Mobility Workx, LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc et al, No. 4:2017cv00872 - Document 141 (E.D. Tex. 2019)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. It is ORDERED that Defendant Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless' Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement (Dkt. # 95 ) is hereby DENIED. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 9/11/2019. (rpc, )

Download PDF

Mobility Workx, LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc et al Doc. 141 United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION Mobility Workx, LLC, Plaintiff, § § § § § § § § v. Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless, Defendant. Civil Action No. 4:17.-CV-00872 Judge Mazzant MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Defendant Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement (Dkt. #95). Having considered the motion and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that Defendant’s motion should be denied. LEGAL STANDARD The purpose of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24 (1986). Summary judgment is proper under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A dispute about a material fact is genuine when “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Substantive law identifies which facts are material. Id. The trial court “must resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the party opposing the motion for summary judgment.” Casey Enters., Inc. v. Am. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 655 F.2d 598, 602 (5th Cir. 1981). Dockets.Justia.com The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of its motion and identifying “depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials” that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1)(A); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If the movant bears the burden of proof on a claim or defense for which it is moving for summary judgment, it must come forward with evidence that establishes “beyond peradventure all of the essential elements of the claim or defense.” Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1986). Where the nonmovant bears the burden of proof, the movant may discharge the burden by showing that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmovant’s case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325; Byers v. Dall. Morning News, Inc., 209 F.3d 419, 424 (5th Cir. 2000). Once the movant has carried its burden, the nonmovant must “respond to the motion for summary judgment by setting forth particular facts indicating there is a genuine issue for trial.” Byers, 209 F.3d at 424 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248–49). A nonmovant must present affirmative evidence to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257. Mere denials of material facts, unsworn allegations, or arguments and assertions in briefs or legal memoranda will not suffice to carry this burden. Rather, the Court requires “significant probative evidence” from the nonmovant to dismiss a request for summary judgment. In re Mun. Bond Reporting Antitrust Litig., 672 F.2d 436, 440 (5th Cir. 1982) (quoting Ferguson v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 584 F.2d 111, 114 (5th Cir. 1978)). The Court must consider all of the evidence but “refrain from making any credibility determinations or weighing the evidence.” Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 2007). 2 ANALYSIS Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s claims because Plaintiff’s infringement theories lack evidentiary basis and are irreconcilable with the Court’s claim construction. After a careful review of the record and the arguments presented, the Court is not convinced that Defendant has met its burden demonstrating that there is no material issue of fact as to Plaintiff’s infringement claims entitling it to judgment as a matter of law. . Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement should be denied. CONCLUSION It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement (Dkt. #95) is hereby DENIED. SIGNED this 11th day of September, 2019. ___________________________________ AMOS L. MAZZANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

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.