`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`CASE NO. 6:10-CV-473
`
`§
`§
`
`g
`g
`g
`
`§ §
`
`ORDER
`
`ERICSSON INC., et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`D-LINK CORPORATION, et al.,
`Defendants.
`
`Before the Court are the following Motions: (1) Defendant Dell’s Motion for Leave to
`
`file its Second Amended Answer (Docket No. 301); (2) Ericsson’s Motion to Strike David
`
`Cabello (Docket No. 361); (3) Ericsson’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that Certain
`
`References are not Prior Art (Docket No. 362); (4) Ericsson’s Motion to Strike Expert Testimony
`
`Relating to Undisclosed Non-Infringing Alternatives (Docket No. 363); (5) Defendants’ Motion
`
`to Exclude Scott Nettles (Docket No. 365); (6) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of
`
`Non-Infringement
`
`(Docket No. 371); and (7) Defendants’ Motion to Strike Nettles’s
`
`Supplemental Report (Docket No. 392). The Court heard oral argument on May 9, 2013. At the
`
`hearing, the Court resolved the Motions as follows:
`
`0 Defendant Dell’s Motion for Leave to file its Second Amended Answer (Docket No. 301)
`
`is GRANTED.
`
`o Ericsson may file a motion to exclude testimony relating to Dell’s license by
`
`Tuesday, May 14, 2013.
`
`BROADCOM l O l 6
`
`
`
`Case 6:10—cv—00473—LED—KFG Document 415 Filed 05/09/13 Page 2 of 3 Page|D #: 12863
`
`0 The Court will not resolve Ericsson’s Motion to Strike David Cabello (Docket No. 361)
`
`at this time.
`
`o The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer to attempt to narrow the number
`
`of disputed issues.
`
`0 The Court will hear further argument regarding this Motion at the pre-trial hearing
`
`on May 23, 2013.
`
`0 Ericsson’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that Certain References are not Prior
`
`Art (Docket No. 362) is DENIED.
`
`0 At the hearing, Defendants stipulated that they would not present the Petras Book
`
`at trial. Ericsson subsequently withdrew its Motion with respect to the Petras
`
`Book.
`
`0 Ericsson’s Motion to Strike Expert Testimony Relating to Undisclosed Non-Infringing
`
`Alternatives (Docket No. 363) and Defendants’ Motion to Strike Nettles’s Supplemental
`
`Report (Docket No. 392) are both DENIED.
`
`o Ericsson may have one deposition hour for each of Defendants’ experts, including
`
`their damages experts.
`
`o Ericsson may have one deposition hour for each of Defendants’ corporate
`
`representatives. This does not
`
`include corporate representatives of the OEM
`
`Defendants.
`
`o Ericsson may supplement
`
`its expert reports with regards to non-infringing
`
`alternatives.
`
`0 Defendants may have one deposition hour with Dr. Nettles.
`
`
`
`Case 6:10—cv—00473—LED—KFG Document 415 Filed 05/09/13 Page 3 of 3 Page|D #: 12864
`
`0
`
`If Defendants believe they need to supplement their expert reports, they may seek
`
`leave of the Court.
`
`0 Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Dr. Scott Nettles (Docket No. 365) is DENIED.
`
`0 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement (Docket No. 371) is
`
`DENIED.
`
`The parties are fiirther ORDERED to attend mediation prior to the pre-trial hearing on
`
`May 23, 2013.
`
`SO ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of May, 2013.
`
`LEONARD DAVIS
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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
