Legal Opinion

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

District Court, E.D. Texas

Decided January 15, 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 are (1) Defendant AUO Corporation’s Objections to Report and Recommendation Regarding AUO’s Motion for Summary Judgment Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) (Docket No. 430); and (2)…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ntp, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
  2. Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen Gmbh & Co. Kg, Plaintiff-Cross v. Biocorp, Inc. And Novamont, S.P.A.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
  3. Bayer Ag and Bayer Corporation v. Housey Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
  4. Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
  5. Yangaroo Inc. v. Destiny Media Technologies Inc.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API