`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§ NO. 6:11cv48 LED-JDL
`§
`
`
`§
` PATENT CASE
`§
`§
`
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC,
`
`vs.
`
`ABB, INC., et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER ADOPTING ORDER OF
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`The above entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate
`
`Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Memorandum Opinion and Order of the
`
`Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 255) (“Opinion”), which contains his construction of disputed terms
`
`in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,103,511 (“the ‘511 patent), 7,697,492 (the “‘492 patent”); 6,914,893 (the
`
`“‘893 patent”) and 6,437,692 (“the ‘692 patent”), has been presented for consideration.
`
`Defendant Coulomb Technologies, Inc. (“Coulomb”) moves for reconsideration of the Court’s
`
`Opinion (Doc. No. 256). Plaintiff Sipco LLC has filed a Response (Doc. No. 259) and Coulomb
`
`has filed a Reply (Doc. No. 260). Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court is of the
`
`opinion that the Magistrate Judge’s constructions of the disputed terms are correct. Therefore,
`
`the Court hereby ADOPTS the Opinion of the United States Magistrate Judge as the opinion of
`
`this Court. All objections are overruled and the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 256) is
`
`DENIED.
`
`__________________________________
`LEONARD DAVIS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23rd day of October, 2012.
`
`
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
