Atlas Global Technologies LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
ATLAS GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CASE NO. 2:25-CV-00534-JRG
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) filed by Defendant Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company (“Defendant”). (Dkt. No. 33). In the Motion, Defendant moves to
dismiss Plaintiff Atlas Global Technologies LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) (collectively with Defendant, the
“Parties”) claims of pre-suit indirect and willful infringement under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). (Id. at 1). Defendant also moves to “strike” Plaintiff’s request for pre-suit
damages in its reply. (Dkt. No. 33, at 1). Having considered the Motion, and the related briefing,
and for the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED-AS-
MOOT with respect to Plaintiff’s claims for pre-suit indirect and willful infringement and
DENIED as to Plaintiff’s request for pre-suit damages.
I. ANALYSIS
The Court addresses Defendant’s request to (a) dismiss Plaintiff’s pre-suit infringement
claims and (b) strike Plaintiff’s request for pre-suit damages in turn.
(a) Pre-Suit Indirect and Willful Infringement
Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims of pre-suit indirect and willful infringement.
(Dkt. No. 33, at 4–6). Interestingly and in response, Plaintiff points out that these claims “do not
Case 2:25-cv-00534-JRG Document 45 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
exist.” (Dkt. No. 34, at 5). Indeed, the Parties now agree that pre-suit indirect and willful
infringement are not a part of this case. (See id. (“[Plaintiff] is only alleging post-suit induced and
willful infringement”) (emphasis in original); Dkt. No. 35, at 1). This issue is moot.
The Court also notes that Defendant violated Local Rule CV-7(h) by omitting a certificate
of conference in its Motion. (See Dkt. No. 33). The rule is “meant to be taken seriously” because
it ensures parties meet and confer in advance of motion practice. Entropic Commc’ns, LLC v.
Charter Commc’ns, Inc., 2023 WL 5612443, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2023). Here, had the Parties
discussed the FAC in advance of the filing of the Motion, Defendant would not have sought to
dismiss non-existent claims. This failure to comply with Local Rule CV-7(h) resulted in a waste
of Plaintiff’s time and the Court’s resources. The Court expects the Parties and their counsel to
not fall short in the same way again. If they do, then sanctions may be appropriate.
Accordingly, and in light of these facts, the Court finds that Defendant’s request should be
DENIED AS MOOT.
(b) Pre-suit damages
Defendant also argues for the first time in its reply that the Court should “strike” Plaintiff’s
request for pre-suit damages. (Compare Dkt. No. 35, at 1 with Dkt. No. 33). However, “[t]he
Court does not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.” Core Wireless
Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 2015 WL 5786501, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 30, 2015); see also
Young v. Harrison Cty., Tex., 2024 WL 1149233, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2024).
Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant’s request to strike pre-suit damages, as
presented, should be DENIED.
Case 2:25-cv-00534-JRG Document 45 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Motion should be and hereby DENIED
AS MOOT as to Plaintiff’s non-existent claims of pre-suit indirect and willful infringement. The
Motion is also DENIED as to Plaintiff’s request for pre-suit damages.
.
____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 6th day of March, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-00534-JRG Document 45 Filed 03/06/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>