Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 14 Filed 02/18/20 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 476
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE
`
`EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. ,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`C.A. No. 19-1936-RGA
`
`V.
`
`WEB.COM GROUP, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. ,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`C.A. No. 19-1937-RGA
`
`V.
`
`GODADDY.COM, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`ff'R;QPQS14}J SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`This Jf day of Hh.., 2020, the Court having conducted an initial Rule 16(b)
`
`scheduling conference pursuant to Local Rule 16 .1 (b ), and the parties having determined after
`
`discussion that the matter cannot be resolved at this juncture by settlement, voluntary mediation,
`
`or binding arbitration; 1
`
`IT IS ORDERED that:
`
`1.
`
`Rule 26(a)(l) Initial Disclosures. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, the
`
`parties shall make their initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(l)
`
`on or before March 17, 2020.
`
`1 By submitting this proposed joint Scheduling Order, defendant Web .com is not waiving its request to transfer
`venue in this action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (D.I . 15 in C.A. No. 19-
`1936-RGA).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 14 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 477
`
`2.
`
`Joinder of Other Parties and Amendment of Pleadings. All motions to join other
`
`parties, and to amend or supplement the pleadings, shall be filed on or before January 15, 2021.
`
`3.
`
`Discovery.
`
`a.
`
`Fact Discovery Cut Off. All fact discovery in this case shall be initiated
`
`so that it will be completed on or before May 26, 2021.
`
`b.
`
`Document Production. Document production shall be substantially
`
`complete by December 11, 2020.
`
`c.
`
`Requests for Admission. A maximum of 50 requests for admission are
`
`permitted for each side. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there is no limit on the number of
`
`requests for admission the parties may serve to establish the authenticity of documents, subject to
`
`the right to object based on undue burden.
`
`d.
`
`Interrogatories. A maximum of 25 interrogatories, including contention
`
`interrogatories, are permitted for each side.
`
`e.
`
`Depositions.
`
`1.
`
`Limitation on Hours for Deposition Discovery. Each party is
`
`limited to a total of 50 hours of taking testimony of fact witnesses by deposition upon oral
`
`examination of each other party.
`
`11.
`
`Location of Depositions. Any party or representative (officer,
`
`director, or managing agent) of a party filing a civil action in this district court must ordinarily be
`
`required, upon request, to submit to a deposition at a place designated within this district.
`
`Exceptions to this general rule may be made by order of the Court or by agreement of the parties.
`
`A defendant who becomes a cross-claimant or third-party plaintiff shall be considered as having
`
`filed an action in this Court for the purpose of this provision. Plaintiffs submission of this joint
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 14 Filed 02/18/20 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 478
`
`proposed Scheduling Order is without prejudice to Plaintiffs position that any deposition of
`
`Steve Rempell should take place in his county of residence in California. Plaintiff reserves the
`
`right to raise this issue through motion practice, if the parties are unable to reach an agreement
`
`on this issue during discovery.
`
`f.
`
`Discovery Matters and Disputes Relating to Protective Orders. Should
`
`counsel find they are unable to resolve a discovery matter or a dispute relating to a protective
`
`order, the parties involved in the discovery matter or protective order dispute shall contact the
`
`Court's Case Manager to schedule an in-person conference/argument. Unless otherwise ordered,
`
`by no later than 6:00 p.m. of the next business day after the scheduling call, any party seeking
`
`relief shall file with the Court a letter, not to exceed three pages, outlining the issues in dispute
`
`and its position on those issues. By no later than 6:00 p.m. three business days after the
`
`scheduling call, any party opposing the application for relief may file a letter, not to exceed three
`
`pages, outlining that party's opposition. A party should include with its letter a proposed order
`
`with a detailed issue-by-issue ruling such that, should the Court agree with the party on a
`
`particular issue, the Court could sign the proposed order as to that issue, and the opposing party
`
`would be able to understand what it needs to do, and by when, to comply with the Court's order.
`
`Any proposed order shall be e-mailed, in Word format, simultaneously with filing to
`
`rga civi l@ded.uscourts.gov.
`
`If a discovery-related motion is filed without leave of the Court, it will be denied without
`
`prejudice to the moving party's right to bring the dispute to the Court through the discovery
`
`matters procedures set forth in this Order.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 14 Filed 02/18/20 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 479
`
`g.
`
`Miscellaneous Discovery Matters.
