Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 232 Filed 02/03/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 10399
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD., AND
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. NO. 2:21-cv-00040-JRG
`LEAD CONSOLIDATED CASE
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. NO. 2:21-cv-00041-JRG
`
`ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
`
`Before the Court are the following motions: (1) Samsung Defendants’ Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under § 101 (Dkt. 136); (2) Samsung Defendants’ Motion to
`
`Preclude the Opinions and Testimony of Plaintiff’s Technical Expert Benedict Occhiogrosso (Dkt.
`
`137); (3) Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion to Exclude Portions of the Expert Report and Proffered
`
`Testimony of Defendants’ Expert Witness, Dr. Robert Stevenson (Dkt. 138); and (4) Samsung
`
`Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of No Infringement and No Damages (Dkt.
`
`140). Having considered the motions in view of the parties’ agreements as represented to the Court
`
`in the parties’ Joint Stipulation Regarding Outstanding Motions (Dkt. 219) and Joint Stipulation
`
`Regarding Asserted Patents and Prior Art References (Dkt. 222), the Court enters this Agreed
`
`Order.
`
`Samsung Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under § 101 (Dkt. 136)
`
`DENIED-IN-PART as Moot by agreement between the parties:
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD., AND
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. NO. 2:21-cv-00040-JRG
`LEAD CONSOLIDATED CASE
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. NO. 2:21-cv-00041-JRG
`
`ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
`
`Before the Court are the following motions: (1) Samsung Defendants’ Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under § 101 (Dkt. 136); (2) Samsung Defendants’ Motion to
`
`Preclude the Opinions and Testimony of Plaintiff’s Technical Expert Benedict Occhiogrosso (Dkt.
`
`137); (3) Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion to Exclude Portions of the Expert Report and Proffered
`
`Testimony of Defendants’ Expert Witness, Dr. Robert Stevenson (Dkt. 138); and (4) Samsung
`
`Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of No Infringement and No Damages (Dkt.
`
`140). Having considered the motions in view of the parties’ agreements as represented to the Court
`
`in the parties’ Joint Stipulation Regarding Outstanding Motions (Dkt. 219) and Joint Stipulation
`
`Regarding Asserted Patents and Prior Art References (Dkt. 222), the Court enters this Agreed
`
`Order.
`
`Samsung Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under § 101 (Dkt. 136)
`
`DENIED-IN-PART as Moot by agreement between the parties:
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 232 Filed 02/03/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 10400
`
`The following asserted grounds for summary judgment are denied as moot by agreement
`
`between the parties:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Summary judgment that the Asserted Claims of the ’079 Patent are Patent Ineligible
`
`Under § 101 (Dkt. 136 at Section V.A).
`
`Summary judgment that claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26,
`
`27, 28, and 30 of the ’431 Patent are Patent Ineligible Under § 101 (Dkt. 136 at
`
`Section V.C). The agreement between the parties does not render moot Section
`
`V.C as it pertains to claims 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 of the ’431 Patent.
`
`All other relief sought in the motion is still pending before the Court.
`
`Samsung Defendants’ Motion to Preclude the Opinions and Testimony of Plaintiff’s
`Technical Expert Benedict Occhiogrosso (Dkt. 137)
`
`DENIED-IN-PART as Moot by agreement between the parties.
`
`The following asserted grounds for precluding opinions and testimony are denied as moot
`
`by agreement between the parties:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Motion to preclude opinions and testimony that Samsung performed the method
`
`claims in the United States (Dkt. 137 at Section IV.A);
`
`Motion to preclude opinions and testimony regarding Contested Applications (Dkt.
`
`137 at Section IV.B); and
`
`Motion to preclude opinions and testimony regarding new infringement theories
`
`not disclosed in infringement contentions for Claims 19, 27, and 28 of the ’431
`
`Patent, and Claim 30 of the ’079 Patent (Dkt. 137 at Section IV.D 2, 3, 4, 7).
`
`All other relief sought in the motion is still pending before the Court.
`
`Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion to Exclude Portions of the Expert Report and Proffered
`Testimony of Defendants’ Expert Witness, Dr. Robert Stevenson (Dkt. 138)
`
`DENIED-IN-PART as Moot by agreement between the parties.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 232 Filed 02/03/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 10401
`
`The following asserted grounds for precluding opinions and testimony are denied as moot
`
`by agreement between the parties:
`
`1.
`
`Motion to preclude opinions and testimony based on impermissible claim
`
`construction of the term “determining from said sensed light the movement of said
`
`finger” in claim 1 of the ’431 Patent (Dkt. 138 at Section II.A.2);
`
`2.
`
`Motion to preclude opinions and testimony based on impermissible claim
`
`construction of the term “light source” in the ’079 Patent (Dkt. 138 at Section
`
`II.A.4);
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Motion to preclude opinions and testimony for failure to identify applicable
`
`subsection of 35 U.S.C. § 102 (Dkt. 138 at Section II.B);
`
`Motion to preclude opinions and testimony regarding asserted method claims for
`
`failure to apply the correct standard (Dkt. 138 at Section II.C); and
`
`Motion to preclude opinions and testimony regarding anticipation for which Dr.
`
`Stevenson did not opine that each and every element is found within a single prior
`
`art reference (Dkt. 138 at Section II.E).
`
`All other relief sought in the motion is still pending before the Court.
`
`Samsung Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of No Infringement and No
`Damages (Dkt. 140)
`
`DENIED-IN-PART as Moot by agreement between the parties:
`
`The following asserted grounds for summary judgment are denied as moot by agreement
`
`between the parties:
`
`1.
`
`Summary judgment that Samsung does not directly infringe the method claims of
`
`the patents-in-suit (Dkt. 140 at Section V.A);
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 232 Filed 02/03/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 10402
`
`2.
`
`Summary judgment that the Asserted Claims of the ’079 Patent are not infringed
`
`by the Accused Features other than Air Gestures (Dkt. 140 at Section V.B). The
`
`agreement between the parties does not render moot Section V.B as it pertains to
`
`Claim 6 of the ’924 Patent and the Asserted Claims of the ’949 Patent; and
`
`3.
`
`Summary judgment that GTP cannot recover damages relating to 18 accused
`
`products (Dkt. 140 at Section V.E). The agreement between the parties does not
`
`render moot Section V.E as it pertains to summary judgment of no damages in the
`
`event the Court grants either or both of Samsung’s Daubert motions as to Mr.
`
`Kennedy and Dr. Groehn.
`
`All other relief sought in the motion is still pending before the Court.
`
`-4-
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
