Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 454 Filed 04/03/23 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: 48596
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 12-1601-JLH
`
`Original Version Filed: March 27, 2023
`
`
`
`Public Version Filed: April 3, 2023
`
`C.A. No. 13-919-JLH
`
`
`
`))))))))))
`
`))))))))))
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC (f/k/a
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.),
`
`Defendant.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`[PROPOSED] JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, District of Delaware Local Rule 16.3, and
`
`the Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Schedule for Pretrial Exchanges, entered February 13,
`
`2023 (D.I. 4371), Plaintiff Arendi S.à.r.l. (“Arendi”) and Defendants Motorola Mobility LLC
`
`(“Motorola”) and Google LLC (“Google”), respectfully submit this Proposed Joint Pretrial Order.
`
`Where the parties have competing proposals or statements, such language is preceded by bolded
`
`text. The Pretrial Conference is scheduled for April 6, 2023, at 3 pm. A five-day jury trial is
`
`scheduled to begin on April 24, 2023.
`
`1 Unless specifically noted, all citations reference docket entries in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC.
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 454 Filed 04/03/23 Page 2 of 23 PageID #: 48597
`
`
`
`I.
`
` 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE ................................................................................................. 1
`A.
`Background ............................................................................................................ 1
`B.
`Parties ..................................................................................................................... 1
`C.
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................ 2
`D.
`Nature of the Action ............................................................................................... 4
`JURISDICTION ................................................................................................................ 6
`II.
`FACTS ............................................................................................................................... 6
`III.
`A.
`Uncontested Facts .................................................................................................. 6
`B.
`Contested Facts ...................................................................................................... 6
`ISSUES OF LAW .............................................................................................................. 7
`IV.
`V. WITNESSES...................................................................................................................... 7
`A. Witnesses Expected to be Called at Trial .............................................................. 7
`B.
`Deposition Designations ........................................................................................ 8
`C.
`Objections to Expert Testimony .......................................................................... 10
`VI.
`EXHIBITS ....................................................................................................................... 11
`A.
`Trial Exhibits ....................................................................................................... 11
`B.
`Demonstrative Exhibits ........................................................................................ 14
`INTENDED PROOFS ..................................................................................................... 16
`VII.
`VIII. MOTIONS IN LIMINE ................................................................................................... 16
`DOCUMENTS CONTAINING JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS .......................................... 16
`IX.
`AMENDMENTS TO THE PLEADINGS ....................................................................... 17
`X.
`XI.
`NUMBER OF JURORS .................................................................................................. 17
`XII. LENGTH OF TRIAL ....................................................................................................... 17
`XIII. MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ............................................ 17
`XIV. HANDLING OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AT TRIAL ................................ 18
`XV. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ................................................................................ 19
`XVI. RELIEF SOUGHT ........................................................................................................... 20
`XVII. SETTLEMENT ................................................................................................................ 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 454 Filed 04/03/23 Page 3 of 23 PageID #: 48598
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`A.
`
`Background
`
`1.
`
`Arendi filed these actions for patent infringement against Motorola and Google in
`
`2012 and 2013, respectively. Arendi claims that each Defendant has literally infringed claims 1, 8,
`
`23, and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843 (the “’843 Patent”) through the sale, offering for sale,
`
`importation, manufacture, and use of certain mobile devices. Arendi further claims that Google has
`
`also literally infringed those claims through the sale, offering for sale, importation, manufacture,
`
`and use of certain after-market “apps” (for example, Gmail, Chrome, Docs, Messages) installed on
`
`mobile devices by users. Mr. Atle Hedløy is the named inventor of the ’843 Patent, titled “Method,
`
`system and computer readable medium for addressing handling from a computer program.” In
`
`addition to asserting claims of direct infringement, [Arendi: Arendi alleges that both Defendants
`
`are liable for induced infringement and contributory infringement with respect to post-suit
`
`infringement.] [Defendants: Any inducement and contributory allegations are the subject of a
`
`motion in limine presently before the Court.] Arendi also alleges that each Defendant’s post-
`
`complaint infringement was willful.
`
`2.
`
`The operative pleadings in the Google case are Arendi’s Amended Complaint (D.I.
`
`97) and Google’s Answer to Amended Complaint (D.I. 99). The operative pleadings in the Motorola
`
`case are Arendi’s First Amended Complaint (C.A. No. 12-cv-1601-JLH, D.I. 34) and Motorola’s
`
`Answer to Amended Complaint (C.A. No. 12-cv-1601-JLH, D.I. 37).
`
`
`
`B.
`
`3.
`
`Parties
`
`Plaintiff Arendi is the assignee of the ’843 Patent. Arendi’s CEO is Atle Hedløy,
`
`the named inventor of the ’843 Patent. Arendi is a société à responsabilité limitée (abbreviated
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 454 Filed 04/03/23 Page 4 of 23 PageID #: 48599
`
`SARL, S.A.R.L., or S.à.r.l.) organized under Luxembourg law with its principal place of business
`
`in Luxembourg.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Google is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware, with a principal place of business in Mountain View, California.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Motorola is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware, with a principal place of business in Libertyville, Illinois.
`
`[Defendants: Defendants maintain that Arendi’s proposed section on claim construction is both
`
`unnecessary and improperly or incorrectly characterizes Court orders and rulings.]
`
`[Arendi:2
`
`C.
`
`6.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`This Court issued a claim construction order on August 19, 2019 (D.I. 143, 144)
`
`construing terms of the ’843 Patent as follows:
`
`Claim Term
`“document”
`
`“first information”
`
`“computer program”
`
`“to determine if the first information is at least one
`of a plurality of types of information that can be
`searched for”
`
`Court’s Construction
`“a word processing, spreadsheet, or similar
`file into which text can be entered”
`“text in a document that can be used as
`input for a search operation in a source
`external to the document”
`“a self-contained set of instructions, as
`opposed to a routine or library, intended to
`be executed on a computer so as to perform
`some task”
`“to determine if the first information
`belongs
`to one or more of several
`predefined
`categories of
`identifying
`information (e.g., a name) or contact
`information (e.g., a phone number, a fax
`number, or an email address) that can be
`
`2 The parties have used brackets and “Arendi:” or “Defendants:" to indicate when a provision of
`this Proposed Pretrial Order is supported by only Arendi or the Defendants, respectively. Any
`justification for or opposition to these proposals is provided in accompanying footnotes, which
`likewise begin “Arendi:” or “Defendants:” to indicate its proponent.
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 454 Filed 04/03/23 Page 5 of 23 PageID #: 48600
`
`
`
`
`
`“that allows a user to enter a user command to
`initiate an operation”
`“providing an input device configured by the first
`computer program”
`
`searched for in an information source
`external to the document”
`“that allows a user to enter an input or
`series of inputs to initiate an operation”
`“providing an input device set up by the
`first computer program for use by the user”
`
`7.
`
`In ruling on Daubert motions and motions for summary judgment, the Court
`
`elaborated on its constructions and the scope of other claim limitations. Specifically, the Court held
`
`the following:
`
`a.
`
`The Court’s construction of “to determine if the first information is at least
`
`one of a plurality of types of information that can be searched for” “does not require that the
`
`searchability determination of the first information must be made by the accused infringing
`
`products while performing this step of the claimed process. . . . In other words, ‘the phrase “that
`
`can be searched for” modifies the allowable “predefined categories” and does not specify a distinct
`
`determination to be made.’” (D.I. 400 at 6-7).
`
`b.
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of the limitation “analyzing, in a computer
`
`process, first information in a document” “does not require analyzing only the first information in
`
`a document. Instead, analysis of other information in addition to the first information—including
`
`‘text that includes first information’ or ‘passages encompassing first information’—does not fall
`
`outside of the claim scope. In other words, this claim limitation is satisfied when the first
`
`information in a document is analyzed, regardless of whether other information is also analyzed.”
`
`(D.I. 400 at 8 (citation omitted)).
`
`c.
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of “performing an action using at least part
`
`of the second information” permits “merely display of second information” to satisfy this claim
`
`element. (D.I. 400 at 8-9).
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 454 Filed 04/03/23 Page 6 of 23 PageID #: 48601
`
`
`
`d.
`
`The Court’s construction of the term “document” “require[s] that the
`
`document remain editable at least when it is displayed and analyzed.” (D.I. 400 at 11).
`
`e.
`
`Denying, in part, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-
`
`infringement, the Court held that neither the term “providing an input device configured by the
`
`first computer program” nor the term “in consequence of receipt by the first computer program of
`
`the user command from the input device” precludes the first computer program’s use of source
`
`code in the framework libraries of the Android operating system to accomplish these tasks. D.I.
`
`393 at 16-18.
`
`8.
`
`Defendants have since brought a further “Motion for Clarification of Claim
`
`Construction,” concerning the meaning of the term “to determine if the first information is at least
`
`one of a plurality of types of information that can be searched for” (D.I. 421). Arendi has opposed
`
`that motion as an attempt to relitigate arguments that the Court previously addressed (D.I. 429).
`
`Defendants’ motion remains pending before the Court. ]
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`9.
`
`Nature of the Action
`
`Arendi alleges that each of Defendants’ Accused Products literally infringes claims
`
`1, 8, 23 and 30 of the ’843 Patent.
`
`10.
`
`[Arendi: Arendi also accuses Defendants of infringing the Asserted Claims of the
`
`’843 Patent by actively inducing third-party importation, sale, and use of the Accused Products.
`
`Arendi further accuses Defendants of contributing to infringement of the Asserted claims of the
`
`’843 Patent by third parties.] [Defendants: Any inducement and contributory allegations are the
`
`subject of a motion in limine presently before the Court.]
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 454 Filed 04/03/23 Page 7 of 23 PageID #: 48602
`
`11.
`
`Arendi claims damages through November 10, 2018 (when the ’843 Patent’s term
`
`ended), for each Defendant’s infringement as follows: damages adequate to compensate for the
`
`infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`12.
`
`Arendi also seeks a finding that each of Defendant’s post-complaint infringement
`
`was willful.
`
`13.
`
`Arendi seeks an enhancement of the awarded damages in light of Defendants’
`
`alleged post-complaint willful infringement, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and an
`
`award of costs and attorneys’ fees.
`
`14.
`
`The Court has prohibited Arendi from relying on a doctrine-of-equivalents
`
`infringement theory against either Defendant (D.I. 257).
`
`15.
`
`Defendants deny Arendi’s claims of infringement of the ’843 patent, including
`
`claims of willful infringement. Defendants further deny that Arendi is entitled to any damages, at
`
`all or in the amount Arendi seeks, for alleged infringement of the ’843 patent. Defendants further
`
`contend that Arendi is not entitled to pre-judgment or post-judgment interest, or any costs or
`
`attorneys’ fees.
`
`16.
`
`Defendants contend that the asserted claims 1, 8, 23, and 30 of the ’843 patent are
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and/or 112; that damages are limited by Arendi’s failure to
`
`mark products that practice claims 1, 8, 23, and/or 30 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287; and that
`
`Defendants are entitled to costs and attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`17.
`
`Arendi denies Defendants’ allegation that the claims are invalid; that damages are
`
`limited under section 287; and that Defendants are entitled to costs and attorneys’ fees under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 285.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 454 Filed 04/03/23 Page 8 of 23 PageID #: 48603
`
`
`
`18.
`
`In addition to the parties’ motions in limine, two opposed motions currently are
`
`pending before the court: (1) Defendants’ “Motion for Clarification of Claim Construction” (D.I.
`
`421); and (2) Google’s “Motion to Strike Portions of Mr. Roy Weinstein’s Supplemental Expert
`
`Reports Regarding Damages” (D.I. 419).
`
`
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`19.
`
`This Court has federal-question jurisdiction over this action because it arises under
`
`the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. This Court has original jurisdiction over
`
`the subject matter of this controversy under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, and the patent laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq. No party contests subject matter jurisdiction.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`No party contests personal jurisdiction for purposes of this action.
`
`No party contests venue for purposes of this action in this District pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
`
`III.
`
`
`
`
`FACTS
`
`A.
`
`22.
`
`Uncontested Facts
`
`The parties agree that the facts listed in Exhibit 1 are not contested for purposes of
`
`trial. These uncontested facts shall require no proof at trial and will become part of the evidentiary
`
`record at trial once introduced to the jury. Any party may read or introduce any of the uncontested
`
`facts to the jury at any time without prior notice and the jury should be instructed that the undisputed
`
`facts are to be taken as true in their deliberations.
`
`Contested Facts
`
`Plaintiff’s statement of the issues of fact that remain to be litigated is attached as
`
`
`
`B.
`
`23.
`
`Exhibit 2P.
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 454 Filed 04/03/23 Page 9 of 23 PageID #: 48604
`
`
`
`24.
`
`Defendants’ statement of the issues of fact that remain to be litigated is attached as
`
`Exhibit 2D.
`
`25.
`
`If the Court determines that any issue identified in the statements of issues of fact
`
`is more properly considered an issue of law, it should be so considered.
`
`IV.
`
`
`ISSUES OF LAW
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff’s statement of the issues of law that remain to be litigated is attached as
`
`Exhibit 3P.
`
`27.
`
`Defendants’ statement of the issues of law that remain to be litigated is attached as
`
`Exhibit 3D.
`
`28.
`
`If the Court determines that any issue identified in the statements of issues of law
`
`is more properly considered an issue of fact, it should be so considered.
`
`V. WITNESSES
`A. Witnesses Expected to be Called at Trial
`
`29.
`
`In Exhibit 4P Plaintiff identifies the names of the witnesses it intends to call to
`
`
`
`testify at trial and whether each witness will testify in person or by deposition.
`
`30.
`
`In Exhibit 4D(G) and 4D(M), Google and Motorola, respectively, identify the
`
`names of the witnesses they intend to call to testify at trial and whether each witness will testify in
`
`person or by deposition.
`
`31.
`
`The parties may call any witness necessary for the purpose of impeachment or
`
`authenticating a document. The parties reserve the right to revise or supplement their respective
`
`trial witness lists consistent with the Pretrial Order or as otherwise permitted by the Court.
`
`32.
`
`The parties agree that fact witnesses will be sequestered, except for a single
`
`corporate representative. That corporate representative need not be sequestered even if also a fact
`
`witness. The parties agree that expert witnesses need not be sequestered.
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 454 Filed 04/03/23 Page 10 of 23 PageID #: 48605
`
`
`
`33.
`
`On April 17, 2023, each party shall provide a good faith list of the witnesses it
`
`expects to call during the trial in the general order in which it expects to call them. During trial,
`
`each party shall provide notice by email of the witness(es) it intends to call, whether they will be
`
`called live or by deposition, and the order in which they will be called, by no later than 7:00 p.m.
`
`ET two (2) calendar days before the trial day on which the witness is to be called.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`34.
`
`Deposition Designations
`
`The deposition testimony that Plaintiff may offer into evidence is identified in
`
`Exhibit 5P, along with Defendants’ objections and counter-designations thereto.
`
`35.
`
`The deposition testimony that Google and Motorola may offer into evidence is
`
`identified in Exhibit 5D(G) and 5D(M), respectively, along with Plaintiff’s objections and counter-
`
`designations thereto.
`
`36.
`
`This pretrial order contains the universe of deposition designations, counter-
`
`designations, and objections to admissions of deposition testimony currently contemplated by the
`
`parties; none of the foregoing shall be supplemented without approval of all parties or leave of the
`
`Court, on good cause shown. The parties are expected to continue to engage in good faith efforts to
`
`reduce the number of deposition designations and counter-designations and objections thereto
`
`included in this pretrial order.
`
`37.
`
`[Arendi: Any party may use testimony that is designated by another party, to the
`
`same effect as if it had initially designated the testimony as its own, subject to all objections.]
`
`[Defendants oppose this provision.]
`
`38.
`
`For any witness whose testimony the parties intend to present at trial by deposition,
`
`the parties shall identify a list of deposition designations to be played to the jury and the proposed
`
`exhibits used in the designations by 7:00 p.m. ET two (2) calendar days before the designations are
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 454 Filed 04/03/23 Page 11 of 23 PageID #: 48606
`
`
`
`to be played to the jury. The party receiving the designations shall inform the opposing party of any
`
`objections and counter-designations by 7:00 p.m. ET one calendar day prior to the testimony being
`
`offered into the record. If good faith efforts to resolve the objections fail, the party objecting to the
`
`designations shall bring its objections to the Court’s attention, by submitting to the Court the
`
`relevant transcript and a summary of the objections, prior to the designations being played to the
`
`jury.
`
`39. When a witness is called to testify by deposition at trial, the party calling the witness
`
`shall provide the Court with two copies of the transcript of the designations and counter-
`
`designations that will be played.
`
`40.
`
`For each separate group of designations and counter-designations to be read or
`
`played at one time, the designations and counter-designations will be read or played by video at the
`
`same time in the order they appear in the transcript.
`
`41.
`
`The parties will be charged for time according to the following proportions: each
`
`side shall be charged only with the time needed to play its own designations or counter-designations
`
`and will not be charged with the time necessary to play the other side’s designations or counter-
`
`designations.
`
`42.
`
`Colloquy between counsel, requests to have the court reporter read back a question,
`
`and objections will be eliminated when the deposition is played at trial.
`
`43.
`
`The party offering the testimony is responsible for preparing video deposition clips
`
`of all designated testimony for that witness. A copy of the video deposition clips, including counter-
`
`designation clips, shall be provided to the opposing party no later than 9:30 p.m. ET the day before
`
`the deposition testimony is expected to be played, or state in writing that the deposition will be read
`
`into the record.
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 454 Filed 04/03/23 Page 12 of 23 PageID #: 48607
`
`
`
`44.
`
`For those witnesses whose depositions will be played or read, the parties shall be
`
`permitted to make brief transition statements to introduce the witnesses by name, position or title,
`
`and/or the entity with which he or she is associated, the time for which shall be charged to the party
`
`offering the witness’s testimony, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. However, counsel shall
`
`not be permitted to argue or comment on the evidence during transition statements.
`
`45.
`
`The above procedures regarding deposition designations do not apply to portions
`
`of deposition transcripts and/or video used for impeachment [Arendi: or cross-examination]
`
`[Defendants oppose Arendi’s proposed inclusion of “or cross-examination”] of a witness. Any
`
`deposition testimony may be used at trial for the purpose of impeachment [Arendi: or cross-
`
`examination] [Defendants oppose Arendi’s proposed inclusion of “or cross-examination”],
`
`regardless of whether a party identified that testimony on its list of deposition designations. The
`
`parties agree that they may object to the use of deposition and other prior testimony for
`
`impeachment purposes, including objections based on lack of completeness and/or lack of
`
`inconsistency.
`
`46.
`
`If a party intends to use deposition testimony during its opening statement, the party
`
`shall disclose the testimony by 2:00 p.m. ET one (1) day before opening statements. The parties
`
`will provide any objections to such testimony by 6:00 p.m. ET the same day, and the parties will
`
`meet and confer by 8:00 p.m. ET the same day. If good faith efforts to resolve the objections fail,
`
`the party objecting to the deposition testimony shall bring its objections to the Court’s attention the
`
`next day before opening statements.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`47.