`
`1.
`
`The parties may, if they choose, agree to a timetable for initial
`
`patent disclosures either as set forth in the Delaware Default Standard for Discovery or as agreed
`
`to by the parties, and the parties should set forth any such agreement in the scheduling order.
`
`1.
`
`E-Discovery Default Standard. The parties will adhere to
`
`the Court' s Default Standard for Discovery, Including Discovery of Electronically Stored
`
`Information ("ESI") (hereinafter "Default Standard," document available at
`
`http://www.ded.uscourts.gov; see Other Resources, Default Standards for Discovery, and
`
`incorporated herein by reference).
`
`2.
`
`ESI Default Standard Paragraph 3 Disclosures. On or
`
`before March 17, 2020, the parties shall make their disclosures pursuant to paragraph 3 of the
`
`Default Standard.
`
`3.
`
`Initial Discovery in Patent Litigation. According to
`
`paragraphs 4(a)-4(d) of the Default Standard and absent agreement among the parties:
`
`a.
`
`On or before March 13, 2020, Plaintiff shall
`
`identify the accused infringing products and produce to Defendants the file history for each
`
`asserted patent it alleges is being infringed;
`
`b.
`
`On or before April 30, 2020, Defendants shall
`
`produce to Plaintiff the core technical documents related to their accused products, including but
`
`not limited to non-publicly available operation manuals, product literature, schematics, and
`
`specifications.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 14 Filed 02/18/20 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 480
`
`an initial claim chart relating each known accused product to the asserted claims each such
`
`c.
`
`On or before June 12, 2020, Plaintiff shall produce
`
`product allegedly infringes.
`
`d.
`
`On or before July 31, 2020, Defendants shall
`
`produce their invalidity contentions for each asserted claim, as well as the known related
`
`invalidating references. (e.g. , publications, manuals and patents).
`
`e.
`
`The parties may supplement these disclosures
`
`through the end of fact discovery identified above.
`
`11.
`
`The parties should set forth a statement identifying any other
`
`pending or complete litigation including IPRs involving one or more of the asserted patents.
`
`Plaintiff2 should advise whether it expects to institute any further litigation in this or other
`
`Districts within the next year. Defendant should advise whether it expects to file one or more
`
`IPRs and, if so, when.
`
`1.
`
`Pending and Completed Litigation (including IPRs):
`
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Mobikasa, LLC, Case No. 1: 17-cv-00705 (D. Del. June 9, 2017)
`Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Salzer Technologies, Inc. , Case No. 1: 17-cv-00706 (D. Del. June
`9, 2017) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Webflow, Inc., Case No. 1: 17-cv-00708 (D. Del. June 9, 2017)
`Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. AppGyver Inc., Case No. l:17-cv-00710 (D. Del. June 9, 2017)
`Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. lcreon Tech, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00704 (D. Del. June 9, 2017}
`Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Brainvire lnfotech, Inc., Case No. 1: 17-cv-00702 (D. Del. June 9,
`2017) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. lcreon Tech, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00704 (D. Del. June 9, 2017)
`Closed
`
`2 Plaintiff and Defendant refer to the party or parties asserting infringement and the party or
`parties accused of infringement. The parties should modify the language as necessary, for
`example, in a declaratory judgment action.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 14 Filed 02/18/20 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 481
`
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Brainvire Infotech, Inc., Case No. 1: 17-cv-00702 (D. Del. June 9,
`2017) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Rockfish Interactive LLC, Case No. 1: 18-cv-O0 105 (D. Del. Jan.
`17, 2018) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. SG Hosting Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00104 (D. Del. Jan. 1, 2018)
`Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Manifest LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00103 (D. Del. Jan. 17, 2018)
`Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Domani Studios LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00102 (D. Del. Jan. 17,
`2018) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. WPEngine, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00106 (D. Del. Jan. 17, 2018)
`Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. FiloBlu USA Corp., Case No. 1:18-cv-00155 (D. Del. Jan. 26,
`2018) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Fulcrum Worldwide Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00154 (D. Del. Jan.
`26, 2018) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Axelerant Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1: 18-cv-0O 156 (D. Del.
