Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-2, PageID.7868 Filed 11/04/22 Page 1 of 25
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-2, PageID.7869 Filed 11/04/22 Page 2 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No.
` Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`
`
`
`
`In Re: Neo Wireless, LLC,
`Patent Litigation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT RULE 26 REPORT AND PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`Pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties to this case, by
`
`and through their respective counsel, jointly submit this Rule 26(f) Report and Proposed
`
`Scheduling Order:
`
`
`Initial Disclosures
`Fact Discovery Commences
`
`Neo’s Proposal
`Thursday, July 28, 2022
`Thursday, July 14, 2022
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`Sept. 14, 2022
`One month after Markman
`order
`Sept. 28, 2022
`Nov. 16, 2022
`
`Dec. 16, 2022
`
`September 30, 2022
`
`
`
`Thursday, August 18, 2022
`Thursday, September 15,
`2022
`Thursday, December 1,
`2022
`Thursday, December 1,
`2022
`TBD
`
`Thursday, October 20, 2022 Nov. 28, 2022
`
`Thursday, November 17,
`2022
`
`Dec. 28, 2022
`
`Thursday, December 1,
`2022
`TBD
`
`Jan. 4, 2023
`
`Jan. 18, 2023
`
`Infringement Contentions
`Invalidity and Non-
`Infringement Contentions
`Deadline to Amend Pleadings
`
`Deadline to Add Parties
`
`Contact Technical Advisor to
`Schedule Settlement Conference
`(Court)
`Initial Identification of Disputed
`Claim Terms
`Exchange Proposed
`Interpretations of Disputed
`Claim Terms
`Final Identification of Disputed
`Claim Terms
`Informal Technology Tutorial
`(Court)
`
`
`
`1
`
`Style Definition: Header
`Style Definition: Footer
`Formatted: Top: 1"
`
`Inserted Cells
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`Formatted Table
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-2, PageID.7870 Filed 11/04/22 Page 3 of 25
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim
`Construction Briefs
`Defendant’s Responsive Claim
`Construction Brief
`Plaintiff’s Reply Claim
`Construction Brief
`Claim Construction Hearing
`(Court) (2-3 months from
`deadline of Plaintiff’s Reply
`Claim Construction Brief)
`Beginning of fact discovery
`
`Deadline to amend burden
`contentions after Markman
`Deadline to amend non-burden
`contentions after Markman
`Fact Discovery Closes
`(Deadline to Serve
`Discovery)
`Expert Reports on Infringement
`(Plaintiff), Invalidity
`(Defendant), and Damages
`(Plaintiff)
`Rebuttal Expert Reports
`
`Expert Discovery Deadline
`
`Dispositive Motion Deadline
`
`Motion in
`LimineOppositions to
`dispositive motions
`Joint Final Pretrial
`OrderReplies to dispositive
`motions
`Stipulated Proposed Jury
`Instructions
`Trial (Court)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`Neo’s Proposal
`Thursday, January 12, 2023 Feb. 20, 2023
`
`Thursday, February 9, 2023 Mar. 20, 2023
`
`Thursday, February 23,
`2023
`TBD
`
`Apr. 3, 2023
`
`TBD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Thursday, May 25, 2023
`
`1 mon. after Markman
`Order
`1 mon. after Markman
`Order
`2 mon. after Markman
`Order
`6 mon. after Markman
`
`1 Month from Claim
`Construction Opinion
`
`7 mon. after Markman
`
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`
`Inserted Cells
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`Formatted Table
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`
`2 months from Claim
`Construction Opinion
`Two weeks from Rebuttal
`Expert Report Deadline
`Two weeks from Expert
`Discovery Deadline
`At least 1 month before
`Final Pretrial Conference
`
`9 mon. after Markman
`
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`
`11 mon. after Markman
`
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`
`12 mon. after Markman
`
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`
`21 days from filing
`
`At least 1 week before Joint
`Final Pretrial Conference
`
`14 days from oppositions
`
`At least 1 week before Joint Final Pretrial Conference
`
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`
`Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
`
`TBD
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-2, PageID.7871 Filed 11/04/22 Page 4 of 25
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 26(f), the parties held a meeting on July 14XX, 2022, which was attended
`
`by the following attorneys:
`
`Jason D. Cassady
`Christopher Stewart
`Caldwell Cassady Curry P.C.
