`
`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 ALL
`CASES
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-MD-03042-JRG
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`The Court issues this Order sua sponte. On October 17, 2022, the Court ordered that the
`
`deadline for each Defendant
`
`to file
`
`its responsive pleading under Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 12 would be due within 14 days thereof. Pursuant to Rule 12(a)(4)(A) and (i), the
`
`Court DEFERS a decision on any motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`12(b)(1)–(7) until the time of trial. This deferral applies to such motions filed before or subsequent
`
`to the entry of this Order. For purposes of clarity but not limitation, such deferral includes but is
`
`not limited to the following motions:
`
`• 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 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 for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Case
`
`No. 2:22-cv-63, Dkt. No. 26);
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00415-JRG Document 10 Filed 11/02/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 426
`
`• 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).
`
` With regard to subsequent cases that may become a part of this multidistrict litigation
`
`proceeding (known as tag-along cases), the Court intends to impose the same deferral as to
`
`motions brought therein under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)–(7), and any movant
`
`in any such tag-along case should expect similar treatment from the Court.
`
`
`
`2
`
`So Ordered this
`Nov 1, 2022
`
`