`Jan. 26, 2018) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Big Spaceship LLC, Case No. 1: 18-cv-0 1167 (D. Del. Aug. 3,
`2018) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Born Group Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-01169 (D. Del. Aug. 3, 2018)
`Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Alloy Marketing and Promotions, LLC, Case No. 1: 18-cv-0 1166
`(D. Del. Aug. 3, 2018) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Blue State Digital Inc., Case No. 1:1 8-cv-01168 (D. Del. Aug. 3,
`2018) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. iCrossing, Inc., Case No. 1: 18-cv-0 1176 (D. Del. Aug. 4, 2018)
`Open
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Publicis Hawkeye, Inc., Case No. 1: 18-cv-O 1182 (D. Del. Aug. 4,
`2018) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Martin Retail Group, LLC, Case No. 1: 18-cv-O 1178 (D. Del.
`Aug. 4, 2018) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Mondo International, LLC, Case No. 1: 18-cv-01179 (D. Del.
`Aug. 4, 2018) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Liquid Web, LLC, Case No. 1 :18-cv-01177 (D. Del. Aug. 4, 2018)
`Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Rackspace Hosting, Inc., Case No. 1: 18-cv-0 1183 (Del. Aug. 4,
`2018) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Hostway Services, Inc., Case No. 1: 18-cv-01175 (D. Del. Aug. 4,
`2018) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. McCann Relationship Marketing, LLC, Case No. 1: 18-cv-01180
`(D. Del. Aug. 4, 2018)
`• Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Namecheap Inc. , Case No. 1:18-cv-01181 (D. Del. Aug. 4, 2018)
`Closed
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 14 Filed 02/18/20 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 482
`
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Liquid Web, LLC, Case No. 1 :18-cv-01177 (D. Del. Aug. 4, 2018)
`Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. iCrossing, Inc. , Case No. 1:18-cv-01176 (D. Del. Aug. 4, 2018)
`Open
`• Shopify Inc. et al v. Express Mobile, Inc. , Case No. 1: l 9-cv-00439 (D. Del. Mar. 1, 2019)
`Open
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Go Daddy. com, LLC, Case No. 1: 19-cv-0 193 7 (D. Del. Oct. 11 ,
`2019) Open
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Web.com Group, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01936 (D. Del. Oct. 11,
`2019) Open
`
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Alpine Consulting, Inc. , Case No. 1: 17-cv-3815 (N.D. Ill. May
`22, 2017) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Alibaba.com, Inc. et al. , Case No. 2:15-cv-00461 (E.D. Tex. Apr.
`6, 2015) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. BigCommerce, Inc. , Case No. 2:16-cv-00384 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 8,
`20 f 6) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. WEBS, INC , Case No. 1:16-cv-00160 (E.D. Tex. May 23 , 2016)
`Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. WEBS, INC , Case No. 2: 16-cv-00558 (E.D . Tex. May 25 , 2016)
`Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Jiva lnfotech, Inc. d/b/a l95DEV, Case No. 2:16-cv-00775 (E.D.
`Tex. July 15, 2016) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Amplifi Commerce, LLC, Case No. 2: 16-cv-00811 (E.D. Tex. July
`20, 2016) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Weebly, Inc, Case No. 2:16-cv-00906 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2016)
`Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Digital Evolution Group, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00922 (E.D.
`Tex. Aug. 19, 2016) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. OSF Global Services Inc., Case No. 2: 16-cv-00924 (E.D. Tex.
`Aug. 19, 2016) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Astound Commerce Corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-00923 (E.D.
`Tex. Aug. 19, 2016) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Blue Acorn, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01411 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 15,
`2016) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Lyons Holding Co. Inc. et al. , Case No. 2: 16-cv-01414 (E.D. Tex.
`Dec. 15, 2016) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Coalition Technologies LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-01413 (E.D. Tex.
`Dec. 15, 2016) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Guidance Solutions, Inc., Case No . 2: 16-cv-0 1412 (E.D. Tex.
`Dec. 15, 2016) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Volusion, LLC et al., Case No. 2: 17-cv-00064 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 19,
`2017) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. WaveMaker, Inc. et al. , Case No. 2: 17-cv-00065 (E.D. Tex. Jan.
`19, 2017) Closed
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 14 Filed 02/18/20 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 483
`
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. KTree Computer Solutions Inc., Case No. 2: 17-cv-00128 (E.D.
`Tex. Feb. 14, 2017) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Optaros, Inc., Case No. 2: 17-cv-00129 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2017)
`Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Forix LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00127 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2017)
`Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Svanaco, Inc., Case No. 2: 17-cv-00130 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2017)
`Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Alpine Consulting, Inc., 2:17-cv-00126 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2017)
`Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. BigCommerce, Inc., Case No. 2: 17-cv-00160 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 27,
`2017) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Perficient, Inc., Case No. 8:19-cv-01175 (C.D. Cal. June 12,
`2019) Open
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Perficient, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-05105 (C.D. Cal. June 12,
`2019) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. lnMotion Hosting, Inc. , Case No. 2: 19-cv-05097 (C.D. Cal. June
`12, 2019) Open
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Possible Worldwide, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-05110 (C.D. Cal.
`June 12, 2019) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Sigma lnfosolutions Inc., Case No. 2: 19-cv-05106 (C.D. Cal. June
`12, 2019) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Sigma lnfosolutions Inc., Case No. 8: 19-cv-01177 (C.D. Cal.
`June 12, 2019) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Evolve Media, LLC, Case No. 2: 19-cv-05093 (C.D. Cal. June 12,
`2019) Open
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Add2Net, Inc. , Case No. 2:19-cv-05091 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2019)
`Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Netlancers Inc. , Case No. 2:19-cv-05102 (C.D. Cal. June 12,
`2019) Closed
`• XCommerce, Inc. v. Express Mobile, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-02605 (N.D. Cal. May 5,
`2017) Open
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. BigCommerce, Inc., Case No. 3: 18-cv-03287 (N.D. Cal. June 1,
`2018) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Pantheon Systems Inc. , Case No. 3:18-cv-04688 (N.D. Cal. Aug.
`3, 2018) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Globant, SA. et al. , Case No. 3:18-cv-04681 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3,
`2018) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Huge, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-04687 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2018)
`Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Svitla Systems Inc., Case No. 3: 18-cv-04694 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3,
`2018) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Happiest Minds Technologies Pvt. Ltd. , Case No. 3: 18-cv-04683
`(N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2018) Closed
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 14 Filed 02/18/20 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 484
`
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Code and Theory LLC, Case No . 3:18-cv-04679 (N.D. Cal. Aug.
`3, 2018) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Blackstone Technology Group Inc. , Case No. 3: 18-cv-04678
`(N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2018) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. SoftVision Inc. , Case No. 3:18-cv-04693 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2018)
`Open
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Gaddis Partners, Ltd. , Case No. 3:18-cv-05058 (N.D. Cal. Aug.
`17, 2018) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. The Stephenz Group Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-05061 (N.D. Cal.
`Aug. 17, 2018) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Contus Interactive, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-03350 (N.D. Cal. June
`13, 2019) Open
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Rishabh Business Solutions, Inc. , Case No. 3:19-cv-03356 (N.D.
`Cal. June 13, 2019) Open
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. MH Sub I LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-03352 (N.D. Cal. June 13,
`2019) Open
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Rauxa Direct, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-03357 (N.D. Cal. June 13,
`2019) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Phase2 Technology LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-03353 (N.D. Cal.
`June 13, 2019) Open
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. e-Zest Solutions, Inc., Case No. 3: 19-cv-03351 (N.D. Cal. June
`13, 2019) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Advantage AMP, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-05155 (N.D. Cal. June
`13, 2019) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. R21 Holdings, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-03355 (N.D. Cal. June 13,
`2019) Closed
`• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Wix.com, Ltd et. al, Case No. 3:19-cv-06559 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11 ,
`2019) Open
`• BigCommerce Incorporatedv. Express Mobile, Inc. IPR of '397, IPR2018-00750 (PTAB
`Mar. 6, 2018) No claims instituted
`
`2.
`
`Future Litigation:
`
`Plaintiff expects to continue to enforce its intellectual property rights. Such enforcement
`
`efforts may include the filing of additional litigation within the next year.
`
`3.
`
`Future IPRs:
`
`Defendant Web.com Group, Inc. has not decided at this early stage of this matter whether
`
`to seek to initiate an IPR proceeding regarding one or more of Plaintiff's asserted patents and
`
`understands the statutory deadline for filing any such petition is December 2, 2020.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 14 Filed 02/18/20 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 485
`
`Defendant GoDaddy.com, LLC has not decided at this early stage of this matter whether
`
`to seek to initiate an IPR proceeding regarding one or more of Plaintiffs asserted patents and
`
`understands the statutory deadline for filing any such petition is October 22, 2020.
