Legal Opinion

Phenix Longhorn, LLC v. AU Optronics Corporation and Hisense Electronica Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

District Court, E.D. Texas

Decided January 12, 2026No. 2:23-cv-00477Unknown

1Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PHENIX LONGHORN, LLC, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-477-RWS-RSP § AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION and § HISENSE ELECTRONICA MEXICO, § S.A. de C.V., et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER The above-captioned action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Now before the Court is Plaintiff Phenix Longhorn, LLC’s (1) Objections to the Report and Recommendation Granting-in-Part the Hisense ’788 MSJ (Docket No. 253) and Granting-in-Part the AUO…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2011
  2. Commil United States, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2015
  3. Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2021
  4. Georgetown Rail Equipment Co. v. Holland L.P.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2017
  5. Enplas Display Device Corpora v. Seoul Semiconductor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2018

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API