IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`CHARLOTTE DIVISION
`CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:14-CV-00274-RJC-DSC
`
`
`
`LIFESCAN, INC. and
`LIFESCAN SCOTLAND, LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs and
`Counterclaim-Defendants,
`
`– v –
`
`UTILITY PATENT
`CERTIFICATE OF INITIAL
`ATTORNEYS’ CONFERENCE
`
`
`UNISTRIP TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Defendant and
`Counterclaimant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Certification of Conference. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), a meeting was held on
`
`September 3, 2014, and was conducted by the undersigned counsel for the designated
`
`parties in the above-captioned case.
`
`Pre-Discovery Disclosures. The information required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) will be
`
`exchanged by September 17, 2014.
`
`Claim Construction Scheduling Order Deadlines. As described in Item 7 below, the
`
`parties agree that proceedings regarding one of the patents-in-suit (U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,250,105 (the ’105 patent)) should be stayed pending appeal to the Federal Circuit
`
`from a determination in an Inter Partes Review of that patent (Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board Case IPR2013-00247), but disagree on whether proceedings concerning the other
`
`patent-in-suit (U.S. Patent No. 6,241,862 (the ’862 patent)) should also be stayed.
`
`Subject to that disagreement on the scope of a stay, the parties agree that the following
`
`- 1 -
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 18 Filed 09/04/14 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`CHARLOTTE DIVISION
`CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:14-CV-00274-RJC-DSC
`
`
`
`LIFESCAN, INC. and
`LIFESCAN SCOTLAND, LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs and
`Counterclaim-Defendants,
`
`– v –
`
`UTILITY PATENT
`CERTIFICATE OF INITIAL
`ATTORNEYS’ CONFERENCE
`
`
`UNISTRIP TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Defendant and
`Counterclaimant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Certification of Conference. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), a meeting was held on
`
`September 3, 2014, and was conducted by the undersigned counsel for the designated
`
`parties in the above-captioned case.
`
`Pre-Discovery Disclosures. The information required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) will be
`
`exchanged by September 17, 2014.
`
`Claim Construction Scheduling Order Deadlines. As described in Item 7 below, the
`
`parties agree that proceedings regarding one of the patents-in-suit (U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,250,105 (the ’105 patent)) should be stayed pending appeal to the Federal Circuit
`
`from a determination in an Inter Partes Review of that patent (Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board Case IPR2013-00247), but disagree on whether proceedings concerning the other
`
`patent-in-suit (U.S. Patent No. 6,241,862 (the ’862 patent)) should also be stayed.
`
`Subject to that disagreement on the scope of a stay, the parties agree that the following
`
`- 1 -
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 18 Filed 09/04/14 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`deadlines are appropriate for inclusion in the Claim Construction Scheduling Order
`
`(hereinafter “SO”). These deadlines are based on the date the court issues the SO.
`
`Serve Initial Infringement Contentions
`
`Serve Initial Invalidity Contentions
`
`Exchange of Terms for Construction
`
`Exchange Preliminary Claim Construction
`
`File Joint Claim Construction Statement
`
`Close of Claim Construction Discovery
`
`File Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`File Responsive Claim Construction Brief
`
`File Reply Claim Construction Brief
`
`File Surreply Claim Construction Brief
`
`File Claim Construction Chart
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`SO + 30
`
`SO + 90
`
`SO + 111
`
`SO + 132
`
`SO + 162
`
`SO + 192
`
`SO + 206
`
`SO + 220
`
`SO + 227
`
`SO + 234
`
`SO + 241
`
`SO + 248
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Discovery Plan. All discovery shall commence upon entry of the SO and end at the time
`
`provided in the Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan, hereinafter the Pretrial Order
`
`or “PO.” Discovery shall be limited as follows:
`
`(a) Maximum of 20 interrogatories by each party to any other party.
`
`(b) Maximum of 20 requests for admission by each party to any other party.
`
`(c) Maximum of 6 depositions by plaintiffs and 6 by defendants.
`
`5.
`
`Post-Claim Construction Order Deadlines. The parties jointly propose to the Court the
`
`deadlines listed below for inclusion in the Utility Patent Pretrial Order and Case
`
`- 2 -
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 18 Filed 09/04/14 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`Management Plan (hereinafter the Pretrial Order or “PO.”) These deadlines are based on
`
`the date the Court enters the Claim Construction Order.
`
`Amended Infringement Contentions Served
`
`Amended Invalidity Contentions Served
`
`Advice-of-counsel Defense Served
`
`Fact Discovery Closes
`
`Opening Expert Reports Served
`
`Rebuttal Expert Reports Served
`
`Close of Expert Discovery
`
`Mediation Deadline
`
`Dispositive and Daubert Motions Deadline
`
`Trial Ready Date
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Other Miscellaneous Items:
`
`PO + 30
`
`PO + 60
`
`PO + 120
`
`PO + 180
`
`PO + 225
`
`PO + 255
`
`PO + 270
`
`PO + 285
`
`PO + 320
`
`PO + 420
`
`(a)
`
`The parties have discussed the issue of consent to the jurisdiction of a U.S.
`
`magistrate judge and do not consent.
`
`The parties do not request an Initial Pretrial Conference.
`
`Settlement may be enhanced by use of a mediated settlement conference.
`
`Final lists of witnesses and exhibits under Rule 26(a)(3) are due from both parties
`
`30 days before trial.
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`If the case is ultimately tried, trial is with a jury and is expected to take
`
`approximately 7 days.
`
`- 3 -
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 18 Filed 09/04/14 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Other matters which may require the Court’s attention:
`
`(a)
`
`Confidentiality order: The parties request entry of a confidentiality order, and
`
`will try to agree on the terms of such an order.
`
`(b) Motion to Stay: The parties agree that proceedings regarding one of the patents-
`in-suit (the ’105 patent) should be stayed pending appeal to the Federal Circuit
`
`from a determination in an Inter Partes Review of that patent (Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board Case IPR2013-00247), but disagree on whether proceedings
`
`concerning the other patent-in-suit (the ’862 patent) should also be stayed.
`
`Defendant UniStrip Technologies, LLC plans to move to stay proceedings
`
`concerning the ’862 patent and will submit its motion no later than September 17,
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`2014.
`
`This the 4th day of September, 2014.
`
`/s/EUGENE M. GELERNTER
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`/s/ANTHONY C. DECINQUE
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`Ryan M. Mott
`Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
`1133 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Phone: (212) 336-2000
`Fax: (212) 336-2222
`emgelernter@pbwt.com
`adecinque@pbwt.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counter-
`Defendants
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 18 Filed 09/04/14 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`/s/CHRISTOPHER L. BERNARD
`NC State Bar No. 27713
`/s/LAWRENCE A. BARATTA, JR.
`NC State Bar No. 37589
`Clements Bernard PLLC
`1901 Roxborough Road, Suite 250
`Charlotte, NC 28211
`Phone: (704) 790-3600
`FAX:
`(704) 366-9744
`cbernard@worldpatents.com
`lbaratta@worldpatents.com
`Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff
`
`/s/DAVID N. ALLEN
`NC State Bar No. 9095
`/s/J. DOUGLAS GRIMES
`NC State Bar No. 32699
`Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo, LLP
`P.O. Box 30397
`Charlotte, NC 28230
`Phone: (704) 366-1101
`Fax:
`(704) 366-6181
`dallen@hedrickgardner.com
`dgrimes@hedrickgardner.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 18 Filed 09/04/14 Page 5 of 5
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