`
`111.
`
`The parties, if they think it necessary, should set times in the
`
`schedule for reducing the number of asserted claims and asserted prior art used for anticipation
`
`and obviousness combinations. The usual points where the Court will consider such limits are
`
`before claim construction and after a ruling on claim construction.
`
`The parties agree to discuss the reduction of asserted claims and asserted prior art used
`
`for anticipation and obviousness combinations after the issuance of the Court's claim
`
`construction order.
`
`1v.
`
`If one or more of the patents-in-suit have already been licensed or
`
`the subject of a settlement agreement, Plaintiff shall provide the licenses and/or settlement
`
`agreements to Defendant no later than the time of the initial Rule 16(b) scheduling conference.
`
`If Plaintiff requires a Court Order to make such disclosures, it shall file any necessary proposed
`
`orders no later than twenty-four hours before the initial Rule 16(b) scheduling conference.
`
`Plaintiff shall represent in the scheduling order that it is complying or has complied with this
`
`requirement. All parties shall be prepared to discuss at the conference what their preliminary
`
`views of damages are.
`
`Express Mobile is in the process of complying with this requirement and a court order is
`
`necessary to produce all prior agreements. The parties are working on and will submit a joint
`
`motion ordering the production of prior licenses and/or settlement agreements. ~
`Po,Hion. Plaintiff's.pro1>osal .._.cceptable to GoDaddy , ad Wo8.eom, so long•• each of ffielT-- ~
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 14 Filed 02/18/20 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 486
`
`4.
`
`Application to Court for Protective Order. The parties agree that it will be
`
`necessary to apply to the Court for a protective order specifying terms and conditions for the
`
`disclosure of confidential information counsel will confer and attempt to reach an agreement on a
`
`proposed form of order and submit it to the Court within ten days from the date of this Order.
`
`Should counsel be unable to reach an agreement on a proposed form of order, counsel will
`
`follow the provisions of Paragraph 3(f) above.
`
`Any proposed protective order must include the following paragraph:
`
`Other Proceedings. By entering this order and limiting the
`disclosure of information in this case, the Court does not intend to
`preclude another court from finding that information may be
`relevant and subject to disclosure in another case. Any person or
`party subject to this order who becomes subject to a motion to
`disclose another party's information designated as confidential
`pursuant to this order shall promptly notify that party of the motion
`so that the party may have an opportunity to appear and be heard
`on whether that information should be disclosed.
`
`5.
`
`Papers Filed Under Seal. When filing papers under seal, counsel shall deliver to
`
`the Clerk the required number of copies as directed in paragraph 6. A redacted version of any
`
`sealed document shall be filed electronically within seven days of the filing of the sealed
`
`document.
`
`6.
`
`Courtesy Copies. The parties shall provide to the Court two courtesy copies of all
`
`briefs and one courtesy copy of any other document filed in support of any briefs (i.e.,
`
`appendices, exhibits, declarations, affidavits etc.). This provision also applies to papers filed
`
`under seal.
`
`7.
`
`Claim Construction Issue Identification. On or before October 30, 2020, the
`
`parties shall exchange a list of those claim term(s)/phrase(s) that they believe need construction.
`
`On or before November 13, 2020, the parties shall exchange a list of their proposed claim
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 14 Filed 02/18/20 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 487
`
`constructions of those term(s)/phrase(s). These documents will not be filed with the Court.
`
`Subsequent to exchanging those lists, the parties will meet and confer to prepare a Joint Claim
`
`Construction Chart to be filed no later than November 30, 2020. The Joint Claim Construction
`
`Chart, in Word or WordPerfect format, shall be e-mailed simultaneously with filing to
`
`rga civil@ded.uscourts.gov . The parties' Joint Claim Construction Chart should identify for the
`
`Court the term(s)/phrase(s) of the claim(s) in issue, and should include each party's proposed
`
`construction of the disputed claim language with citation(s) only to the intrinsic evidence in
`
`support of their respective proposed constructions. A copy of the patent(s) at issue as well as
`
`those portions of the intrinsic record relied upon shall be submitted with this Joint Claim
`
`Construction Chart. In this joint submission, the parties shall not provide argument.
`
`8.
