Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Motorola Solutions Inc x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
P.I.: Other | Texas Western
Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Order on Motion to Substitute Attorney
ORDER GRANTING 22 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; GRANTING 23 Motion to Dismiss. Terminated party Richard Bogdanski, Crimson Elizondo, Victor Escalon, Adrian Gonzales, Mandy Gutierrez, Christopher Kindell, Juan Maldonado, Jesus Suarez, Texas Department of Public Safety Does 1-84, Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District, Luke Williams, Pedro Arredondo and Joel Betancourt.; DENIED AS MOOT 26 Motion to Dismiss. ; GRANTING 28 Motion to Dismiss. ; GRANTING 29 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; GRANTING 54 Motion to Substitute Attorney. ; GRANTING 20 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge Alia Moses. (ccr)
830 Patent | Illinois Northern
Sealed Memorandum Opinion And Order
SEALED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons in the accompanying Order, the Court grants in part and denies in part Hytera's motion for summary judgment for partial summary judgment of non-infringement of the '991, '701 and '869 Patents 451 . Hytera's motion for summary judgment is denied as moot as to its infringement claim relating to the H-Series products regarding the '991 Patent in Count V. The Court deems Motorola's Amended Complaint amended to remove: (1) its infringement claim relating to the i-Series products regarding the '991 Patent in Count V, and (2) its direct infringement claim relating to the i-Series and H-Series products regarding the '701 Patent in Count IV. These claims are dismissed with prejudice. Hytera's motion for summary judgment is denied as to Motorola's claims for induced infringement of the '701 and '869 Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Hytera's motion for summary judgment is granted as to Motorola's claims for contributory infringement of the '701 and '869 Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), and as to Motorola's claim for direct infringement of the '869 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). The parties are to file a joint position statement by 10/19/2026, explaining what (if any) redactions are needed in the text of the Order, and why (bearing in mind the strict standard against secret filings, see generally Mitze v. Saul, 968 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 2020)). That position statement may be filed under seal. After considering the proposed redactions, the Court will issue a public version of the Order. Signed by the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama on 9/28/2026. Mailed notice. (jcm) (Entered: 09/28/2026)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.