`2121 N. Pearl St., Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas
`75201 Telephone: (214) 888-4848
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`II.
`
`DISCOVERY PLAN
`
`
`
`Attorney
`FIRM
`ADDRESS
`ADDRESS
`TELEPHONE NUMBER
`
`Attorney for Defendant
`
`The discovery in this case is limited to the disclosures described in the following
`
`paragraphs:
`
`a.
`
`Interrogatories. Plaintiff may serve up to 3515 joint interrogatories on the
`
`Defendants and may serve up to 10 individualized interrogatories on each
`
`party Defendant. Defendants shallmay serve 15 joint interrogatories on
`
`Plaintiff, and each party Defendant may serve 810 individualized
`
`interrogatories on Plaintiff. “Party” means a party and its affiliated
`
`companies. “Side” means a party or group of parties with a common
`
`interest.
`
`Formatted: Justified
`
`Formatted: Justified
`Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.5", Space Before: 0 pt,
`After: 0 pt, Line spacing: Double
`Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt
`
`Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", Hanging: 0.5", Space
`Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-2, PageID.7872 Filed 11/04/22 Page 5 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Requests for Admission. Plaintiff may serve up to 50 20 joint requests for
`
`admission and 20 individualized requests for admission on each party
`
`Defendant. Defendants shall serve 1520 joint requests for admission on
`
`Plaintiff, and each party Defendant may serve 1020 individualized
`
`interrogatoriesrequests for admission on Plaintiff. This limit does not apply
`
`to requests for admission that seek an admission as to the authenticity of a
`
`document or thing. Such requests for admission as to authenticity will be
`
`unlimited, clearly denoted as such, and served separately from other
`
`requests for admission.
`
`c.
`
`Depositions.
`
`i.
`
`Party Witnesses: Plaintiff may take up to 10035 hours of 30(b)(1)
`
`or 30(b)(6) depositions from each party Defendant. Defendants may
`
`collectively take 100125 hours of 30(b)(1) or 30(b)(6) depositions
`
`from Plaintiff. Defendants must take all reasonable efforts to avoid
`
`duplicative questioning against Plaintiff’s witnesses. The deposition
`
`of any single fact witness will be limited to 7 hours. unless that
`
`witness is cross-noticed in multiple cases, then the deposition will
`
`be limited to 7 hours plus an additional 4 hours per additional case
`
`for which the witness was noticed. If either side believes that
`
`additional time with a particular witness is necessary, the parties
`
`shall meet and confer in good faith in order to reach an agreement.
`
`ii.
`
`Third Party Witnesses: The deposition of any single third-party
`
`witness will be limited to 7 hours absent leave of Court or written
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-2, PageID.7873 Filed 11/04/22 Page 6 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`agreement of the parties and the witness or designating entity.
`
`iii.
`
`Expert Witnesses: No more than 7 hours of expert witness
`
`deposition testimony may be taken by each side for each witness
`
`disclosed pursuant to Paragraph 2, expert witness who provides a
`
`report, except that if such a witness submits testimony in multiple
`
`reports, (e.g., infringement and validity or is the subject of multiple
`
`disclosures pursuant to Paragraph 2,infringement reports), submits
`
`an infringement or provides a written opinion on more than one
`
`issue (for example, invalidity and non-infringement), report for
`
`more than one defendant party (e.g., alleging infringement or non-
`
`infringement by multiple defendant groups), or submits a report that
`
`responds to multiple reports, the limit will be 7 hours plus 544 hours
`
`for each report, disclosure, or issueparty, up to a maximum of 2835
`
`hours. No additional time for an expert witness deposition will be
`
`warranted absent a showing of good cause. The parties will be
`
`expected to work cooperatively before raising any requests for
`
`additional time with the Court.
`
`iv.
`
`Interpreters and Translators: Any deposition requiring the use of
`
`an interpreter or translator will be counted in an amount equal to
`
`570% of the actual time incurred, such that a 7 hour deposition
`
`would instead be limited to 10.5 hours, and can be split over two
`
`days at the election of the producing party or producing non-party.
