The Court agrees with the conclusions and the reasoning of the R&R. Specifically, the Court is persuaded by the reasoning of courts that have found that the DMCA may properly apply even when the allegedly infringing work is not identical to the original. See Huffman v. Activision Publ’g, Inc., No. 219CV00050RWSRSP, 2020 WL 8678493, at *12 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 2141352 (E.D. Tex. May 26, 2021); GC2 Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., IGT, Doubledown Interactive LLC, 391 F. Supp. 3d 828, 843-44 (N.D. Ill. 2019). Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s Motion to dismiss. The claims against ISM-Houston are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The claims against ISM remain pending. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed at Houston, Texas on March 30, 2023. LD Keith P. Ellison United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT March 30, 2023 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION

ADR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-01914 § INSTITUTE FOR SUPPLY § MANAGEMENT INC., et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants. ECF No. 20. On February 27, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in this case, recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part. Judge Palermo recommended that ISM-Houston be dismissed without prejudice as a Defendant in this case. However, she recommended that the Court deny ISM’s Motion to Dismiss, both with respect to ADR’s copyright-infringement claim and with respect to ADR’s claim based on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA). Defendants filed objections to the portion of the R&R that addressed ADR’s DMCA claim. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the portions of the R&R to which Defendants objected and reviewed the remainder of the R&R for clear error. The Court agrees with the conclusions and the reasoning of the R&R. Specifically, the Court is persuaded by the reasoning of courts that have found that the DMCA may properly apply even when the allegedly infringing work is not identical to the original. See Huffman v. Activision Publ’g, Inc., No. 219CV00050RWSRSP, 2020 WL 8678493, at *12 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 2141352 (E.D. Tex. May 26, 2021); GC2 Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., IGT, Doubledown Interactive LLC, 391 F. Supp. 3d 828, 843-44 (N.D. Ill. 2019). Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s Motion to dismiss. The claims against ISM-Houston are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The claims against ISM remain pending. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed at Houston, Texas on March 30, 2023. LD Keith P. Ellison United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

ADR International Limited v. Institute for Supply Management Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adr-international-limited-v-institute-for-supply-management-inc-txsd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack