Case 1:13-cv-01984-GMS Document 27 Filed 09/22/14 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 392
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01795-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01796-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01797-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01798-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC. AND ASUS
`COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LTD AND
`BLACKBERRY CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01984-GMS Document 27 Filed 09/22/14 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 393
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01799-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01800-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01801-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01983-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`v.
`
`FUHU, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FUJITSU LIMITED AND
`FUJITSU AMERICA, INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE INC. AND MOTOROLA
`MOBILITY, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HISENSE USA CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01984-GMS Document 27 Filed 09/22/14 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 394
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01802-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01803-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01804-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01805-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HTC CORPORATION AND
`HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC. AND
`FUTUREWEI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01984-GMS Document 27 Filed 09/22/14 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 395
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01806-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01984-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01807-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01808-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.; LG ELECTRONICS,
`USA, INC.; AND LG ELECTRONICS
`MOBILECOMM USA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, LLC;
`AND SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`AMERICA, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01984-GMS Document 27 Filed 09/22/14 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 396
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01809-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01810-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01811-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SONY CORPORATION; SONY
`ELECTRONICS, INC.; SONY MOBILE
`COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.; AND SONY
`MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS AB,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TOSHIBA CORPORATION AND TOSHIBA
`AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ZTE CORPORATION AND ZTE (USA) INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`This ______ day of _______________ 20___, the Court having conducted a Rule 16
`
`Scheduling Conference pursuant to Local Rule 16.2(b) on September 11, 2014, and the parties
`
`having determined after discussion that the matters cannot be resolved at this juncture by
`
`settlement, voluntary mediation or binding arbitration;
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01984-GMS Document 27 Filed 09/22/14 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 397
`
`IT IS ORDERED that:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, they
`
`shall make their initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) on or before
`
`October 20, 2014. The parties need not serve disclosures pursuant to paragraph 3 of the
`
`Delaware Default Standard for Discovery.
`
`2.
`
`Joinder of other Parties and Amendment of Pleadings. All motions to join
`
`other parties and amend the pleadings (except to add allegations of inequitable conduct) shall be
`
`filed on or before March 5, 2015. All motions to amend the pleadings to add allegations of
`
`inequitable conduct shall be filed on or before September 15, 2015.
`
`3.
`
`Reliance Upon Advice of Counsel. Each defendant shall inform plaintiffs
`
`whether it intends to rely upon advice of counsel as a defense no later than September 15, 2015.
`
`If a defendant elects to rely on advice of counsel as a defense, defendant shall produce any such
`
`opinions on which defendant intends to rely to plaintiff no later than September 30, 2015.
`
`4.
`
`Markman Claim Construction Hearing. A Markman claim construction
`
`hearing shall be held on September 25, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. The Markman hearing is scheduled
`
`for a total of one day. The parties shall meet and confer to determine the amount of time that
`
`will be allocated to each patent during the Markman Hearing, and agree that sufficient time must
`
`be allocated both for U.S. Patent No. 7,296,121 asserted against all parties and each of the three
`
`additional patents asserted against Intel. The parties also shall meet and confer regarding
`
`narrowing and reducing the number of claim construction issues. On or before March 18, 2015,
`
`the parties shall exchange lists of the claim terms they propose to be construed. On or before
`
`April 6, 2015, the parties shall exchange proposed claim constructions and supporting intrinsic
`
`and extrinsic evidence. On or before April 24, 2015, the parties shall submit a Final Joint Claim
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01984-GMS Document 27 Filed 09/22/14 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 398
`
`
`
`Chart which shall include citations to intrinsic evidence. The plaintiff shall submit to the court, a
`
`Joint Appendix of Intrinsic Evidence (the “Joint Appendix”) containing all intrinsic evidence
`
`relied upon in the claim construction briefing. A sample table of contents of the Joint Appendix
`
`can be located on this court’s website at www.ded.uscourts.gov. The Joint Appendix shall be
`
`filed on the same day as the answering claim construction briefs. The parties shall file opening
`
`claim construction briefs on May 22, 2015, and answering claim construction briefs on July 2,
`
`2015. Briefing will be presented pursuant to the court’s Local Rules. However, Intel may file
`
`one additional, separate opening claim construction brief addressing claim terms in the three
`
`additional patents that Memory Integrity has asserted only against Intel. Plaintiff will be entitled
`
`to file an answering brief in response to each separate opening claim construction brief.
`
`5.
`
`Discovery. All fact discovery in this case shall be initiated so that it will be
`
`completed on or before November 20, 2015. Opening expert reports on issues on which a party
`
`bears the burden of proof shall be served on or before January 29, 2016. Rebuttal expert reports
`
`shall be served on or before March 3, 2016. Expert Discovery in this case shall be initiated so
`
`that it will be completed on or before March 25, 2016. Pursuant to the Court’s instructions
`
`during the September 11, 2014 Status Conference, the parties have reached the below
`
`agreements regarding discovery limitations. The parties reserve their rights to seek changes to
`
`the discovery limitations set forth below to the extent that facts emerge giving rise to good cause
`
`for such changes.
`
`a.
`
`Discovery and Scheduling Matters: Should counsel find they are unable
`
`to resolve a discovery or scheduling matter, the party seeking the relief shall contact chambers at
`
`(302) 573-6470 to schedule a telephone conference. Not less than forty-eight hours prior to the
`
`teleconference, the parties shall file with the court, via electronic means (CM/ECF), a Joint
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01984-GMS Document 27 Filed 09/22/14 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 399
`
`
`
`Letter Agenda, which is non-argumentative, not to exceed two (2) pages outlining the issue(s)
`
`in dispute. A sample letter can be located on this court’s website at www.ded.uscourts.gov.
`
`After the parties have had three (3) discovery teleconferences, they will be required to file a joint
`
`letter showing good cause why the court should permit a fourth discovery teleconference.
`
`Should the court find further briefing necessary upon conclusion of the telephone conference,
`
`unless otherwise directed, the party seeking relief shall file with the court a TWO PAGE
`
`LETTER, exclusive of exhibits, describing the issues in contention. The responding party shall
`
`file within five (5) days from the date of service of the opening letter an answering letter of no
`
`more than TWO PAGES. The party seeking relief may then file a reply letter of no more than
`
`TWO PAGES within three (3) days from the date of service of the answering letter.
`
`b.
`
`Patent Disclosures: On or before October 13, 2014, plaintiff shall
`
`identify the accused product(s) and the asserted claim(s) each product allegedly infringes, and
`
`produce the file history for each asserted patent. On or before December 8, 2014, each
`
`defendant shall produce to the plaintiff the core technical documents related to the accused
`
`product(s), including but not limited to operation manuals, product literature, schematics, and
`
`specifications. On or before February 2, 2015, plaintiff shall produce to each defendant an
`
`initial claim chart relating each accused product to the asserted claims each product allegedly
`
`infringes. On or before March 4, 2015, each defendant shall produce to the plaintiff its initial
`
`invalidity contentions for each asserted claim, as well as the invalidating references (e.g.,
`
`publications, manuals and patents).
`
`c.
`
`Document Production: Document production shall be substantially
`
`complete by June 19, 2015.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01984-GMS Document 27 Filed 09/22/14 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 400
`
`
`
`d.
`
`Requests for Admission: In the Intel case, each side may serve up to 70
`
`requests for admission. In the non-Intel cases, Plaintiff and each Related Defendant Group1 may
`
`serve up to 30 requests for admission in each respective case. In all of the cases, however, there
`
`shall be no limit on the number of requests for admission for the purpose of authenticating
`
`documents. Provided, however, that this provision is not a waiver of any party’s ability to argue
`
`that a particular set of requests for admission directed to authenticity constitutes an undue
`
`burden.
`
`e.
`
`Interrogatories: In the Intel case, each side may serve up to 50
`
`interrogatories. In the non-Intel cases, Plaintiff and each Related Defendant Group may serve up
`
`to 25 interrogatories in each respective case.
`
`f.
