The Trustees of Purdue University v. STMicroelectronics International N.V.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION

THE TRUSTEES OF PURDUE UNI- § VERSITY, § § Plaintiff, § § CIVIL NO. W-21-CV-00727-ADA v. § § STMICROELECTRONICS, INC., § STMICROELECTRONICS INTERNA- § TIONAL N.V., §

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland. ECF No. 474. The Report recommends that this Court: • DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Motion to Strike Defendants’ Inequita- ble Conduct Defenses (ECF No. 260). • GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Untimely Invention Date Disclo- sure and Preclude Reliance Thereon (ECF No. 290). • DENY AS MOOT Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Improper “Supple- ment” Allegedly In Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Motion to Strike Defendants’ Inequitable Conduct Defense (ECF No. 328). • GRANT as unopposed Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that Asserted Claims are Not Entitled to Provisional Filing Date (ECF No. 348). • DENY Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of No Pre-Suit Dam- ages (ECF No. 349). • GRANT-IN-PART Defendants’ Motion to Strike Improper Sur-Rebuttal Reports Served At and after the Close of Expert Discovery (ECF No. 350). • GRANT Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of No Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents (ECF No. 351).

• DENY Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment That Claim 10 is Indef- inite (ECF No. 352). • DENY Defendants’ Rule 702 Motion to exclude Portions of the Expert Opinion of Stephen A. Holzen (ECF No. 353). • DENY Defendants’ Motion to Partially Strike the Expert Reports of Dr. James A. Cooper and Dr. Sarit Dhar (ECF No. 354). • GRANT-IN-PART Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Expert Report and Testi- mony of Plaintiff’s Purported Patent Law Expert Teresa Rea (ECF No. 355).

• DENY Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Improper Rebuttal Expert Report and Testimony of Mr. Greg Jackson (ECF No. 356). • DENY Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing (ECF No. 357). • DENY Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Expert Opinions of Dr. Lori Lipkin Regarding Materiality (ECF No. 358). • ADOPT certain constructions for terms raised in Plaintiff’s Motion for Supple- mental Claim Construction (ECF No. 360).

• DENY Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Dean Neikirk (ECF No. 362). • DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that Certain Art was Not Publicly Available (ECF No. 364). • GRANT-IN-PART Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses (ECF No. 366).

• DENY Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Defendants’ Dam- ages Expert Stephen L. Becker (ECF No. 368). • DENY Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and Exclude Unreliable Opinions of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis Concerning Public Availability (ECF No. 369). • DENY Defendants’ Motion to Disqualify Michael Shore if Plaintiff’s Recent Li- cense Agreements are Not Excluded (ECF No. 395). The Report and Recommendation was filed on October 16, 2023. A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations

of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and rec- ommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court need not consider “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)). Plaintiff filed objections on October 18, 2023. ECF No. 476. Defendant filed a series of objections from October 24, 2023 to October 30, 2023. ECF Nos. 480–85. Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s objections on November 1, 2023. ECF No. 489. Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s objections on November 7, 2023. ECF No. 490. Plaintiff replied in support of its objections on

November 8, 2023. ECF No. 492. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the various motions, the responses, the report and recommendation, the objections to the report and recommendation, the response and reply briefs regarding the objections to the report and recommendation, and the applicable laws. After that thorough review, the Court is persuaded that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommen- dation should be adopted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Gilliland, ECF No. 474, is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ objections ace OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff's and Defendants’ motions (ECF Nos. 260, 290, 328, 348-58, 360, 362, 364, 366, 368-69, 395) are resolved in accordance with the Report and Recommendation.

SIGNED this 9th day of November, 2023.

‘

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE