`
`
`
`
`
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`WHEREAS, the current fact discovery deadline in the foodstuff patent case is March 22,
`
`2024 (D.I. 315);
`
`WHEREAS, Impossible filed a Motion to Compel Discovery Related to Motif
`
`Investigations (“Impossible’s Motion,” D.I. 406) in the foodstuff patent case on Monday, March
`
`18, 2024;
`
`WHEREAS, Motif’s opposition to Impossible’s Motion is due on Monday, April 1, 2024;
`
`WHEREAS, Impossible’s reply in support of its Motion is due on Monday, April 8, 2024;
`
`WHEREAS, the Court’s ruling on Impossible’s Motion may impact the depositions of
`
`certain third-parties identified below that are scheduled to be deposed on March 20-22, 2024;
`
`WHEREAS, the parties have conferred regarding the timing of those depositions in light
`
`of Impossible’s Motion, and conferred regarding other outstanding discovery in the foodstuff
`
`patent case to avoid burdening the Court with disputes and wasting judicial and party resources in
`
`completing remaining fact discovery;
`
`NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed by the parties, subject to the
`
`approval of the Court, that:
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 22-311-WCB
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`))))))))))
`
`
`
`IMPOSSIBLE FOODS INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTIF FOODWORKS, INC. and
`GINKGO BIOWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 409 Filed 03/20/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 24582
`
`
`
`1.
`
`The parties agree to a limited extension of the foodstuff patent case fact discovery
`
`deadline from March 22, 2024 to April 15, 2024 for purposes of taking certain depositions of third-
`
`party witnesses who have already been timely served with subpoenas (with compliance deadlines
`
`on or before March 22) in the foodstuff patent case as of March 19, 2024;
`
`2.
`
`The deposition of third-party Jonathan McIntyre (currently scheduled for March
`
`20, 2024) may be taken after the Court rules on Impossible’s Motion at a date to be agreed upon
`
`by the parties but within two weeks of the ruling;
`
`3.
`
`The deposition of third-party Phillipe Prochasson (currently scheduled for March
`
`22, 2024) may be taken after the Court rules on Impossible’s Motion at a date to be agreed upon
`
`by the parties but within two weeks of the ruling;
`
`4.
`
`The deposition of third-party Morgan Keim (currently scheduled for March 22,
`
`2024) may be taken after the Court rules on Impossible’s Motion, at a date to be agreed upon by
`
`the parties but within two weeks of the ruling;
`
`5.
`
`The deposition of Janet Collins (currently scheduled for March 21, 2024) may be
`
`taken out of time in the foodstuff patent case, and will be rescheduled to take place by early to
`
`mid-April and no later than April 15 (date to be agreed upon by the parties);
`
`6.
`
`If the parties have not received a ruling on Impossible’s Motion by April 29, 2024,
`
`the Parties agree to jointly approach the Court asking for a ruling or guidance on how to proceed
`
`with respect to these depositions and expert reports;
`
`7.
`
`Impossible and Motif may supplement their interrogatory responses within one
`
`week of the last of the depositions covered by this stipulation (e.g., April 22). If the Prochasson,
`
`Keim and/or McIntyre depositions occur after April 15, Impossible and Motif may supplement
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 409 Filed 03/20/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 24583
`
`
`
`their interrogatory responses within one week of each of those depositions solely with information
`
`obtained in those depositions.
`
`8.
`
`For the avoidance of doubt, Motif does not agree to the relevance, admissibility or
`
`timeliness of discovery of any facts related to Martec, and expressly reserves all rights to any
`
`objections to such discovery including but not limited to the relevance, admissibility and lack of
`
`timeliness of discovery related to Martec for any purpose;
`
`9.
`
`Impossible will not argue that the fact that the parties have agreed to this extension
`
`makes the Martec discovery relevant, timely or not prejudicial. For the avoidance of doubt,
`
`Impossible contends that the Martec discovery is relevant, timely and not prejudicial independent
`
`of the extension. Impossible also will not argue or request that the Court should move the trial
`
`date or any other date in the currently operative case schedule based in whole or part on the fact
`
`that the parties have stipulated to this extension, nor that any changes in the timing of discovery
`
`resulting from the stipulated extension requires any modification to the case schedule.
`
`
`
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`By: /s/ Andrew M. Moshos
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Andrew M. Moshos (#6685)
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`amoshos@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Impossible Foods Inc.
`
`Dated: March 20, 2024
` 11389221 / 20200.00002
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`By: /s/ Jeremy A. Tigan
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jtigan@morrisnichols.com
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Motif FoodWorks, Inc.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 409 Filed 03/20/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 24584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED, this ____ day of March, 2024.
`
`
`
`U.S.D.J.
`
`4
`
`