`
`A deposition using a translator counts for 2/3 time in relation to the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-2, PageID.7874 Filed 11/04/22 Page 7 of 25
`
`
`
`per Side limits, such that a 10.5 hour deposition would be counted
`
`as 7 hours of time can be split over two days at the election of the
`
`producing party or producing non-party.
`
`III.
`
`SUBJECTS AND NATURE OF DISCOVERY
`
`A.
`
`DISCOVERY BY PLAINTIFF
`
`Plaintiff anticipates seeking discovery on at least the following topics: (1) the structure,
`
`Formatted: Justified
`
`function, and operation of the accused products; (2) the development of the allegedly infringing
`
`features; (3) the importance of those features to the operation and performance of the accused
`
`products; (4) issues relating to damages, including the importance of the patented features to
`
`Defendants’ customers and Defendant’s sales and profits realized for the accused products and any
`
`ancillary sales made as a result of the accused products; (5) the factual basis for Defendants’
`
`defenses; (6) claim construction of the patents-in-suit; (7) Defendants’ knowledge of the patents-
`
`in-suit and efforts to avoid infringement; and (8) factual basis of Defendants’ beliefs that the
`
`patents-in-suit are invalid or not infringed. Plaintiff further anticipates taking discovery from third
`
`parties, including third-party carriers and third-party manufacturers of components incorporated
`
`into the accused products.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`DISCOVERY BY DEFENDANT
`
`[Insert]
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-2, PageID.7875 Filed 11/04/22 Page 8 of 25
`
`
`
`Defendants anticipate seeking discovery on at least the following topics: (1) the factual
`
`basis for Plaintiff’s allegations, including infringement, willful infringement, validity, and
`
`damages; (2) the patents-in-suit and the prosecution history of the patents-in-suit and related
`
`patents, including records created during inter partes review proceedings involving the patents-
`
`in-suit and any related patents; (3) the conception, reduction to practice, research, development,
`
`and use of the alleged inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit; (4) the prior art to the asserted
`
`patents; (5) the ownership of the patents-in-suit; (6) the implementation (if any) of the patents-in-
`
`suit in the LTE standard or 5G standard; (7) compliance with and/or agreements pertaining to
`
`commitment(s) to license the asserted patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms;
`
`(8) communications and agreements between Neo (and any predecessors) and third parties
`
`regarding the patents-in-suit, including settlement agreements; (9) pleadings, documents,
`
`discovery, and transcripts from other proceedings involving the asserted patents or related
`
`patents, and (10) any valuation of the patents-in-suit.
`
`C.
`
`ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION
`
`The parties agree to take reasonable steps to preserve potentially relevant ESI. A party’s
`
`Formatted: Justified
`
`meaningful compliance with this Order and efforts to promote efficiency and reduce costs will be
`
`considered in cost-shifting determinations.
`
`Absent agreement of the parties or further order of this Court, the following parameters
`
`shall apply to ESI production” :
`
`a.
`
`General Document Image Format. Each electronic document shall be
`
`Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 1", Hanging: 0.5"
`
`produced in single-page Tagged Image File Format (“TIFF”) format. TIFF
`
`files shall be single page and shall be named with a unique production
`
`number followed by the appropriate file extension. Load files shall be
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-2, PageID.7876 Filed 11/04/22 Page 9 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`provided to indicate the location and unitization of the TIFF files. If a
`
`document is more than one page, the unitization of the document and any
`
`attachments and/or affixed notes shall be maintained as they existed in the
`
`original document.
`
`b.
`
`Text-Searchable Documents. The parties will provide document-level
`
`searchable text for all produced documents. Electronically extracted text
`
`shall be provided if available for all documents collected from electronic
`
`sources. Text generated via Optical Character Recognition (“OCR”) shall
`
`be provided for documents originally maintained in hard copy, redacted
`
`documents, and electronic documents that do not contain electronically
`
`extractable text (e.g. non-searchable PDF documents and image files).
`
`c.
`
`Footer. Each document image shall contain a footer with a sequentially
`
`ascending production number.
`
`d.
`
`Native Files. A party that receives a document produced in a format
`
`specified above may make a reasonable request to receive the document in
`
`its native format, and upon receipt of such a request, the producing party
`
`shall produce the document in its native format. The parties agree
`
`that .xls, .csv and other spreadsheet files will not be converted to another
`
`format and instead will be produced natively without a specific request for
`
`native production, absent good cause to produce in another format.
`
`e.
`
`No Backup Restoration Required. Absent a showing of good cause, no
`
`party need restore any form of media upon which backup data is maintained
`
`in a party’s normal or allowed processes, including but not limited to backup
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-2, PageID.7877 Filed 11/04/22 Page 10 of 25
`
`tapes, disks, SAN, and other forms of media, to comply with its discovery
`
`obligations in the present case.
`
`f.
`
`Load Files. Metadata load files will contain the applicable fields listed in
`
`Exhibit A, if available based on reasonable collection efforts.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-2, PageID.7878 Filed 11/04/22 Page 11 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), the inadvertent production of privileged or
`
`Formatted: Normal, Justified, Indent: First line: 0"
`
`work product protected ESI is not a waiver in the pending case or in any other federal or state
`
`proceeding. The receiving party shall not use ESI that the producing party asserts is attorney-client
`
`privileged or work product protected to challenge the privilege or protection. The mere production
`
`of ESI in a litigation as part of a mass production shall not itself constitute a waiver for any purpose.
`
`The foregoing provisions do not otherwise modify the treatment of inadvertently produced
`
`material under the agreed Protective Order.
`
`
`
`A party is only required to produce a single copy of a responsive document and a party
`
`may de-duplicate identical responsive ESI (based on MD5 or SHA-1 hash values at the document
`
`level) across custodians. To the extent that de-duplication through MD5 or SHA-1 hash values is
`
`not possible, or to the extent that population of the above fields is not possible or practicable, the
`
`parties shall meet and confer to discuss any other proposed method of de-duplication.
`
`
`
`Normal ESI discovery shall not include discovery of e-mail records. To the extent a party
`
`believes e-mail discovery is necessary, the parties shall meet and confer on a framework for such
`
`e-mail discovery. No e-mail discovery shall be permitted absent a showing of good cause and
`
`order of the court.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-2, PageID.7879 Filed 11/04/22 Page 12 of 25
`
`
`
`Privileged or work-product protected communications that post-date the filing of the
`
`Formatted: Justified, Indent: First line: 0.5"
`
`complaint in this litigation, involve counsel, and directly concern this litigation or inter partes
`
`reviews involving the asserted patents need not be identified on a privilege log. Similarly,
`
`privileged or work-product protected communications from prior litigation involving the patents-
`
`in-suit need not be identified on a privilege log. A party need include only one entry on the log
`
`(including the names of all of the recipients of the communications) to identify withheld emails
`
`that constitute an uninterrupted dialogue between or among individuals, provided that all
`
`participants to any portion of such dialogue shall be included in the log entry if the log entry reflects
`
`more than one email. The parties shall also log any redacted documents and identify those
`
`document(s) by Bates number in the respective log entry(ies).
`
`IV. DISCOVERY SCHEDULE
`
`A.
`
`FACT DISCOVERY
`
`Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Space Before: 0 pt, After:
`0 pt, Line spacing: Double, Tab stops: Not at 1"
`
`Fact discovery shall commence on July 14, 2022 and allbe stayed until thirty days after the
`
`Formatted: Justified
`
`issuance of the Court’s claim construction order, with the exception of the initial disclosures which
`
`are due on September 15, 2022 and the parties’ contentions outlined below. All written discovery
`
`requests shall be served no later than 30 days prior to the close of fact discovery. Discovery shall
`
`begin on all discoverable issues and shall not be limited to claim interpretation. Discovery shall
`
`include any relevant opinions of counsel if Defendants intend to rely upon an opinion of counsel
`
`as a defense to a claim of willful infringement.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`RULE 26(a)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES
`
`The parties will exchange the initial discovery disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) by
`
`Formatted: Justified
`
`Thursday, July 28, 2022, no later than 14 days after the Scheduling ConferenceSeptember 14,
`
`2022.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-2, PageID.7880 Filed 11/04/22 Page 13 of 25
`
`
`
`As part of the initial disclosures, Plaintiff shall disclose Plaintiff’s position regarding which
`
`of the asserted patents it considers “LTE standard essential” or 5G standard essential; all
`
`information related to Plaintiff’s compliance with and/or agreements pertaining to its commitment
`
`to license the asserted patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms (this
`
`obligation extends to any prior owners of the asserted patents); Plaintiff’s licenses; Plaintiff’s
`
`settlement agreements concerning the patents-in-suit or any related patent; and all agreements and
`
`documents pertaining to the chain of title of the asserted patents.
