Phenix Longhorn, LLC v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
PHENIX LONGHORN, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION and
HISENSE ELECTRONICA MEXICO,
S.A. de C.V., et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-477-RWS-RSP
ORDER
The above-captioned action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Now before the Court are (1) Defendants AU Optronics
Corporation, Hisense Electronica Mexico S.A. de C.V., Hisense USA Corporation, and Hisense
Visual 	Technology 	Co., 	Ltd.’s 	(“Defendants”) 	Motion 	for 	Summary 	Judgment 	of 	Non-
Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,566,788 (“Non-Infringement Motion”) (Docket No. 254) and
(2) Plaintiff Phenix Longhorn, LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“PSJ Motion”)
(Docket No. 259).
The Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 411) on
Defendants’ Noninfringement Motion, recommending denial. See Docket No. 411 at 9. The
Magistrate Judge entered a second Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 416) on Plaintiff’s
PSJ Motion, also recommending denial. See Docket No. 416 at 5. Neither party has filed objections
to those Reports.
Because no objections have been filed, any aggrieved party is barred from de novo review
by 	the 	District 	Judge 	of 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	proposed 	findings, 	conclusions, 	and
Case 2:23-cv-00477-RWS-RSP Document 446 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 2 of 2
recommendations. Moreover, except upon grounds of plain error, an aggrieved party is barred from
appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted
by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017);
Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex.
July 31, 2021).
The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Reports and Recommendations
of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Reports of the
Magistrate Judge are correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the
standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Accordingly,
it is
ORDERED that the Reports of the Magistrate Judge (Docket Nos. 411, 416) are
ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ Non-Infringement Motion (Docket No. 254) is DENIED. It
is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s PSJ Motion (Docket No. 259) is DENIED.
.
____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of January, 2026.
Case 2:23-cv-00477-RWS-RSP Document 446 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>