Gravel Rating Systems LLC v. McAfee, LLC, No. 4:2021cv00259 - Document 36 (E.D. Tex. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 23 Opposed MOTION to Strike the Expert Declaration of Hernandez as Extraneous Material Outside the Proper Scope of a Rule 12(B)(6) Motion filed by McAfee, LLC. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 11/29/2021. (daj, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gravel Rating Systems LLC v. McAfee, LLC Doc. 36 United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION GRAVEL RATING SYSTEMS, LLC v. CIVIL ACTION No. 4:21-cv-259-ALM McAFEE, LLC. GRAVEL RATING SYSTEMS, LLC v. CIVIL ACTION No. 4:21-cv-329 ALM BROADCOM, INC. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Defendant McAfee, LLC’s Motion to Strike the Expert Declaration of Hernandez as Extraneous Material Outside the Proper Scope of a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion (Dkt. #23). After reviewing the relevant pleadings, the Court finds Defendant’s motion should be DENIED as moot. Plaintiff Gravel Rating Systems LLC (“Gravel”) asserts infringement of claims 4-5 and 8-9 of its U.S. Patent No. 7,590,636 (the “’636 patent”) against Defendant McAfee, LLC (“McAfee”). On June 23, 2021, Defendant McAfee, LLC (“McAfee”) filed its Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support (Dkt. #11). On July 9, 2021, Defendant Broadcom, Inc. (“Broadcom”) filed its Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim which adopted McAfee’s Motion to Dismiss and requested to join McAfee’s motion (Dkt. # 10). On August 6, 2021, Gravel filed a combined response to Defendants’ motions (Dkt. #16). Attached to Gravel’s response is the Declaration of Dr. Edwin Hernandez, in which Dr. Hernandez renders numerous opinions regarding the validity of the ’636 Patent (the “Declaration”) (Dkt. #16 Exhibit 2). Dockets.Justia.com McAfee moved to strike the Declaration as extraneous material outside the proper scope of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion on August 30, 2021 (Dkt. #23). On November 15, 2021, this Court denied McAfee and Broadcom’s motions to dismiss (Dkt. #35). In making its ruling, the Court did not consider the Declaration (Dkt. #35 at p. 3 n.1). Thus, McAfee’s arguments for the Court to strike the Declaration are now moot. . It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant McAfee, LLC’s Motion to Strike the Expert Declaration of Hernandez as Extraneous Material Outside the Proper Scope of a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion (Dkt. #23) is hereby DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 29th day of November, 2021. ___________________________________ AMOS L. MAZZANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