`
`C.
`
`DEADLINE TO ADD PARTIES
`
`Formatted: Justified
`
`The deadline for adding parties is Thursday, December 1September 30, 2022. The deadline
`
`Formatted: Not Highlight
`
`Formatted: Not Highlight
`Formatted: Not Highlight
`Formatted: Font: Bold
`Formatted: Font: Not Bold
`Formatted: Line spacing: Double
`Formatted: Justified
`
`Formatted: Not Highlight
`
`Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75", Numbered + Level: 4 +
`Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment:
`Left + Aligned at: 3.25" + Indent at: 3.5"
`
`for amending the pleadings is Thursday, December 116, 2022.
`
`
`D.
`
`DISCLOSURE OF INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`The patentee must file and serve disclosures ofand an initial document production that
`
`identifies, as specifically as possible, the following information by Thursday, August 18September
`
`28, 2022:
`
`
`
`a. Each An identification of no more than 10 claims of each patent claimin suit that is
`
`allegedly infringed by each opposing party, but no more than 40 total claims;
`
`b. For each asserted claim, the accused product of each opposing party of which the
`
`patentee is aware. This identification shall be as specific as possible. Plaintiff shall
`
`identify each accused product by name or model number, if known.
`
`c. A chart identifying specifically where each limitation of each asserted patent claim
`
`is found within each accused product, including for each limitation that such party
`
`contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, the identity of the structure(s), act(s),
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-2, PageID.7881 Filed 11/04/22 Page 14 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`or material(s) in the accused product that performs the claimed function. If the
`
`patentee alleges the patent is standard essential, the chart must identify specifically
`
`which standard the patent is essential to, including which version(s) and explain
`
`how the claims are mandatory to the standard.
`
`d. d. Whether each claim limitation of each asserted claim is claimed to be
`
`literally present or present under the doctrine of equivalents in the accused product.
`
`For any claim under the doctrine of equivalents, the contentions must include an
`
`explanation of each function, way, and result that is equivalent and why any
`
`difference are not substantial;
`
`e. For each claim that is alleged to be indirectly infringed, an identification of any
`
`direct infringement and a description of the acts of the alleged indirect infringer
`
`that contribute to or are inducing that direct infringement. If alleged direct
`
`infringement is based on joint acts of multiple parties, the role of each such party
`
`in the direct infringement must be described;
`
`f. for any patent that claims priority to an earlier application, the priority date to which
`
`each asserted claim allegedly is entitled;
`
`g. identification of the basis for any allegation of willful infringement;
`
`h. if a party claiming patent infringement wishes to preserve the right to rely, for any
`
`purpose, on the assertion that its own or its licensee’s apparatus, product, device,
`
`process, method, act, or other instrumentality practices the claimed invention, the
`
`party must identify, separately for each asserted patent, each such apparatus,
`
`product, device, process, method, act, or other instrumentality that incorporates or
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-2, PageID.7882 Filed 11/04/22 Page 15 of 25
`
`
`
`reflects that particular claim, including whether it is marked (actually or virtually)
`
`with the patent number; and
`
`i. Production of a complete copy of the file histories for the patents-in-suit, including
`
`related patents claiming priority from either the patents-in-suit or their parents,
`
`foreign equivalents and their file histories.
`
`E.
`
`DISCLOSURE OF INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`Any party asserting invalidity or unenforceability claims/defenses must file and serve
`
`Formatted: Justified, Indent: First line: 0.5"
`
`disclosures and initial document production containing the following by Thursday, September
`
`15November 16, 2022. Defendants will file and serve all disclosures jointly to the extent possible.
`
`Formatted: Not Highlight
`
`a.
