Phenix Longhorn, LLC v. AU Optronics Corporation and Hisense Electronica...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PHENIX LONGHORN, LLC, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-477-RWS-RSP § AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION and § HISENSE ELECTRONICA MEXICO, § S.A. de C.V., et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER The above-captioned action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Now before the Court are (1) Defendants AU Optronics Corporation, Hisense Electronica Mexico S.A. de C.V., Hisense USA Corporation, and Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd.’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment of Non- Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,566,788 (“Non-Infringement Motion”) (Docket No. 254) and (2) Plaintiff Phenix Longhorn, LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“PSJ Motion”) (Docket No. 259).

The Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 411) on Defendants’ Noninfringement Motion, recommending denial. See Docket No. 411 at 9. The Magistrate Judge entered a second Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 416) on Plaintiff’s PSJ Motion, also recommending denial. See Docket No. 416 at 5. Neither party has filed objections to those Reports.

Because no objections have been filed, any aggrieved party is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Moreover, except upon grounds of plain error, an aggrieved party is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (Sth Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021).

The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Reports and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Reports of the Magistrate Judge are correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Accordingly, it 1s ORDERED that the Reports of the Magistrate Judge (Docket Nos. 411, 416) are ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Non-Infringement Motion (Docket No. 254) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's PSJ Motion (Docket No. 259) is DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of January, 2026.

[Dohert LU Llpectsr C2.

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 2 of 2