Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 1 of 24
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD. a
`United Kingdom Limited Company,
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-04110-TWT
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`COLLECTIVE MINDS GAMING
`CO. LTD.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`JOINT PRELIMINARY REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN
`
`AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`Pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 16.2
`
`of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
`
`Georgia, Plaintiff Ironburg Inventions Ltd. and Defendant Collective Minds
`
`Gaming Co., Ltd. (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective
`
`undersigned attorneys, hereby submit the following Joint Preliminary Report and
`
`Discovery Plan.
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD. a
`United Kingdom Limited Company,
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-04110-TWT
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`COLLECTIVE MINDS GAMING
`CO. LTD.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`JOINT PRELIMINARY REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN
`
`AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`Pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 16.2
`
`of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
`
`Georgia, Plaintiff Ironburg Inventions Ltd. and Defendant Collective Minds
`
`Gaming Co., Ltd. (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective
`
`undersigned attorneys, hereby submit the following Joint Preliminary Report and
`
`Discovery Plan.
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 2 of 24
`
`
`
`1. Description of Case:
`
`(a) Nature of the Action
`
`Plaintiff Ironburg Inventions Ltd. (“Ironburg”) alleges infringement of
`
`several patents by Defendant Collective Minds Gaming Co. Ltd. (“Collective
`
`Minds”).
`
`Ironburg is a company organized and existing under the laws of the United
`
`Kingdom having its principal place of business at 10 Market Place, Wincanton,
`
`BA9 9LP, Great Britain.
`
`Collective Minds is a company organized and existing under the laws of
`
`Canada, having a place of business at 8515 Place Devonshire, Suite 205, Mount
`
`Royal, Quebec H4P 2K1, Canada.
`
`(b) Summary of Facts of the Case. (The summary should not be
`
`argumentative nor recite evidence.)
`
`Ironburg has asserted of five (5) patents that are owned by Ironburg and
`
`licensed to Scuf Gaming International, LLC (“Scuf Gaming”), a Georgia-based
`
`company engaged in the design, manufacture and sale of hand held video game
`
`controllers and associated accessories. The specific patents at issue are:
`
`(i) U.S. Patent No. 8,641,525 (hereafter the “’525 Patent”) issued
`
`February 4, 2014 and entitled, “CONTROLLER FOR VIDEO GAME
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 3 of 24
`
`
`
`CONSOLE;”
`
`(ii) U.S. Patent No. 9,089,770 (hereafter the “’770 Patent”) issued July 28,
`
`2015 and entitled, “CONTROLLER FOR VIDEO GAME CONSOLE,” which is a
`
`continuation of the ‘525 Patent;
`
`(iii) United States Patent No. 9,289,688 (hereafter the “’688 Patent”) issued
`
`March 22, 2016 and entitled, “GAMES CONTROLLER” ;
`
`(iv) United States Patent No. 9,352,229 (hereafter the “’229 Patent”) issued
`
`May 31, 2016 and entitled, “CONTROLLER FOR A GAMES CONSOLE”; and
`
`(v) United States Patent No. 9,308,450 (hereafter the “’450 Patent”) issued
`
`April 12, 2016 and entitled, “GAME CONTROLLER”
`
`(collectively, the “Patents-in Suit”).
`
`Plaintiff’s primary contention is that Defendant Collective Minds has
`
`infringed the aforementioned Patents-in-Suit by making, using, importing,
`
`marketing, selling, and/or offering to sell in the United States gaming controllers
`
`and accessories for gaming controllers, including but not limited to Defendant’s
`
`Strike Pack product and Defendant’s Trigger Grips product, that incorporate
`
`Plaintiff’s patented technology.
`
`Plaintiff is seeking monetary and injunctive relief.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been willful.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant defends this action by claiming it has not and is not infringing the
`
`Patents-in-Suit. Should Defendant be found to infringe any Patent-in-Suit, Defendant
`
`claims such infringement is not willful. Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to
`
`monetary or injunctive relief. Defendant also alleges that each patent asserted in this
`
`case is invalid.
