`
`Exhibit C
`
`
`
`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 49-4 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 5
`
`Addendum: Model Order
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No.: ____
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[MODEL] ORDER LIMITING EXCESS
`
`PATENT CLAIMS AND PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 49-4 Filed 05/09/16 Page 3 of 5
`
`The Court ORDERS1 as follows:
`1.
`
`This Order supplements all other discovery rules and orders. It
`
`streamlines the issues in this case to promote a “just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`determination” of this action, as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1.
`
`Phased Limits on Asserted Claims and Prior Art References
`
`2.
`
`Not later than 40 days after the accused infringer is required to
`
`produce documents sufficient
`
`to show
`
`the operation of
`
`the accused
`
`instrumentalities, the patent claimant shall serve a Preliminary Election of Asserted
`
`Claims, which shall assert no more than ten claims from each patent and not more
`
`than a total of 32 claims. Not later than 14 days after service of the Preliminary
`
`Election of Asserted Claims, the patent defendant shall serve a Preliminary
`
`Election of Asserted Prior Art, which shall assert no more than twelve prior art
`
`references against each patent and not more than a total of 40 references.2
`
`
`1 The parties are encouraged to discuss limits lower than those set forth in this Model Order
`based on case-specific factors such as commonality among asserted patents, the number and
`diversity of accused products, the complexity of the technology, the complexity of the patent
`claims, and the complexity and number of other issues in the case that will be presented to the
`judge and/or jury. In general, the more patents that are in the case, the lower the per-patent
`limits should be. The parties shall jointly submit any proposed modifications in their Federal
`Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) Discovery Plan.
`
`2 For purposes of this Order, a prior art instrumentality (such as a device or process) and
`associated references that describe that instrumentality shall count as one reference, as shall the
`closely related work of a single prior artist. In cases involving several patent families or diverse
`technologies, or disparate claims within a patent, the court should consider flexibly whether
`circumstances warrant expanding the limits on prior art.
`
`
`
`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 49-4 Filed 05/09/16 Page 4 of 5
`
`3.
`
`Not later than 28 days after the Court issues its Claim
`
`Construction Order, the patent claimant shall serve a Final Election of Asserted
`
`Claims, which shall identify no more than five asserted claims per patent from
`
`among the ten previously identified claims and no more than a total of 16 claims.
`
`Not later than 14 days after service of a Final Election of Asserted Claims, the
`
`patent defendant shall serve a Final Election of Asserted Prior Art, which shall
`
`identify no more than six asserted prior art references per patent from among the
`
`twelve prior art references previously identified for that particular patent and no
`
`more than a total of 20 references.
`
`4.
`
`If the patent claimant asserts infringement of only one patent,
`
`all per-patent limits in this order are increased by 50%, rounding up.
`
`Modification of this Order
`
`5.
`
`Upon a showing of diligence, and with due consideration for
`
`prejudice, a party may seek to modify this order for good cause shown. Any
`
`request to increase the limits contained in this order must specifically show why
`
`the inclusion of additional asserted claims or prior art references is warranted. See
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1202, 1312–13 (Fed.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 49-4 Filed 05/09/16 Page 5 of 5
`
`Cir. 2011). A failure to seek such a modification will constitute acquiescence to
`
`the limits contained in this Order.3
`
`
`3 This Model Order contemplates that the parties and the Court may further narrow the issues
`during pretrial proceedings in order to present a manageable case at trial.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
