`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`IN RE: TAASERA LICENSING LLC,
`PATENT LITIGATION
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO CIVIL
`ACTION NOS. 2:21-CV-00441, 2:22-CV-
`00063, 2:22-CV-00303, 2:22-CV-00314,
`2:22-CV-00468
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`\
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-MD-03042-JRG
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`The Court issues this Order sua sponte. On December 20, 2022, the Court set the following
`
`motions and all related briefing for an in-person hearing on Thursday, February 2, 2023, at 9:00
`
`a.m. CT in Marshall, Texas (Case No. 2:22-md-3042, Dkt. No. 70):
`
`• Trend Micro Incorporated’s (“Trend Micro”) Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 12(b)(6) (Case No. 2:21-cv-441, Dkt. No. 21);
`
`• Trend Micro’s Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for Trial (Case No.
`
`2:21-cv-441, Dkt. No. 45)
`
`• Trend Micro’s Motion to Dismiss Taasera Licensing LLC’s (“Taasera”) Amended
`
`Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Case No. 2:21-cv-441, Dkt. No. 39);
`
`• Defendant Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.’s (“Check Point”) Motion for Partial
`
`Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Case No. 2:22-cv-63, Dkt. No. 13);
`
`• Check Point’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the Norther District of California (Case No.
`
`2:22-cv-63, Dkt. No. 23);
`
`• Check Point’s Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Case
`
`No. 2:22-cv-63, Dkt. No. 26);
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00468-JRG Document 29 Filed 01/11/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 132
`
`• Taasera’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Declaratory Judgment for Lack of Subject
`
`Matter Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative, to Transfer or Stay Under the First-to-File Rule,
`
`and to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Case No. 2:22-cv-303, Dkt. No. 14);
`
`• Taasera’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative, to
`
`Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Case No. 2:22-md-3042, Dkt. No. 11; Case No. 2:22-
`
`cv-314, Dkt. No. 87); and
`
`• Quest Patent Research Corporation’s (“Quest”) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject
`
`Matter Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative, to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Case No.
`
`2:22-md-3042, Dkt. No. 14; Case No. 2:22-cv-314, Dkt. No. 89).
`
`• Plaintiff Palo Alto Networks, Inc.’s (“Palo Alto”) Motion for Partial Judgment on the
`
`Pleadings of Patent-Ineligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (Case No. 2:22-md-3042, Dkt.
`
`No. 71; Case No. 2:22-cv-314, Dkt. No. 109).
`
`On January 6, 2023, Defendants CrowdStrike, Inc. and CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “CrowdStrike”) filed their Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to State a Claim
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (the “Motion”). (Case No. 2:22-md-3042, Dkt. No. 89; Case
`
`No. 2:22-cv-468, Dkt. No. 26). The Court intends to hear arguments on CrowdStrike’s Motion
`
`and all related briefing at the hearing currently set for Thursday, February 2, 2023, at 9:00 a.m.
`
`CT in Marshall, Texas. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff Taasera Licensing LLC (“Taasera”) shall
`
`file its response to the Motion on or before Monday, January 16, 2023; CrowdStrike shall file
`
`its reply, if any, to the Motion on or before Friday, January 20, 2023; and Taasera shall file its
`
`sur-reply, if any, to the Motion on or before Tuesday, January 24, 2023.
`
`2
`
`.
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 10th day of January, 2023.
`
`
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