`
`(c) Legal Issues to be Tried
`
`The parties currently-anticipate that the following issues will need to be
`
`tried:
`
`Suit;
`
`1. whether Defendant has infringed one or more claims of the Patents-in-
`
`2. whether any infringement by Defendant has been willful;
`
`3. whether Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief;
`
`4. the amount of damages and/or enhanced damages for any finding of
`
`infringement and willful infringement, including under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`5. whether this is an exceptional case, including under 35 U.S.C. § 285,
`
`entitling either party to its reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
`
`6. whether one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid
`
`(d) Related Cases
`
`The following case is a pending action by Ironburg and Scuf alleging patent
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 5 of 24
`
`
`
`infringement, including of the ‘525 Patent.
`
`• Scuf Gaming International, LLC, et al, v. Playrapid EURL, et al,
`
`Case No. 1:13-cv-03224-TWT (N.D. Ga.)
`
`
`
`The following case is a pending action by Ironburg alleging patent
`
`infringement, including of the ‘525 Patent, the ‘770 Patent, the ’688 Patent and
`
`‘229 Patent.
`
`• Ironburg Inventions Ltd., et al, v. Valve Corporation, et al, Case No.
`
`1:15-cv-004219-TWT (N.D. Ga.)
`
`2. Designation as Complex Case
`
` This case is (potentially) complex because of the existence of one or more of
`
`the following features:
`
`__ (1) Unusually large number of parties
`
`__ (2) Unusually large number of claims or defenses
`
`__ (3) Factual issues are exceptionally complex
`
`__ (4) Greater than normal volume of evidence
`
`_x_ (5) Extended discovery period is needed
`
`__ (6) Problems locating or preserving evidence
`
`__ (7) Pending parallel investigations or action by government
`
`_x_ (8) Multiple use of experts
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
` x (9) Need for discovery outside United States boundaries
`
`__ (10) Existence of highly technical issues and proof
`
`__ (11) Unusually complex discovery of electronically stored information
`
`The parties hope that this case can be resolved within the standard time
`
`frame for patent cases, including twelve months for discovery. However, Plaintiff
`
`is incorporated in the U.K. and one of the two inventors of the Patents-in-Suit are
`
`located outside of the United States, so some discovery may take place outside of
`
`the United States. Also, Defendant is organized and existing under the laws of
`
`Canada, so some discovery may take place outside of the United States. If these or
`
`other issues arise so that any party believes additional time is needed for this case,
`
`that party (or parties) will inform this Court of the need for additional time.
`
`3. Counsel
`
`The following individually-named attorneys are hereby designated as lead
`
`counsel for the parties, with additional local counsel also identified:
`
`Plaintiff (Ironburg):
`
`Robert D. Becker, lead counsel, admitted pro hac vice
`CA Bar No. 160648
`MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
`1841 Page Mill Road, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 812-1300
`Facsimile: (650) 213-0260
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 7 of 24
`
`Cynthia R. Parks, local counsel
`GA Bar No. 563929
`PARKS IP LAW LLC
`75 Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE, Suite 102
`Atlanta, GA 30308
`Telephone: (678) 365-4444
`Facsimile: (678) 365-4450
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Defendant (Collective Minds):
`
`
`
`Eric A. Buresh, lead counsel, admitted pro hac vice
`KS Bar No. 19895
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`6201 College Blvd., Suite 300
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`Facsimile: (913) 777-5601
`
`Paul R. Hart, lead counsel, admitted pro hac vice
`CO Bar No. 45697
`Michelle Callaghan, admitted pro hac vice
`CO Bar No. 50082
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`5600 Greenwood Plaza Blvd., Suite 200
`Greenwood Village, CO 80111
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`Facsimile: (913) 777-5601
`
`Steven G. Hill, local counsel
`GA Bar No. 354658
`Martha L. Decker, local counsel
`GA Bar No. 420867
`HILL, KERTSCHER & WHARTON, LLP
`3350 Riverwood Parkway, Suite 800
`Atlanta, GA 30339
`Telephone: (770) 953-0995
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`
`4. Jurisdiction
`
`Is there any question regarding this Court's jurisdiction?
`
`__Yes x No
`
`5. Parties to the Action
`
`(a) The named parties are not currently aware of necessary parties who have
`
`not been joined.
`
`(b) The named parties are not currently aware of improperly-joined parties.
`
`(c) The named parties are not currently aware of inaccurately stated or
`
`necessary portions of their names being omitted.
`
`(d) The named parties understand they have a continuing duty to inform the
`
`Court of any contentions regarding unnamed parties necessary to this action or any
`
`contentions regarding misjoinder of parties or errors in the statement of a party's
`
`name.
