Bobcar Media, LLC v. Deutsche Telekom AG
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:21-cv-05685
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bobcar Media v. Deutsche Telekom, Judge Hellerstein adopted a recommendation, left one patent claim, dismissed the rest, and denied defendants’ motion to strike.
Bobcar Media, LLC’s utility patent infringement claim continues, while all other claims are dismissed. The defendants’ motion to strike was denied, and the parties must proceed with the amended complaint, answer, and initial pretrial conference required by the order.
What happened
Bobcar Media, LLC sued Deutsche Telekom AG and other defendants. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang recommended granting in part and denying defendants’ motion to dismiss, and both sides objected.
Defendants also asked the court to strike a reply that Bobcar Media filed because the applicable rules did not allow that filing without court permission. The court reviewed the reply anyway before ruling.
Judge Hellerstein adopted Magistrate Judge Wang’s recommendation in full and denied the motion to strike. Bobcar Media’s utility patent infringement claim remains, while all other claims are dismissed; Bobcar Media must file an amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Bobcar Media, LLC v. Deutsche Telekom AG · No. 1:21-cv-05685
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Feb. 7, 2024
Background
On March 23, 2023, Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang issued a report and recommendation advising the district court to grant in part and deny defendants’ motion to dismiss. Bobcar Media and the defendants filed objections and responses. Bobcar Media also filed a reply supporting its objections.
Adoption of the Report and Recommendation
The court explained that it reviews properly objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation independently, while general or repetitive objections receive clear-error review. The court stated that both sides’ objections appeared to repeat their earlier arguments. It nevertheless concluded that Magistrate Judge Wang’s recommendation was well-reasoned and supported by the record, even under independent review. The court therefore adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety.
Motion to Strike
Defendants moved to strike Bobcar Media’s reply because the Federal Rules and Local Rules do not provide an opportunity to file a reply concerning objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, and Bobcar Media had not sought permission from the court. The court reviewed the reply and considered all of Bobcar Media’s arguments. It denied defendants’ motion to strike.
Disposition
The court stated that Bobcar Media’s claim for utility patent infringement remains and that all other claims are dismissed. Bobcar Media was directed to file an amended complaint by February 14, 2024. Defendants were directed to answer the operative complaint by February 28, 2024, and the parties were ordered to attend a telephonic initial pretrial conference on March 15, 2024. The clerk was directed to close the specified open motions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.