Araujo v. E. Mishan & Sons, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-05785
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Araujo v. E. Mishan, Judge Woods denied dismissal of direct patent-infringement claims but granted dismissal of induced-infringement claims.
William Araujo and the defendants, including E. Mishan & Sons, Inc.; the order leaves the direct patent-infringement claims undismissed and grants dismissal relief to the defendants on the induced-infringement claims.
What happened
In Araujo v. E. Mishan & Sons, Inc., the defendants asked the court to dismiss William Araujo’s patent-infringement claims. A magistrate judge issued a report recommending rulings on the direct- and induced-infringement claims, and no party objected by the deadline.
Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the report for clear error rather than conducting a full fresh review. The opinion states that the court found no clear error and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety.
Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied as to the direct patent-infringement claims and granted as to the induced-infringement claims. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Araujo v. E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-05785
- Gregory Woods
- Sept. 8, 2020
Background
William Araujo sued E. Mishan & Sons, Inc., and other defendants on patent-infringement claims. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
Report and recommendation
On August 7, 2020, Magistrate Judge Netburn issued a report and recommendation concerning the motion. The opinion says the recommendation was to grant the motion as to the direct patent-infringement claims and deny it as to the induced-infringement claim. Objections were due August 21, 2020, but the district court received none.
Court’s review and ruling
Without timely objections, the district court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The court found no clear error and stated that it accepted and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. The order then states that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was DENIED as to the direct patent-infringement claims and GRANTED as to the induced-infringement claims. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket No. 47.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.