`
`6. Amendments to the Pleadings
`
`Amended and supplemental pleadings must be filed in accordance with the
`
`time limitations and other provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15. Further instructions
`
`regarding amendments are contained in LR 15.
`
`(a) Plaintiff does not currently believe that any amendment to the Complaint
`
`will be necessary. If Defendant moves to dismiss or otherwise challenges the
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 9 of 24
`
`
`
`Complaint, Plaintiff reserves all rights to amend in response to such motion or
`
`challenge as permitted.
`
`Defendant filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses on April 25, 2017.
`
`(b) The parties understand that amendments to the pleadings submitted
`
`LATER THAN THIRTY DAYS after the Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery
`
`Plan is filed, or should have been filed, will not be accepted for filing, unless
`
`otherwise permitted by law.
`
`7. Filing Times For Motions
`
` All motions should be filed as soon as possible. The local rules set specific
`
`filing limits for some motions. These times are restated below.
`
`All other motions must be filed WITHIN THIRTY DAYS after the beginning
`
`of discovery, unless the filing party has obtained prior permission of the court to
`
`file later. Local Rule 7.1A(2).
`
`(a) Motions to Compel: before the close of discovery or within the extension
`
`period allowed in some instances. Local Rule 37.1.
`
`(b) Summary Judgment Motions: within thirty days after the close of
`
`discovery, unless otherwise permitted by court order. Local Rule 56.1.(c) Other
`
`Limited Motions: Refer to Local Rules 7.2A; 7.2B, and 7.2E, respectively,
`
`regarding filing limitations for motions pending on removal, emergency motions,
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`and motions for reconsideration.
`
`(d) Motions Objecting to Expert Testimony: Daubert motions with regard to
`
`expert testimony no later than the date that the proposed pretrial order is
`
`submitted. Refer to Local Rule 7.2F.
`
`The parties understand the above provisions related to filing times for
`
`motions.
`
`8. Initial Disclosures
`
`The parties are required to serve initial disclosures in accordance with
`
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. If any party objects that initial disclosures are not appropriate,
`
`state the party and basis for the party’s objection. NOTE: Your initial disclosures
`
`should include electronically stored information. Refer to Fed.R.Civ.P.
`
`26(a)(1)(B).
`
`The parties’ Proposed Scheduling Order listing the deadline for Initial
`
`Disclosures and other deadlines is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`9. Request for Scheduling Conference
`
`The parties do not request a scheduling conference at this time. The parties
`
`request entry of the Proposed Scheduling Order attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`10. Discovery Period
`
`The discovery period commences thirty days after the appearance of the first
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`
`defendant by answer to the complaint. As stated in LR 26.2A, responses to initiated
`
`discovery must be completed before expiration of the assigned discovery period.
`
`Cases in this Court are assigned to one of the following three discovery
`
`tracks: (a) zero month discovery period, (b) four months discovery period, and (c)
`
`eight months discovery period. A chart showing the assignment of cases to a
`
`discovery track by filing category is contained in Appendix F. The track to which a
`
`particular case is assigned is also stamped on the complaint and service copies of
`
`the complaint at the time of filing.
`
`The parties understand the above provisions related to the Discovery Period.
`
`As a patent case, the discovery period is eight months. However, because both
`
`parties have international witnesses, the parties believe that additional time may be
`
`necessary for discovery in this case, and propose twelve months instead. The
`
`parties’ Proposed Scheduling Order listing other deadlines is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`Please state below the subjects on which discovery may be needed:
`
`The parties anticipate seeking discovery relating to at least the following:
`
`1. Plaintiff’s claim of Defendant’s alleged infringement of one or more
`
`claims of the Patents-in-Suit, including technical aspects of the accused product(s);
`
`2. Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant’s alleged infringement is willful;
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`
`3. The amount of damages and/or enhanced damages for any finding of
`
`infringement and willful infringement;
`
`4. For Defendant, the (in)validity and/or (un)enforceability of one or more
`
`claims of the Patents-in-Suit; and
`
`5. Any other relief to which the parties may be entitled.
