James Rodney Gilstrap

“the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. No. 35) and Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 68) are hereby DENIED.”

“Defendants' ... Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 68) are hereby DENIED.”

“the Court OVERRULES Comcast's Objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and orders that the Motion to Dismiss or Transfer (Dkt. No. 18) is DENIED.”

“For the reasons stated herein, G+'s Motion is DENIED.”

“Oura's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 83) be GRANTED as to improper joinder; the Motion is otherwise DENIED.”

“Oura's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 68) be DENIED AS MOOT”

“the Court concludes that Samsung has shown good cause to amend its invalidity contentions. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Samsung's Motion.”

“AKW's Invalidity JMOL Motion (Dkt. No. 280), Infringement JMOL Motion (Dkt. No. 283), and Damages JMOL Motion (Dkt No. 286) are DENIED.”

“Infringement JMOL Motion (Dkt. No. 283) ... are DENIED.”

“Damages JMOL Motion (Dkt No. 286) are DENIED.”

“the Court DENIES the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 37) filed by Defendants Code200, UAB; Oxysales, UAB; Metacluster LT, UAB.”

“Defendants Oxysales, UAB and Metacluster LT, UAB's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 15) and Code200, UAB's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 27), which are DENIED AS MOOT in light of the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 26).”

“the Court determines that the Asserted Claims are eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. 101. Accordingly, Wells Fargo's Motion for Summary Judgment under 35 U.S.C. 101 (Dkt. No. 131) is DENIED.”

“SLC's Motion for Enhanced Damages (Dkt. No. 75) is DENIED”

“SLC's Motion for Ongoing Royalty (Dkt. No. 78) is GRANTED AS MODIFIED”

“SLC's Motion for Prejudgment Interest, Postjudgment Interest, Taxable Costs, and Supplemental Damages (Dkt. No. 77) is GRANTED AS MODIFIED”

“the Court concludes that this case is not exceptional under 285, and KPN is not entitled to its attorneys' fees. It follows, therefore, that KPN's request for expert fees fails as well. ... the Motion (Dkt. No. 276) is DENIED.”

“the Motion (Dkt. No. 297) should be and hereby is DENIED.”

“SOTI's Motion to Recover Attorneys' Fees Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285 (Dkt. No. 39) is GRANTED. The Court awards SOTI attorneys' fees in the total amount of $179,622.00”