Reported / Citable
Background
Advanced Memory Technologies, LLC sued SK Hynix Inc. in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas. SK Hynix moved to dismiss and separately moved to transfer the case.
Magistrate Judge Payne recommended granting the dismissal motion in part and denying transfer. Specifically, the recommendation called for dismissal of the pre-suit willfulness claims and indirect-infringement claims concerning the ’888 and ’835 patents, while otherwise allowing the case to proceed. SK Hynix objected; Advanced Memory did not respond to those objections.
The Court’s Holding
District Judge Rodney Gilstrap conducted a de novo review of the motion briefing, the report and recommendation, and SK Hynix’s objections. The court concluded that the objections did not establish error in the magistrate judge’s reasoning.
The court overruled SK Hynix’s objections and adopted the report and recommendation. It granted the motion to dismiss only as to pre-suit willfulness and indirect infringement of the ’888 and ’835 patents, denied the motion in all other respects, and denied the motion to transfer.
Key Takeaways
- The court dismissed the pre-suit willfulness claims.
- The court dismissed indirect-infringement claims involving the ’888 and ’835 patents.
- All other challenged claims survived the dismissal motion, and the case will remain in the Eastern District of Texas.
Why It Matters
The order preserves the bulk of Advanced Memory’s patent case while narrowing the theories available against SK Hynix. It also keeps the litigation in the Eastern District of Texas despite SK Hynix’s transfer request.
Because the court adopted the report and recommendation after de novo review, the operative reasoning for the partial dismissal and venue ruling is contained in that underlying recommendation, not this short order.