top of page

Denied - Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings of

Patent-Ineligibility under 35 USC 101

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER; Motions terminated: (109 in 2:22-cv-00314-JRG) MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings of Patent-Ineligibility under 35 USC 101 filed by Palo Alto Networks, Inc.,


(71 in 2:22-md-03042-JRG) MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings of Patent-Ineligibility Under 35 USC 101 filed by Palo Alto Networks Inc, (87 in 2:22-cv-00314-JRG) SEALED MOTION filed by Taasera Licensing LLC, (11 in 2:22-md-03042-JRG) SEALED MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative, to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Taasera Licensing LLC.. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 03/15/2023. (klc, )

Case Name:

Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Taasera Licensing LLC et al

Case Number:

Filer:

Document Number:



Docket Text: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER; Motions terminated: (109 in 2:22-cv-00314-JRG) MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings of Patent-Ineligibility under 35 USC 101 filed by Palo Alto Networks, Inc., (71 in 2:22-md-03042-JRG) MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings of Patent-Ineligibility Under 35 USC 101 filed by Palo Alto Networks Inc, (87 in 2:22-cv-00314-JRG) SEALED MOTION filed by Taasera Licensing LLC, (11 in 2:22-md-03042-JRG) SEALED MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative, to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Taasera Licensing LLC.. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 03/15/2023. (klc, )



Denied - Motion to Dismiss



MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Taasera Licensing LLC’s Amended Complaint

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (the “Motion”) (2:21-cv-00441-JRG, Dkt. No. 39) filed by

Defendant Trend Micro Incorporated (“Trend Micro Japan”). On February 21, 2023, the Court held a hearing regarding the Motion. (Dkt. No. 79). Having considered the Motion, the subsequent briefing, the oral arguments, and for the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED.



Stay up to day with IP news, announcements and more!

Never miss an update

bottom of page