May 21, 2015
AEVOE CORP., a California corporation, Plaintiff,
AE TECH CO., LTD., a Taiwan corporation; S&F CORPORATION dba SF PLANET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation, and GREATSHIELD INC., a Minnesota corporation, Defendants.
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
Pending before the Court is the Corrected Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe, (ECF No. 704), which recommends that Plaintiff Aevoe Corp.’s Motion for Treble Damages, for Attorney Fees, and for Costs (ECF No. 679) be GRANTED.
A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1–4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D. Nev. R. IB 3–2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3–2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge's report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003).
Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Corrected Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 704) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Aevoe Corp.’s Motion for Treble Damages, for Attorney Fees, and for Costs (ECF No. 679) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff be awarded treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff be awarded $2, 491, 004.25 in attorney fees.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff be awarded $589, 805.98 in costs.