`
`Each item of prior art that forms the basis for any allegation of invalidity by
`
`reason of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or obviousness under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103. For prior art that is a document, a copy of the document
`
`should be provided to the patentee’s counsel or be identified by Bates
`
`Number if it was previously produced. As to prior art that is not
`
`documentary in nature, such prior art shall be identified with particularity
`
`(by “who, what, when, and where” etc.) as to publication date, sale date, use
`
`date, source, ownership, inventorship, conception and any other pertinent
`
`information.
`
`b.
`
`Whether each item of prior art anticipates each asserted claim or renders it
`
`obvious. If a combination of items or prior art makes a claim obvious, each
`
`such combination, and the reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would combine such items must be identified.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-2, PageID.7883 Filed 11/04/22 Page 16 of 25
`
`
`
`c.
`
`A chart identifying where specifically in each alleged item of prior art each
`
`limitation of each asserted claim is found, including for each claim
`
`limitation that such party is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, the identity
`
`of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in each item of prior art that
`
`performs the claimed function; and
`
`d. For any grounds of invalidity based on 35 U.S.C. § 112 or other defenses, the
`
`party asserting the claim or defense shall provide its reasons and evidence
`
`why the claims are invalid or the patent unenforceable and make specific
`
`reference to relevant portions of the patent specification and/or claims.
`
`Such positions shall be made in good faith and not simply pro forma
`
`arguments.
`
`
`NON-INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`F.
`
`
`
`On or before Thursday, September 15December 22, 2022, Defendants shall jointly file and
`
`serve non-infringement contentions, which shall explain the factual basis for any allegation that it
`
`Formatted: Not Highlight
`Formatted: Normal, Justified, Indent: First line: 0"
`
`does not infringe the patent-in-suit either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, including
`
`identifying what claim limitations that it believes are not present in the accused products and why
`
`an equivalent is not present.
`
`Formatted: Font: Bold
`
`G.
`
`RESPONSE TO INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`On or before December 22, 2022, Plaintiff shall file its response to Defendants’ Invalidity
`
`Contentions. This response will include a chart, responsive to the chart required by Section III.E.c
`
`of the Scheduling Order, that states as to each identified element in each asserted claim, to the
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-2, PageID.7884 Filed 11/04/22 Page 17 of 25
`
`
`
`extent then known, whether the party admits to the identity of the elements in the prior art and, if
`
`not, the reason for such denial.
`
`G.H. DEADLINE
`INFRINGEMENT, NON-
`FOR AMENDING
`INFRINGEMENT, INVALIDITY, AND INVALIDITYVALIDITY
`CONTENTIONS
`
`Formatted: Font: Not Bold
`
` Each party shall file seasonably amend any infringement, validity, invalidity, or non-
`
`Formatted: Level 2, Keep with next
`
`
`
`infringement contention in accordance with Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`
`upon learning that the contention is incomplete or incorrect. The parties should conduct timely
`
`discovery so that these contentions can be updated as soon as possible. Any amendment to a
`
`party’s infringement, invalidity, or non-infringement contentions, or other pleading, that is
`
`necessary due to the Court’s claim interpretation ruling,burden contentions must be timely made
`
`but in no event later than one month after the Court’s claim construction ruling. The parties may
`
`not amend suchAny amendment to a party’s non-burden contentions must be timely made but in
`
`no event later than one monthtwo months after the Court’s claim construction ruling. The parties
`
`may not amend such contentions after these deadlines absent good cause and leave of the Court,
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-2, PageID.7885 Filed 11/04/22 Page 18 of 25
`
`
`
`unless otherwise agreed to in writing by all parties. Any amendments by Defendants must be made
`
`jointly.
`
`Formatted: Font: Bold
`
`I.
`
`FURTHER REDUCTION OF ASSERTED CLAIMS
`
`On or before one month before the close of fact discovery, Plaintiff shall select no more
`
`than 5 claims per patent and no more than 20 claims overall that the party is asserting, each of
`
`which must be selected from the claims identified in Plaintiff's Infringement Contentions.
`
`J.
`
`FURTHER REDUCTION OF ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`On or before the close of fact discovery, Defendants shall select no more twenty-five (25)
`
`prior art references overall, each of which must be selected from the prior art identified in
`
`Defendants' Invalidity Contentions. This reduction does not limit the use of additional prior art
`
`that may be used for background purposes or to establish any motivations to combine.