`
`Objections to Expert Testimony
`
`The parties agree that the Court should rule at trial on any objections to expert
`
`testimony as beyond the scope of prior expert reports or Rule 26 disclosures (in the case of witnesses
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 454 Filed 04/03/23 Page 13 of 23 PageID #: 48608
`
`
`
`for whom an expert report is not required), and that a failure to object to expert testimony as beyond
`
`the scope of prior expert reports or disclosures waives the objection as to that testimony. The time
`
`taken to argue and decide such objections will be charged to the losing party. To the extent possible,
`
`the parties will address issues or objections related to expected expert testimony before the start of
`
`the trial day.
`
`VI. EXHIBITS
`A.
`Trial Exhibits
`
`
`
`48.
`
`The joint list of exhibits that the parties intend to offer at trial is attached as Exhibit
`
`6J.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff’s list of exhibits that it intends to offer at trial, with Defendants’ objections,
`
`is attached as Exhibit 6P.
`
`50.
`
`Google’s and Motorola’s list of exhibits that they intend to offer at trial, with
`
`Plaintiff’s objections, is attached as Exhibit 6D(G) and 6D(M), respectively.
`
`51.
`
`This pretrial order contains the exhibits to be used in any party’s case-in-chief, as
`
`well as all objections to the admission of such exhibits.
`
`52.
`
`Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties agree that exhibits to be used solely for
`
`impeachment need not be included on the lists of trial exhibits or disclosed in advance of being
`
`used at trial.
`
`53.
`
`The parties agree to provide witness binders for each fact and expert witness for
`
`direct examination.
`
`54.
`
`Exhibits may be introduced via video deposition testimony. Any party that has used
`
`an exhibit with the witness and wishes that exhibit to be admitted into evidence must formally move
`
`the exhibit into evidence, by exhibit number.
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 454 Filed 04/03/23 Page 14 of 23 PageID #: 48609
`
`
`
`55.
`
`Except as provided by Federal Rules of Evidence and provided below with respect
`
`to opening statements, exhibits may not be published, displayed, or otherwise shown to the jury
`
`until after they have been admitted into evidence. Once admitted, counsel for either party may
`
`publish exhibits to the jury without requesting to do so.
`
`56.
`
`[Arendi: Any trial exhibit that was produced in discovery by a party and that on its
`
`face appears either to have been authored or generated by the party or by an employee, officer, or
`
`agent of the party producing such exhibit, shall be deemed an authentic copy of a document from
`
`such party’s files under Federal Rule of Evidence 901.] [Defendants: Any trial exhibit that was
`
`produced in discovery by a party (including a third party), and that on its face appears either to have
`
`been authored or generated by the party or by an employee, officer, or agent of the party producing
`
`such exhibit, shall be deemed an authentic copy of a document from such party’s files under Federal
`
`Rule of Evidence 901.
`
`57.
`
`[Defendants: Any trial exhibit that was produced in discovery by a party and
`
`appears on its face to constitute prior art or related materials cited in Exhibits D-U of the Expert
`
`Report of Edward Fox, shall be deemed authentic under Federal Rule of Evidence 901.] [Arendi
`
`opposes Defendants’ proposed provision.]
`
`58.
`
`Any exhibit, once admitted at trial, may be used equally by each party for any
`
`proper purpose in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence.
`
`59.
`
`Even if not separately listed on its own exhibit list, a party may introduce an exhibit
`
`from any other party’s trial exhibit list, subject to any appropriate objections from the opposing
`
`party. If a party attempts to introduce or use an exhibit that was not previously listed on its own
`
`exhibit list, any other party may offer any applicable objection, even if such objection was not
`
`previously noted on the exhibit lists.
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 454 Filed 04/03/23 Page 15 of 23 PageID #: 48610
`
`
`
`60.
`
`The listing of a document on a party’s exhibit list or the joint exhibit list is not an
`
`admission that such document is relevant or admissible when offered by the opposing party for the
`
`purpose that the opposing party wishes to admit the document.
`
`61.
