Procomm International Pte. Ltd. v. Verizon Communications, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
PROCOMM INTERNATIONAL PTE.
LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-9-RWS-RSP
ORDER
The above-captioned case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff previously filed a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment Regarding Invalidity Defenses (“Validity Motion”) (Docket No. 104), and Defendants
previously filed three motions: a Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Regarding U.S.
Patent No. 7,724,521 Under Section 101 (“Invalidity Motion”) (Docket No. 102), a Motion for
Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,497,813 (“ ’813 Noninfringement
Motion”) (Docket No. 98), and a Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S.
Patent No. 7,724,521 (“ ’521 Noninfringement Motion”) (Docket No. 105).
On February 2, 2026, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation
recommending denial of Defendants’ ’813 and ’521 Noninfringement Motions (“Noninfringement
R&R”). Docket No. 156. Then, on February 5, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and
Recommendation recommending partial grant of Plaintiff’s Validity Motion and denial of
Defendants’ Invalidity Motion (“Validity R&R”). Docket No. 160. The set deadline for objections
to be filed—February 11 at 12:00 p.m.—has passed, and no objections have been filed by the
Case 2:24-cv-00009-RWS-RSP Document 174 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 2 of 3
parties. 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
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. 156, 160) are
ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ ’813 and ’521 Noninfringement Motions (Docket Nos. 98,
105), and Defendants’ Invalidity Motion (Docket No. 102) are DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Validity Motion (Docket No. 104) is GRANTED to the extent
that the uB900 does not qualify as prior art (1) that was “on sale” or in “public use” in the United
States, or (2) for purposes of anticipation, and is otherwise DENIED.
Case 2:24-cv-00009-RWS-RSP Document 174 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 3 of 3
____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 11th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-00009-RWS-RSP Document 174 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>