`
`Claim Construction Briefingl . Plaintiff shall serve, but not file, an opening brief,
`
`not to exceed 5,000 words, on January 8, 2021. Defendants shall serve, but not file, an
`
`answering brief, not to exceed 7,500 words, on February 5, 2021. Plaintiff shall serve, but not
`
`file, a reply brief, not to exceed 5,000 words, on February 19, 2021. Defendants shall serve, but
`
`not file, a sur-reply brief, not to exceed 2,500 words, on March 5, 2021. No later than March
`
`19, 2021, the parties shall file a Joint Claim Construction Brief. The parties shall copy and paste
`
`their untiled briefs into one brief, with their positions on each claim term in sequential order, in
`
`substantially the form below.
`
`3 As each brief is written and provided to the opposing party, the individual responsible for
`verifying the word count will represent to the other party that it has so verified and by what
`means. These verifications should not be provided to the Court unless a dispute arises about
`them. Pictures, Figures copied from the patent, and other illustrations do not count against the
`word limit. Plaintiff should include with its opening brief one or more representative claims with
`the disputed terms italicized. Should Defendant want to add additional representative claims,
`Defendant may do so. The representative claims and the agreed-upon claim constructions do not
`count against the word limits.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 14 Filed 02/18/20 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 488
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Representative Claims
`
`Agreed-upon Constructions
`
`III.
`
`Disputed Constructions
`
`A.
`
`[TERM 1] 4
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`Plaintiff's Opening Position
`Defendants' Answering Position
`Plaintiff's Reply Position
`Defendants' Sur-Reply Position
`
`B.
`
`[TERM 2]
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`Plaintiff's Opening Position
`Defendants' Answering Position
`Plaintiff's Reply Position
`Defendants' Sur-Reply Position
`
`Etc. The parties need not include any general summaries of the law relating to claim
`
`construction. If there are any materials that would be submitted in an appendix, the parties shall
`)/J-..
`
`submit them in a Joint Appendix.
`
`9.
`
`Hearing on Claim Construction. Beginning at ~' a.m. on [CJ=kc p. tic;,;
`
`~ ;1 I NJUest 3 11·:tut!e r.-~Jllt~ ,t~
`
`iA A:s.-i4 ?Jli2M, the Court will hear
`
`argument on claim construction. Absent prior approval of the Court (which, if it is sought, must
`
`be done so by joint letter submission no later than the date on which answering claim
`
`construction briefs are due), the parties shall not present testimony at the argument, and the
`
`argument shall not exceed a total of three hours. When the Joint Claim Construction Brief is
`
`filed, the parties shall simultaneously file a motion requesting the above-scheduled claim
`
`4 For each term in dispute, there should be a table or the like setting forth the term in dispute and
`the parties' competing constructions. The table does not count against the word limits.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 14 Filed 02/18/20 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 489
`
`construction hearing, state that the briefing is complete, and state how much total time the parties
`
`are requesting that the Court should allow for the argument.
`
`10.
`
`Disclosure of Expert Testimony.
`
`a.
`
`Expert Reports. For the party who has the initial burden of proof on the
`
`subject matter, the initial Federal Rule 26(a)(2) disclosure of expert testimony is due on or before
`
`July 9, 2021. The supplemental disclosure to contradict or rebut evidence on the same matter
`
`identified by another party is due on or before August 102 2021. Reply expert reports from the
`
`party with the initial burden of proof are due on or before September 10, 2021. No other expert
`
`reports will be permitted without either the consent of all parties or leave of the Court. If any
`
`party believes that an expert report does not comply with the rules relating to timely disclosure or
`
`exceeds the scope of what is permitted in that expert report, the complaining party must notify
`
`the offending party within one week of the submission of the expert report. The parties are
`
`expected to promptly try to resolve any such disputes, and, when they cannot be reasonably
`
`resolved, use the Court's Discovery Dispute Procedure or the complaint will be waived.
`
`Along with the submissions of the expert reports, the parties shall advise of the dates and
`
`times of their experts' availability for deposition. Depositions of experts shall be completed on
`
`or before October 10, 2021. Expert depositions are limited to a maximum of seven (7) hours per
`
`expert. As an exception to this rule, each side is limited to a total of fourteen ( 14) hours of
`
`deposition testimony of each technical expert testifying on both validity ( or invalidity) and
`
`infringement (or non-infringement) issues. The number of deposition hours and length of
`
`depositions may be modified by agreement of the parties or further order of the Court.
`
`b.