`
`H.K. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
`
`Formatted: Justified
`
`The parties shall contact the Court’s Technical Advisor Christopher G. Darrow[TBD] to
`
`discuss the timing of having a settlement conference by Thursday, September 29, 2022after the
`
`issuance of a Markman order.
`
`I.L. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDINGS
`
`Pursuant to the decision of Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 116 S. Ct. 1384 (1996),
`
`Formatted: Justified
`
`the following procedures will be followed for resolution of claim construction issues in this case.
`
`AllTo the extent feasible, all exchanges, submissions, briefs, and the like, will be submitted jointly
`
`by Defendants.
`
`a.
`
`INITIAL IDENTIFICATION OF DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS – The
`
`parties will confer to determine what claim terms may need to be interpreted
`
`by the Court by Thursday, October 20November 28, 2022.
`
`Formatted: Not Highlight
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-2, PageID.7886 Filed 11/04/22 Page 19 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS – On or before Thursday, November
`
`17December 28, 2022, the parties shall exchange, but not file, a chart or
`
`Formatted: Not Highlight
`
`table that lists for each disputed claim term the party’s proposed
`
`interpretation of the disputed claim term along with citations to the intrinsic
`
`and extrinsic evidence (e.g., patent, prosecution history, dictionary
`
`definitions, etc.) that supports its interpretation along with a summary of
`
`any testimony that is expected to be offered to support that interpretation.
`
`To the extent feasible, Defendants will jointly submit to Plaintiff itstheir
`
`proposed interpretations.
`
`c.
`
`FINAL IDENTIFICATION OF DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS – Within one
`
`week after exchanging the claim chart above, the parties shall confer again
`
`about the claim terms in dispute. At this meeting, the parties shall attempt
`
`to narrow and finalize the claim terms that need to be interpreted by the
`
`Court. If, at any time, the parties determine that a claim construction
`
`hearing is not necessary, they shall notify the Court in a timely matter. The
`
`parties shall set forth separately the construction of those claim terms on
`
`which the parties agree.
`
`d.
`
`TECHNOLOGY TUTORIAL – The Court will hold an informal conference
`
`Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 1", Hanging: 0.5"
`
`with the attorneys on [Parties to leave blank: Case Manager will schedule
`
`approximately 2 weeks after Final Identification of Disputed Claim Terms]
`
`at 10:00 a.m. At the conference, the attorneys for each side will explain the
`
`technology at issue in the litigation. The conference will not be recorded.
`
`At this conference, the parties shall inform the Court of how many claim
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-2, PageID.7887 Filed 11/04/22 Page 20 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`terms they propose that the Court interpret. The Court may limit the number
`
`of terms that will be interpreted at an initial Markman hearing.
`
`e. PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF –
`
`Plaintiff(s) shall file its opening claim construction brief on or before
`
`Thursday, January 12February 20, 2023. Plaintiff’s opening claim
`
`Formatted: Not Highlight
`
`construction brief shall not exceed 25 pages (1412 point font), unless a
`
`different page limit is set by the Court.
`
`f.
`
`DEFENDANT’SDEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE BRIEF – Defendant(s)
`
`shall jointly file a single responsive claim construction brief on or before
`
`Thursday, February 9March 20, 2023. Defendant’s unless one or more
`
`Formatted: Not Highlight
`
`Defendant(s) seek additional claim construction rulings in which case these
`
`Defendants may file a separate brief that shall not exceed 10 pages (12 point
`
`font). Defendants’ joint response claim construction brief shall not exceed
`
`25 pages (1412 point font), unless a different page limit is set by the Court.
`
`g.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF – To the extent that Plaintiff intends to file
`
`a reply brief on claim construction issues, Plaintiff(s) shall file with the
`
`Court and serve on opposing counsel its reply brief within Thursday,
`
`February 23by April 3, 2023. Plaintiff shall also file and serve within this
`
`Formatted: Not Highlight
`
`time period a four-column claim interpretation chart in the form of Exhibit
`
`B. Plaintiff shall also submit a copy of the final version o