`
`Depositions: The parties shall attempt in good faith to coordinate
`
`depositions across the cases to minimize the burden on the witnesses. If a defendant in any of
`
`the above cases seeks to depose an inventor, Plaintiff, or a third-party, the defendant shall
`
`provide notice of the deposition to all parties in all of the above cases. The total deposition hours
`
`set forth below may be used on any non-expert deponent. For any deposition taken under Rule
`
`30(b)(6), the deposition of each individual Rule 30(b)(6) witness shall be limited to a maximum
`
`of 7 hours. However, this 7-hour time limit shall not apply to an individual Rule 30(b)(6)
`
`witness designated for multiple unrelated topics, in which case the parties shall negotiate the
`
`deposition time limit in good faith. The fact that a witness testifies as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness
`
`does not preclude the witness from being deposed in his or her individual capacity.
`
`
`1
`The parties agree that a “Related Defendant Group” consists of related corporate entities.
`The parties agree that, in each respective case that currently has more than one defendant, those
`defendants in each such case respectively constitute a “Related Defendant Group.”
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01984-GMS Document 27 Filed 09/22/14 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 401
`
`
`
`i)
`
`In the non-Intel cases, Plaintiff and each Related Defendant Group
`
`shall attempt in good faith to agree upon deposition limits for each
`
`case.
`
`ii)
`
`In the Intel case, each side is permitted to take up to one hundred
`
`(100) hours of fact depositions. Memory Integrity and Intel agree
`
`that Intel will be permitted sufficient time to depose each of the
`
`named inventors on each of the four patents that Memory Integrity
`
`has asserted against Intel and agree that Intel will be given time
`
`with each inventor commensurate to the number of patents on
`
`which that inventor is named. Memory Integrity and Intel shall
`
`meet and confer to attempt to agree upon deposition limits for the
`
`named inventors on the patents asserted against Intel.
`
`iii)
`
`For the purposes of calculating the number of deposition hours
`
`taken, time will only be counted against a party during the time
`
`counsel for that party is examining a witness, and time shall not
`
`count against another party simply because that party’s counsel is
`
`present for the questioning. Any party may rely on the testimony
`
`elicited by any other party.
`
`iv)
`
`These provisions do not permit any party to seek an additional
`
`deposition of a witness that such party already had the opportunity
`
`to depose, but elected not to depose.
`
`g.
`
`Expert Depositions: The parties agree to meet and confer after the
`
`Markman hearing to discuss appropriate limits to expert discovery.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01984-GMS Document 27 Filed 09/22/14 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 402
`
`
`
`h.
`
`Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”): The parties agree to meet
`
`and confer in an attempt to reach agreement regarding an ESI protocol, and regarding the format
`
`for the production of documents, including ESI, following the December 8, 2014 deadline for
`
`defendants’ production of core technical documents.
`
`i.
`
`Email Service: The parties consent to service by e-mail. Service by e-
`
`mail will be regarded as personal service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b) for
`
`purposes of serving documents that are not filed via ECF. Documents filed via ECF will be
`
`served in accordance with the Court’s Rules.
`
`j.
`
`Modifications of Discovery Limits: The above limitations on discovery
`
`are subject to modification by further order of the Court for good cause shown. The affected
`
`parties may agree in writing to modify these limitations without further order of the Court.
`
`6.
`
`Confidential Information and Papers filed under Seal. Should counsel find it
`
`will be necessary to apply to the court for a protective order specifying terms and conditions for
`
`the disclosure of confidential information, they should confer and attempt to reach an agreement
`
`on a proposed form of order and submit it to the court within thirty (30) days from the date of
`
`this order. When filing papers under seal, counsel should deliver to the Clerk an original and
`
`two copies of the papers.
`
`If after making a diligent effort the parties are unable to agree on the contents of the
`
`joint proposed protective order, then they shall follow the dispute resolution process
`
`outlined in paragraph 5(a).
`
`7.
`
`Settlement Conference. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, these matters are referred
`
`to the United States Magistrate Judge for the purpose of exploring the possibility of a settlement.