`
`Each party reserves the right to object to the admissibility of any evidence offered
`
`by the other party, at the time such evidence is offered, in view of the specific context in which
`
`such evidence is offered, but only if such context is not reasonably foreseeable. All other objections
`
`to the admissibility of evidence shall be raised beforehand, pursuant to the provisions of this order
`
`and the Court’s Scheduling Order (D.I. 437).
`
`62.
`
`The parties agree that if any party removes or otherwise withdraws an exhibit from
`
`its exhibit list, another party may amend its exhibit list to include that same exhibit. The parties also
`
`agree that the parties may make objections to such exhibits, other than an objection based on
`
`untimely listing.
`
`63.
`
`The parties agree that any description of a document or other material on an exhibit
`
`list is provided for convenience only and shall not be used as an admission or otherwise as evidence
`
`regarding the document or material.
`
`64.
`
`The parties anticipate that exhibit objections will have been resolved before trial.
`
`A party will provide exhibits to be used in connection with direct examination by 7:00 p.m. ET the
`
`day before their intended use, and objections will be provided no later than 8:30 p.m. ET the night
`
`before their intended use. If good-faith efforts to resolve the objections fail, the party objecting to
`
`the exhibits shall bring its objections to the Court’s attention prior to the witness being called to the
`
`witness stand.
`
`65.
`
`If a party intends to use during its opening statement an exhibit to which the other
`
`party has objected, the party shall disclose the exhibit(s) by 2:00 p.m. ET one (1) calendar day
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 454 Filed 04/03/23 Page 16 of 23 PageID #: 48611
`
`
`
`before opening statements. If the opposing party continues to object to any such exhibit(s), it will
`
`provide any objections to such exhibit(s) by 6:00 p.m. ET the same day, and the parties will meet
`
`and confer by 8:00 p.m. ET the same day. If good faith efforts to resolve the objections fail, the
`
`party objecting to the exhibit(s) shall bring its objections to the Court’s attention the next day before
`
`opening statements.
`
`66.
`
`The parties will exchange final digital copies of their exhibits, with exhibit
`
`numbers, seven days before the first day of trial. The parties shall make available for inspection, at
`
`a mutually convenient time, any physical exhibits to be used at trial, labeled with an exhibit number.
`
`The final digital copy of each exhibit page will be endorsed with a unique page identifier, including
`
`the exhibit prefix, exhibit number, and page numbers of the electronic document. The exhibit
`
`prefixes shall be: “JTX” for exhibits on the Joint Exhibit List; “PTX” for exhibits on Plaintiffs’
`
`Exhibit List, and “DTX” for exhibits on Defendants’ Exhibit List. The page numbering shall begin
`
`at 1 for the first page of each exhibit and the numbering on each page should include the trial exhibit
`
`number and the physical page number separated by a decimal. For example, page 26 of Joint Exhibit
`
`6 would be endorsed / paginated as either: “JTX-006.26” or “JTX-6.26”.
`
`67.
`
`The exhibit lists indicate whether each trial exhibit has previously been marked as
`
`a deposition exhibit. To remove duplicates and improve legibility of the exhibits used at trial, the
`
`parties agree that the trial exhibit shall be treated as identical to the indicated deposition exhibit
`
`regardless of whether it bears a deposition exhibit sticker.
`
`68.
`
`No later than April 21, 2023, counsel will deliver to the Courtroom Deputy a
`
`completed AO Form 187 exhibit and witness list for each party.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`69.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Plaintiff’s demonstratives will be identified with PDX numbers.
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 454 Filed 04/03/23 Page 17 of 23 PageID #: 48612
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`Defendants’ demonstratives will be identified with DDX numbers.
`
`The parties will exchange demonstratives intended for use in opening statements
`
`by 2:00 p.m. ET one (1) calendar day before opening statements. The parties will provide any
`
`objections to such demonstratives by 6:00 p.m. ET on the day before opening statements, and the
`
`parties will meet and confer by 8:00 p.m. ET the same day. If good faith efforts to resolve the
`
`objections fail, the party objecting to the demonstrative shall bring its objections to the Court’s
`
`attention the next day before opening stat