United States Government Publishing Office publisher pbl distributor dst United States United States District Court Northern District of Texas author aut Government Organization text government publication eng USCOURTS Judicial Publications judicial 2026-10-02 Administrative Office of the United States Courts 2026-09-28 monographic deposited born digital 84 digital object pages JU 4.15 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310 P0b002ee1e8c6622b DGPO 2026-10-02 2026-10-02 USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310 machine generated eng fdlp USCOURTS USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310 District txnd 5th Texas 2482 3:25-cv-01310 Dallas civil 840 Trademark 28:1338 Trademark Infringement 3:25-cv-01310 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310 JU 4.15 3:25-cv-01310;25-1310 United States District Court Northern District of Texas 5th Circuit Dallas U.S. Courts author aut Diversitech Corporation Diversitech Corporation Counter Claimant Diversitech Corporation Diversitech Corporation Defendant DuraPlas LP DuraPlas LP Counter Defendant DuraPlas LP DuraPlas LP Plaintiff Partners Group Holding AG Partners Group Holding AG Defendant Perma Funds Management Pty Ltd Perma Funds Management Pty Ltd Defendant Special Master Special Master Special Master USCOURTS USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310 District txnd 5th Texas 2482 3:25-cv-01310 Dallas civil 840 Trademark 28:1338 Trademark Infringement Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Before the Court are Plaintiff's Supplemental Complaint and exhibits (the "Supplemental Complaint") (Doc. No. 23), Defendant DiversiTech Corporation's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 25) (the "Motion"), Defendant DiversiTech Corporation's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Dismiss (the "Memorandum in Support") (Doc. No. 26), DuraPlas, LP's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (the "Opposition") (Doc. No. 38), and Defendant DiversiTech Corporation's Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of its Motion to Dismiss (the "Reply") (Doc. No. 42). The Court has carefully considered the Supplemental Complaint, the Motion, the Memorandum in Support, the Opposition, and the Reply, as well as the applicable law and the relevant portions of the record. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART AND DENIES-IN-PART the Motion. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 2/25/2026) (chmb) 0 2026-02-25 D09002ee1e8c9ed5d https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310-0 txnd-3_25-cv-01310_0.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310-0 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310/pdf/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310-0.pdf USCOURTS 3:25-cv-01310; DuraPlas, LP v. Diversitech Corporation; United States District Court Northern District of Texas Texas USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310-0 0 2026-02-25 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Before the Court are Plaintiff's Supplemental Complaint and exhibits (the "Supplemental Complaint") (Doc. No. 23), Defendant DiversiTech Corporation's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 25) (the "Motion"), Defendant DiversiTech Corporation's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Dismiss (the "Memorandum in Support") (Doc. No. 26), DuraPlas, LP's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (the "Opposition") (Doc. No. 38), and Defendant DiversiTech Corporation's Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of its Motion to Dismiss (the "Reply") (Doc. No. 42). The Court has carefully considered the Supplemental Complaint, the Motion, the Memorandum in Support, the Opposition, and the Reply, as well as the applicable law and the relevant portions of the record. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART AND DENIES-IN-PART the Motion. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 2/25/2026) (chmb) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - The Court hereby DENIES the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. As set forth above, DiversiTech has not met its burden to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and, alternatively, has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction. Also, for the reasons stated above, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART the Motion to Strike to the extent it requests the Court strike the appendix filed with the Reply in Support of Preliminary Injunction and the new arguments in Section I of the Reply in Support of Preliminary Injunction, including arguments that rely upon the appendix filed with the Reply in Support of Preliminary Injunction. The Court hereby DENIES IN PART the Motion to Strike to the extent it requests permission to file a sur-reply brief in opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court also hereby DENIES DiversiTechs request for retroactive leave to file its reply appendix. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 7/20/2026) (chmb) 1 2026-07-20 D09002ee1e8c9ed60 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310-1 txnd-3_25-cv-01310_1.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310-1 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310/pdf/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310-1.pdf USCOURTS 3:25-cv-01310; DuraPlas, LP v. Diversitech Corporation; United States District Court Northern District of Texas Texas USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310-1 1 2026-07-20 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - The Court hereby DENIES the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. As set forth above, DiversiTech has not met its burden to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and, alternatively, has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction. Also, for the reasons stated above, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART the Motion to Strike to the extent it requests the Court strike the appendix filed with the Reply in Support of Preliminary Injunction and the new arguments in Section I of the Reply in Support of Preliminary Injunction, including arguments that rely upon the appendix filed with the Reply in Support of Preliminary Injunction. The Court hereby DENIES IN PART the Motion to Strike to the extent it requests permission to file a sur-reply brief in opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court also hereby DENIES DiversiTechs request for retroactive leave to file its reply appendix. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 7/20/2026) (chmb) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER = Before the Court is Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant DuraPlas, LPs ("DuraPlas") Motion for Protective Order (the "Motion") (Doc. No. 167 (unsealed version) and Doc. No. 169-1 (sealed version)), Appendix in Support of Plaintiff DuraPlas, LPs Motion for Protective Order (Doc. Nos. 168-1168-10 (unsealed exhibits) and Doc. Nos. 169-2169-3 (sealed exhibits)) (the "Appendix"), Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff DiversiTech Corporations ("DiversiTech") Opposition to DuraPlas, LP's Motion for Protective Order (Doc. No. 175) (the "Opposition"), and Plaintiff DuraPlas, LP's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Protective Order (Doc. No. 186) (the "Reply"). The Court has carefully considered the Motion, Appendix, Opposition, and Reply, as well as the applicable law and the relevant portions of the record. The Court finds that DuraPlas has established that the requested relief is warranted. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 7/27/2026) (chmb) 2 2026-07-27 D09002ee1e8c9ed5f https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310-2 txnd-3_25-cv-01310_2.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310-2 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310/pdf/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310-2.pdf USCOURTS 3:25-cv-01310; DuraPlas, LP v. Diversitech Corporation; United States District Court Northern District of Texas Texas USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310-2 2 2026-07-27 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER = Before the Court is Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant DuraPlas, LPs ("DuraPlas") Motion for Protective Order (the "Motion") (Doc. No. 167 (unsealed version) and Doc. No. 169-1 (sealed version)), Appendix in Support of Plaintiff DuraPlas, LPs Motion for Protective Order (Doc. Nos. 168-1168-10 (unsealed exhibits) and Doc. Nos. 169-2169-3 (sealed exhibits)) (the "Appendix"), Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff DiversiTech Corporations ("DiversiTech") Opposition to DuraPlas, LP's Motion for Protective Order (Doc. No. 175) (the "Opposition"), and Plaintiff DuraPlas, LP's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Protective Order (Doc. No. 186) (the "Reply"). The Court has carefully considered the Motion, Appendix, Opposition, and Reply, as well as the applicable law and the relevant portions of the record. The Court finds that DuraPlas has established that the requested relief is warranted. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 7/27/2026) (chmb) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 123) (the "Motion"), DiversiTech Corporation's Opposition to DuraPlas LP's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 153) (the "Opposition"), and Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 165) (the "Reply"). Also before the Court are DiversiTech Corporation's Motion for Leave to File a Surreply in Connection with DuraPlas, LP's Motion for Leave to Amend, and Brief in Support (Doc. No. 170) (the "Motion for Leave"), Plaintiff DuraPlas, LP's Opposition to Defendant DiversiTech Corporations Motion for Leave to File Surreply (Doc. No. 184) (the "Opposition to Motion for Leave"), and DiversiTech Corporations Reply in Further Support of Its Motion for Leave to File a Surreply in Connection with DuraPlas, LPs Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. No. 187) (the "Reply in Support of Motion for Leave"). And finally, also before the Court is DiversiTech's Motion for Leave to File Under Searl the First Amenced Complaint (Doc Nos. 144, 146) (the "Motion to Seal"). DiversiTech's Motion for Leave is GRANTED, and the Court has considered the Sur-Reply in reaching its decision on the Motion. For the reasons stated below, the Court also GRANTS DuraPlas's Motion. Even considering the Sur-Reply, the outcome remains unchanged. And for the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Motion to Seal. Should DiversiTech wish to file a renewed motion to seal, it may do so no later than seven (7) days after the entry of this Order. The Sur-Reply is deemed filed as of the date of DiversiTech's Motion for Leave. The First Amended Complaint along with its exhibits are deemed filed as of the date of DuraPlas's Motion. The deadline for responding to the First Amended Complaint, however, shall be determined by using the date of this Order as the filing date of the First Amended Complaint. No later than seven (7) days after the entry of this Order, DiversiTech MAY FILE a renewed motion to seal consistent with the Order. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 9/28/2026) (chmb) 3 2026-09-28 D09002ee1e8c9ed5e https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310-3 txnd-3_25-cv-01310_3.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310-3 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310/pdf/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310-3.pdf USCOURTS 3:25-cv-01310; DuraPlas, LP v. Diversitech Corporation; United States District Court Northern District of Texas Texas USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-cv-01310-3 3 2026-09-28 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 123) (the "Motion"), DiversiTech Corporation's Opposition to DuraPlas LP's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 153) (the "Opposition"), and Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 165) (the "Reply"). Also before the Court are DiversiTech Corporation's Motion for Leave to File a Surreply in Connection with DuraPlas, LP's Motion for Leave to Amend, and Brief in Support (Doc. No. 170) (the "Motion for Leave"), Plaintiff DuraPlas, LP's Opposition to Defendant DiversiTech Corporations Motion for Leave to File Surreply (Doc. No. 184) (the "Opposition to Motion for Leave"), and DiversiTech Corporations Reply in Further Support of Its Motion for Leave to File a Surreply in Connection with DuraPlas, LPs Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. No. 187) (the "Reply in Support of Motion for Leave"). And finally, also before the Court is DiversiTech's Motion for Leave to File Under Searl the First Amenced Complaint (Doc Nos. 144, 146) (the "Motion to Seal"). DiversiTech's Motion for Leave is GRANTED, and the Court has considered the Sur-Reply in reaching its decision on the Motion. For the reasons stated below, the Court also GRANTS DuraPlas's Motion. Even considering the Sur-Reply, the outcome remains unchanged. And for the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Motion to Seal. Should DiversiTech wish to file a renewed motion to seal, it may do so no later than seven (7) days after the entry of this Order. The Sur-Reply is deemed filed as of the date of DiversiTech's Motion for Leave. The First Amended Complaint along with its exhibits are deemed filed as of the date of DuraPlas's Motion. The deadline for responding to the First Amended Complaint, however, shall be determined by using the date of this Order as the filing date of the First Amended Complaint. No later than seven (7) days after the entry of this Order, DiversiTech MAY FILE a renewed motion to seal consistent with the Order. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 9/28/2026) (chmb)