`
`The parties shall wait to be contacted by the assigned United States Magistrate Judge.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01984-GMS Document 27 Filed 09/22/14 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 403
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Summary Judgment Motions. Prior to filing any summary judgment motion,
`
`the parties must submit letter briefs seeking permission to file the motion. The opening letter
`
`brief shall be no longer than five (5) pages and shall be filed with the Court no later than April 8,
`
`2016. Answering letter briefs shall be no longer than five (5) pages and filed with the court no
`
`later than April 22, 2016. Reply letter briefs shall be no longer than three (3) pages and filed
`
`with the Court on or before April 29, 2016. If the Court determines that argument is necessary
`
`to assist in the resolution of any request to file summary judgment, it shall notify the parties of
`
`the date and time on which the Court will conduct a telephone conference to hear such argument.
`
`Unless the Court directs otherwise, no letter requests to file a motion for summary
`
`judgment may be filed at a time before the dates set forth in paragraph 8.
`
`9.
`
`Case Dispositive Motions. To the extent permitted, all case or issue dispositive
`
`motions shall be served and filed within two weeks of the Court’s decision to permit the filing of
`
`such motions. Briefing will be presented pursuant to the Court’s Local Rules. The parties may
`
`agree on an alternative briefing schedule. Any such agreement shall be in writing and filed with
`
`the Court for the Court’s approval. Any request for extensions of time as set forth in this
`
`Scheduling Order must be accompanied by an explanation or your request will be denied.
`
`10.
`
`Applications by Motion. Except as provided in this Scheduling Order or for
`
`matters relating to scheduling, any application to the Court shall be by written motion filed, via
`
`electronic means (CM/ECF). Unless otherwise requested by the Court, counsel shall not deliver
`
`copies of papers or correspondence to Chambers. Any non-dispositive motion should contain the
`
`statement required by Local Rule 7.1.1.
`
`11. Oral Argument. If the Court believes that oral argument is necessary, the Court
`
`will schedule a hearing Pursuant to District of Delaware Local Rule 7.1.4.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01984-GMS Document 27 Filed 09/22/14 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 404
`
`
`
`12.
`
`Pretrial Conference. On September 12, 2016, beginning at 10 a.m., the Court
`
`will hold a Pretrial Conference in the Intel case only, C.A. No. 13-CV-1804-GMS in Chambers.
`
`Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the parties should assume that filing the Joint Pretrial
`
`Order satisfies the pretrial disclosure requirement in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3). A
`
`sample form of Pretrial Order can be located on this court’s website at www.ded.uscourts.gov.
`
`Thirty (30) days before the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order is due, plaintiff’s counsel shall forward
`
`to defendant’s counsel a draft of the pretrial order containing the information plaintiff proposes
`
`to include in the draft. Defendant’s counsel shall, in turn, provide to plaintiff’s counsel any
`
`comments on the plaintiff’s draft, as well as the information defendant proposes to include in the
`
`proposed pretrial order. Motions in limine2: NO MOTIONS IN LIMINE SHALL BE
`
`FILED; instead, the parties shall be prepared to address their evidentiary issues at the Pretrial
`
`Conference and during trial (before and after the trial day). In the Intel case only, C.A. No. 13-
`
`CV-1804-GMS, the parties shall file with the court the joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order in
`
`accordance with the terms and with the information required by the form of Final Pretrial Order,
`
`which can be located on this court’s website at www.ded.uscourts.gov on or before close of
`
`business on August 1, 2016.
`
`13.
`
`Trial. In the Intel case only, C.A. No. 13-CV-1804-GMS, the matter is scheduled
`
`for a 10 day jury trial beginning at 9:30 a.m. on September 26, 2016. The Intel case is
`
`currently set as the first trial. However, the Court will be prepared to address requests to
`
`substitute a different case for the first trial for good cause, as events evolve during each of the
`
`respective cases. The Court will set further trials as needed at a later date.
`
`
`2
`The parties should simply list, in an Exhibit to be attached to the Pretrial order, the issues
`under a heading such as “Plaintiff’s [name of party] List of Evidentiary Issues It Intends To
`Raise.”
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01984-GMS Document 27 Filed 09/22/14 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 405
`
`
`
`14.
`
`Scheduling. The parties shall contact chambers, at (302) 573-6470, only in
`
`situations where scheduling relief is sought, and only then when ALL participating counsel is on
`
`the line for purposes of selecting a new date.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`14