InnoMemory, LLC v. Xiaomi Corporation

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: September 22, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00667
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

INNOMEMORY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 2:24-CV-00667-RWS-RSP *LEAD CASE* XIAOMI CORPORATION,

Defendant. INNOMEMORY, LLC,

CASE NO. 2:24-CV-00671-RWS-RSP v. *MEMBER CASE*

DATALOGIC S.P.A.,

Defendant.

ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Datalogic S.p.A.’s Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim. No. 2:24-CV-00671-RWS-RSP, Docket No. 16. All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. On September 5, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation, recommending the motion be denied. No. 2:24-CV-00667-RWS-RSP, Docket No. 35 at 4. The Magistrate Judge held that Plaintiff InnoMemory, LLC’s complaint stated a claim for relief against Defendant for patent infringement. Id. at 3–4. The parties received the Report and Recommendation through the Court’s electronic filing system on the same day that the Report and Recommendation issued, but, to date, no objections have been received. Because no objections have been received, Defendant is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (Sth Cir. 2017). Moreover, except upon grounds of plain error, an aggrieved party is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See id.; Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021). The Court has reviewed the motion, the briefing associated with the motion, Plaintiff's first amended complaint, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 1s correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (where no objections to a magistrate judge’s report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (No. 2:24-CV- 00667-RWS-RSP, Docket No. 35) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (No. 2:24-CV-00671-RWS-RSP, Docket No. 16) is DENIED. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 22nd day of September, 2025.

[Dohert LU Llrpectsr C2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2