🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

Roy Steven Payne

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas magistrate 42 signed orders read

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. AT&T Corp. (consol. Sprint, Verizon)
2:17-cv-00718-RWS-RSP
Daubert motion (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Traxcell's Motion.”

My Health, Inc. v. ALR Technologies, Inc. (consol.)
2:16-cv-00535-RWS-RSP
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss ... are GRANTED. ... ORDERED that My Health's complaints ... are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

PayGeo, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
2:25-cv-00334-RWS-RSP
Judgment on the pleadings (defendant) Denied

“ORDERED that Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket No. 35) is DENIED.”

Phenix Longhorn, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp.
2:23-cv-00477-RWS-RSP
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“ORDERED that the AUO Non-Infringement MSJ (Docket No. 252) is DENIED.”

STA Group LLC v. Motorola Solutions, Inc.
2:23-cv-00030-JRG-RSP · 2024-03-11
Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Granted

“For the reasons above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Motion to Dismiss in this second-filed action (Dkt. No. 52) be GRANTED.”

DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.
2:14-CV-00199-RSP · 2016-10-12
Motion for attorneys fees (defendant) Denied

“Samsung has not shown this case to be exceptional, and therefore Samsung's Motion for Attorneys' Fees under § 285 (Dkt. No. 192) is DENIED.”

Bill of costs (defendant) Granted in part

“Samsung's additional Motion for Entry of Bill of Costs (Dkt. No. 196) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Samsung's unopposed costs are taxable, but Samsung cannot recover any of the costs disputed by the parties.”

GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy
2:19-cv-00070-JRG-RSP · 2020-07-20
Motions to strike (defendant) Denied

“After due consideration, the Court DENIES the Motion.”

Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc.
2:14-cv-912-JRG-RSP · 2016-08-12
Motion to transfer venue (defendant) Denied

“the Court finds that Defendants have failed to carry their burden to show that the Southern District of California is a clearly more convenient venue for this case. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Transfer (Dkt. No. 56) is DENIED.”

SSL Services, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
2:15-cv-00433-JRG-RSP · 2016-02-24
Motion to transfer venue (defendant) Denied

“After considering the evidence and weighing the pertinent factors, the Court finds that transfer is not warranted in this case.”

Motions to compel (defendant) Denied

“For the following reasons, the Court holds SSL's disclosures are sufficient under the Local Rules and denies Cisco's requested relief.”

Ultravision Technologies, LLC v. GoVision, LLC (consol. Prismaflex International France)
2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP · 2020-03-09
Motion to transfer venue (defendant) Denied

“The Court DENIES the Motion to the extent that it seeks to transfer this case to the Eastern District of North Carolina (‘E.D.N.C.’) under §1404.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“The Court also recommends that Defendants' Motion be DENIED with respect to Prismaflex's arguments for dismissal based on a lack of personal jurisdiction under 12(b)(2), improper venue under 12(b)(3), and failure to state a claim under 12(b)(6).”

Motions to strike (defendant) Denied

“The Court also DENIES the Motion to Strike.”

Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C. v. Carnival Corporation & PLC
2:13-cv-1084-JRG-RSP · 2015-03-30
Motion to transfer venue (defendant) Denied

“the Court finds that Princess Cruise has failed to carry its burden of showing that the Central District of California is a clearly more convenient venue for this case. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Princess Cruise's Motion to Transfer to the Central District of California.”

ElectraLED, Inc. v. LMPG Inc.
2:25-cv-00338-JRG-RSP · 2026-03-31
Motion to transfer venue (defendant) Granted

“the Court finds that Defendant's Motion should be, and hereby is, GRANTED. Therefore, it is ORDERED that the above-captioned case is TRANSFERRED to the District of Massachusetts.”

Put Judge Payne's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Payne actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Payne's own signed orders and cites them.