`
`Objections to Expert Testimony. To the extent any objection to expert
`
`testimony is made pursuant to the principles announced in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 14 Filed 02/18/20 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 490
`
`509 U.S. 579 (1993), as incorporated in Federal Rule of Evidence 702, it shall be made by
`
`motion no later than the deadline for dispositive motions set forth herein, unless otherwise
`
`ordered by the Court.
`
`11.
`
`Case Dispositive Motions. All case dispositive motions shall be served and filed
`
`on or before November 12, 2021. No case dispositive motion under Rule 56 may be filed more
`
`than ten days before the above date without leave of the Court. Absent an order of the Court
`
`upon a showing of good cause, each side is limited to one forty-page opening brief, one forty(cid:173)
`
`page answering brief, and one twenty-page reply brief for all its Daubert and case dispositive
`
`motions.
`
`12.
`
`Applications by Motion. Except as otherwise specified herein, any application to
`
`the Court shall be by written motion. Any non-dispositive motion should contain the statement
`
`required by Local Rule 7 .1.1.
`
`13.
`
`:::dnte
`
`First Pretrial Conference. On e@:z ji'lfltfti\ ,frtfffll" ??eMi;t
`~ ai t to tfite@e" ~;Jz!J..~
`ing to trial in Court with counsel beginning at r ~ (cid:173)
`
`Court will hold a Rule 16(e) final pretrial
`
`1 d
`
`conference for the first case procee
`
`The parties to the first case to trial shall file a joint proposed final pretrial order in compliance
`
`with Local Rule 16.3(c) no later than 5 p.m. on the third business day before the date of the final
`
`pretrial conference. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the parties shall comply with the
`
`timeframes set forth in Local Rule 16.3( d) for the preparation of the proposed joint final pretrial
`
`order.
`
`14. Motions in Limine. Motions in limine shall not be separately filed, with each
`
`motion containing all the argument described below in one filing for each motion. Any
`
`supporting documents in connection with a motion in limine shall be filed in one filing separate
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 14 Filed 02/18/20 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 491
`
`from the motion in limine. Each party shall be limited to three in limine requests, unless
`
`otherwise permitted by the Court. The in limine request and any response shall contain the
`
`authorities relied upon; each in limine request may be supported by a maximum of three pages of
`
`argument and may be opposed by a maximum of three pages of argument, and the party making
`
`the in limine request may add a maximum of one additional page in reply in support of its
`
`request. If more than one party is supporting or opposing an in limine request, such support or
`
`opposition shall be combined in a single three page submission (and, if the moving party, a
`
`single one page reply). No separate briefing shall be submitted on in limine requests, unless
`
`otherwise permitted by the Court.
`
`15.
`
`Jury Instructions, Voir Dire, and Special Verdict Forms. Where a case is to be
`
`tried to a jury, pursuant to Local Rules 4 7 .1 ( a)(2) and 51 .1, the parties should file (i) proposed
`
`voir dire, (ii) preliminary jury instructions, (iii) final jury instructions, and (iv) special verdict
`
`forms no later than 6 p.m. on the fourth business day before the date of the final pretrial
`
`conference. The parties shall submit simultaneously with filing each of the foregoing four
`
`documents in Word or WordPerfect format to rga civil@ded.uscourts.gov.
`
`16.
`
`First Trial. The first trial in these coordinate:.c._ses is scheduled for a five (5)
`
`day 5 jury trial beginning at 9:30 a.m. on m, IP ~ ¾ ,,s z1l. . ~ a ; :C§lj"ll!iUPt
`
`-to. ~lie Com t i11 t\101 alF!@II] with the subsequent trial days beginning at 9:30 a.m. Until the
`
`case is submitted to the jury for deliberations, the jury will be excused each day at 5:00 p.m. The
`
`5 Five days (i.e., about ten to thirteen hours per side) is the presumptive length of a patent jury
`trial. If the parties think it is obvious that this will not be enough, they may put in a different
`length and should be prepared to explain why at the Rule 16 conference. A final decision on the
`precise length of trial will not be made before the final pretrial conference.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 14 Filed 02/18/20 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 492
`
`trial will be timed, as counsel will be allocated a total number of hours in which to present their
`
`respective cases.
`
`17.
`
`ADR Process. This matter is referred to a magistrate judge to explore the
`
`possibility of alternative dispute resolution. This matter is referred to a magistra