`
`If the parties anticipate that additional time beyond that allowed by the
`
`assigned discovery track will be needed to complete discovery or that discovery
`
`should be conducted in phases or be limited to or focused upon particular issues,
`
`please state those reasons in detail below:
`
`As noted in Section 2 above, the need for discovery outside United States
`
`boundaries, the potential need for multiple experts per side, and/or the existence of
`
`highly technical issues and proof may warrant a party informing this Court that
`
`additional time for discovery is needed.
`
`11. Discovery Limitation and Discovery of Electronically Stored
`
`Information
`
`(a) What changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed
`
`under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rules of this Court, and what
`
`other limitations should be imposed?
`
`The parties agree that privileged communications occurring on or after
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 13 of 24
`
`
`
`November 2, 2016 need not be included in the parties’ privilege logs; however, if a
`
`party intends to rely on advice of counsel as a defense, such communications are
`
`not covered by this agreement, and all applicable requirements regarding reliance
`
`on such advice must be followed, including LPR 5.2.
`
`
`
`The parties consent and agree, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`5(b)(2)(E) that service may be made by electronic mail, with copies sent to all
`
`attorneys of record for the party served.
`
`(b) Is any party seeking discovery of electronically stored information?
`
` x Yes __ No
`
`If “yes,”
`
`(1) The parties have discussed the sources and scope of the production of
`
`electronically stored information and have agreed to limit the scope of production
`
`(e.g., accessibility, search terms, date limitations, or key witnesses) as follows:
`
`The parties have had initial discussions regarding the negotiation of a
`
`separate ESI order.
`
`(2) The parties have discussed the format for the production of electronically
`
`stored information (e.g., Tagged Image File Format (TIFF or .TIF files), Portable
`
`Document Format (PDF), or native), method of production (e.g., paper or disk),
`
`and the inclusion or exclusion and use of metadata, and have agreed as follows:
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 14 of 24
`
`
`
`The parties have had initial discussions and will attempt to negotiate a
`
`separate ESI order, which would include the format for the production of
`
`electronically stored information.
`
`In the absence of agreement on issues regarding discovery of electronically
`
`stored information, the parties shall request a scheduling conference in paragraph
`
`9 hereof.
`
`12. Other Orders
`
`What other orders do the parties think that the Court should enter under
`
`Rule 26(c) or under Rule 16(b) and (c)?
`
`The parties are negotiating a protective order to govern the production of
`
`documents, and anticipate having such order entered pursuant to stipulation (or
`
`absent agreement, pursuant to court ruling). As mentioned above, the parties are
`
`also discussing the terms of an ESI order.
`
`13. Settlement Potential
`
`(a) Lead counsel for the parties certify by their signatures below that they
`
`conducted a Rule 26(f) conference that was held on May 5, 2017 and that they
`
`participated in settlement discussions, including a recap of prior discussions
`
`between the parties. Other persons who participated in the settlement discussions
`
`are listed according to party:
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 15 of 24
`
`Plaintiff (Ironburg):
`
`/s/ Robert D. Becker
`Robert D. Becker, lead counsel, admitted pro hac vice
`CA Bar No. 160648
`MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
`1841 Page Mill Road, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 812-1300
`Facsimile: (650) 213-0260
`
`Danielle Mihalkanin
`CA Bar No. 271442
`MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
`1841 Page Mill Road, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 812-1300
`Facsimile: (650) 213-0260
`
`Cynthia R. Parks, local counsel
`GA Bar No. 563929
`PARKS IP LAW LLC
`75 Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE, Suite 102
`Atlanta, GA 30308
`Telephone: (678) 365-4444
`Facsimile: (678) 365-4450
`
`
`
`
`Defendant (Collective Minds):
`
`/s/ Michelle A. Callaghan
`Michelle A. Callaghan, at the direction of lead counsel, admitted pro hac
`vice
`CO Bar No. 50082
`Paul R. Hart, lead counsel, admitted pro hac vice
`CO Bar No. 45697
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`5600 Greenwood Plaza Blvd., Suite 200
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 16 of 24
`
`Greenwood Village, CO 80111
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`Facsimile: (913) 777-5601
`
`Eric A. Buresh, lead counsel, admitted pro hac vice
`KS Bar No. 19895
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`6201 College Blvd., Suite 300
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`Facsimile: (913) 777-5601
`
`Steven G. Hill, local counsel
`GA Bar No. 354658
`Martha L. Decker, local counsel
`GA Bar No. 420867
`HILL, KERTSCHER & WHARTON, LLP
`3350 Riverwood Parkway, Suite 800
`Atlanta, GA 30339
`Telephone: (770) 953-0995
`
` (b) All parties were promptly informed of all offers of settlement and
`
`following discussion by all counsel, it appears that there is now:
`
`(______) A possibility of settlement before discovery.
`
`(__x__) A possibility of settlement after discovery.
`
`(______) A possibility of settlement, but a conference with the judge is
`
`needed.
`
`(______) No possibility of settlement.
`
`(c) Counsel(___x___) do or (______) do not intend to hold additional
`
`settlement conferences among themselves prior to the close of discovery. The
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 17 of 24
`
`
`
`proposed date of the next settlement conference is yet to be determined.
`
`(d) The following specific problems have created a hindrance to settlement
`
`of this case.
`
`14. Trial by Magistrate Judge
`
`Note: Trial before a Magistrate Judge will be by jury trial if a party is
`
`otherwise entitled to a jury trial.
`
`(a) The parties (__) do consent to having this case tried before a magistrate
`
`judge of this Court. A completed Consent to Jurisdiction by a United States
`
`Magistrate Judge form has been submitted to the clerk of court this ____________
`
`day ____________________, of 20___.
`
`(b) The parties ( x ) do not consent to having this case tried before a
`
`magistrate judge of this Court.
`
`/s/ Robert D. Becker
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Eric A. Buresh
`Counsel for Defendant
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 18 of 24
`
`
`
`Dated: May 9, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Robert D. Becker
`Robert D. Becker, pro hac vice
`CA Bar No. 160648
`MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
`1841 Page Mill Road, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 812-1300
`Facsimile: (650) 213-0260
`
`Cynthia R. Parks, local counsel
`GA Bar No. 563929
`PARKS IP LAW LLC
`75 Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE, Suite 102
`Atlanta, GA 30308
`Telephone: (678) 365-4444
`Facsimile: (678) 365-4450
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`By: /s/ Steven G. Hill
`Steven G. Hill, local counsel
`GA Bar No. 354658
`Martha L. Decker
`GA Bar No. 420867
`Hill, Kertscher & Wharton, LLP
`3350 Riverwood Parkway, Suite 800
`Atlanta, GA 30339
`Telephone: (770) 953-0995
`
`Eric A. Buresh, admitted pro hac vice
`KS Bar No. 19895
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`6201 College Blvd., Suite 300
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 19 of 24
`
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`Facsimile: (913) 777-5601
`
`Paul R. Hart, admitted pro hac vice
`CO Bar No. 45697
`Michelle Callaghan, admitted pro hac vice
`CO Bar No. 50082
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`5600 Greenwood Plaza Blvd., Suite 200
`Greenwood Village, CO 80111
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`Facsimile: (913) 777-5601
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Collective Gaming Minds Co. Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 20 of 24
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD. a
`United Kingdom Limited Company,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`COLLECTIVE MINDS GAMING
`CO. LTD.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-04110-TWT
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`Upon review of the information contained in the Joint Preliminary Report
`
`and Discovery Plan form completed and filed by the parties, the Court orders that
`
`the time limits for adding parties, amending the pleadings, filing motions,
`
`completing discovery, and discussing settlement are as set out in the Federal Rules
`
`of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court, except as herein modified:
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED, this _____________ day of __________________, 20____.
`
`
`
`______________________________
`Thomas W. Thrash Jr.
`CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 21 of 24
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`[PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`DEADLINE OR EVENT
`
`PROPOSED DATES
`
`Rule 26(f) Conference (pursuant to
`LR 16.1)
`
`Joint Preliminary Report and
`Discovery Plan (pursuant to LR 16.2)
`
`Meet and Confer re Protective
`Order (pursuant to LPR 2.2(a))
`Initial Disclosures (pursuant to Fed.
`R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)
`
`Opening of Fact Discovery (pursuant
`to LR 26.2(A))
`
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Preliminary Infringement
`Contentions (pursuant to LPR 4.4(a))
`Disclosure of Preliminary Non-
`Infringement and Invalidity
`Contentions (pursuant to LPR 4.4(b))
`Exchange of Proposed Terms and
`Claim Elements for Construction
`(pursuant to LPR 6.1)
`Exchange of Preliminary Claim
`Constructions and Extrinsic
`Evidence (pursuant to LPR 6.2)
`Joint Claim Construction Statement
`(pursuant to LPR 6.3)
`Claim Construction Discovery
`Concludes (pursuant to LPR 6.4)
`Opening Claim Construction Briefs
`(pursuant to LPR 6.5(a))
`
`May 9, 2017
`
`May 9, 2017
`
`May 9, 2017
`
`May 9, 2017
`
`May 25, 2017
`
`June 8, 2017
`
`
`July 10, 2017
`
`August 7, 2017
`
`August 28, 2017
`
`September 18, 2017
`
`October 3, 2017
`
`October 18, 2017
`
`
`-21-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 22 of 24
`
`DEADLINE OR EVENT
`
`PROPOSED DATES
`
`Response Claim Construction Briefs
`(pursuant to LPR 6.5(b))
`Claim Construction Hearing
`(pursuant to LPR 6.6)
`
`November 7, 2017
`
`
`TBD at the Court’s Convenience
`
`Claim Construction Order
`
`TBD
`
`Final Infringement Contentions
`(pursuant to LPR 4.5(c))
`
`Final Invalidity Contentions
`(pursuant to LPR 4.5(c))
`
`Final Non-Infringement Contentions
`(pursuant to LPR 4.5(c))
`
`Fact Discovery Deadline (pursuant to
`LR Appendix F)
`
`Disclosure of Expert Reports on
`Issues Where the Party Bears the
`Burden of Proof (pursuant to LPR
`7.1(b))
`Disclosure of Expert Reports on
`Issues Where the Opposing Party
`Bears the Burden of Proof (pursuant
`to LPR 7.1(c))
`
`Rebuttal expert witness disclosures
`(pursuant to LPR 7.1(d))
`
`Open of Expert Discovery (pursuant
`to LPR 7.2)
`
`30 days after Claim Construction
`Order
`
`30 days after Claim Construction
`Order
`
`30 days after service of Final
`Infringement Contentions
`
`Later of May 25, 2018, or 45 days
`after Court’s Claim Construction
`Order
`
`Later of June 25, 2018, or 30 days
`after the close of fact discovery
`
`Later of August 24, 2018 or 30
`days after Disclosure of Expert
`Reports on Issues Where the Party
`Bears the Burden of Proof
`Later of September 4, 2018, or 10
`days after Disclosure of Expert
`Reports on Issues Where the
`Opposing Party Bears the Burden
`of Proof
`
`Later of September 11, 2018, or 7
`days after rebuttal expert witness
`disclosures
`
`
`-22-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 23 of 24
`
`DEADLINE OR EVENT
`
`PROPOSED DATES
`
`Close of Expert Discovery (pursuant
`to LPR 7.2)
`
`Settlement Conference (pursuant to
`LR 16.3)
`
`Dispositive Motions (pursuant to LR
`56.1(D))
`
`Opposition to Dispositive Motions
`(pursuant to LR 7.1(B))
`
`Reply Briefs to Dispositive Motions
`(pursuant to LR 7.1(C))
`
`Hearing on Dispositive Motions
`(pursuant to LR 7.1(E))
`
`Pretrial Order (pursuant to LR
`16.4(A))
`
`Daubert Motions (pursuant to LR
`26.2(C))
`Pretrial Conference (pursuant to LR
`16.4(A))
`
`Later of October 11, 2018 or 30
`days after Open of Expert
`Discovery
`
`Later of October 25, 2018 or
`Close of Expert Discovery
`
`Later of November 12, 2018, or
`30 days after the Close of Expert
`Discovery
`
`21 days after service of
`dispositive motions
`
`14 days after service of
`oppositions
`
`TBD, at the Court’s Convenience
`
`Within 30 days after close of
`discovery or Court's ruling on
`summary judgment, whichever is
`later
`
`
`Date Pretrial Order is submitted
`
`TBD, at the Court's discretion
`
`Jury Trial (pursuant to LR 16.4(A))
`
`TBD
`
`
`
`-23-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 27 Filed 05/09/17 Page 24 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on May 9, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing
`
`JOINT PRELIMINARY REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN AND
`
`[PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER with the Clerk of Court using the
`
`CM/ECF system which will automatically send email notification of such filing to
`
`all attorneys of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Steven G. Hill
`Steven G. Hill
`
`Attorney for Defendant
`Collective Gaming Minds Co. Ltd.
`
`-24-
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
