Maxell, Ltd. v. CORETRONIC CORP.

Opinion

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

MAXELL, LTD., § §

§ Plaintiff, §

§ v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-88-RWS-JBB

§ CORETRONIC CORP. and OPTOMA § CORP., § § Defendants. §

ORDER Before the Court is Defendants Coretronic Corp. and Optoma Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2), 12(b)(6), and 12(b)(7). Docket No. 20. Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd. filed this action against Defendants alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,159,988, 7,850,313, 8,593,580, 9,322,530, 9,547,226, 9,565,388, and 9,900,569. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. On May 16, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report, recommending the denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Docket No. 96 at 37. To date, no objections have been filed. Because no objections have been received, Plaintiff is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017); 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 pleadings in this case 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 is not clearly erroneous, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law. 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 (Docket No. 96) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Under FED. R. □□□□ P. 12(b)(2), 12(b)(6), and 12(b)(7) (Docket No. 20) is DENIED. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of September, 2025.

[Dohert LU Llrpectsr G2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2