`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2125
`
`Exhibit 2 125
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 313 Filed 02/19/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 8102
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`CALLWAVE COMMUNICATIONS LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AT&T MOBILITY LLC, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CALL WA VE COMMUNICATIONS LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No. 12-1701-RGA
`
`V.
`
`Civil Action No. 12-1702-RGA
`
`SPRINT NEXTEL CORP., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CALL WA VE COMMUNICATIONS LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No. 12-1703-RGA
`
`T-MOBILE USA INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ORDER
`
`The parties submitted letters in connection with three discovery disputes. (No. 12-1701,
`
`D.I. 297, 301). The scheduled discovery conference on February 17, 2015, was postponed due to
`
`inclement weather. The first issue raised seems suitable for resolution on the papers, and perhaps
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 313 Filed 02/19/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 8103
`
`one that should not be delayed.
`
`The issue is whether CallWave should be permitted to use certain confidential
`
`documents, including indemnification agreements, obtained in connection with the above-
`
`captioned litigation in the IPR. It has been represented that the IPR petitioner "withdrew" the
`
`argument to the PT AB that discovery issues should be resolved before me and not before the
`
`PT AB. (D .I. 301 at 1 n.l (citing Exh. I at 12, where any "withdrawal" appears to be an inference
`
`from an absence of discussion)). And, as quoted by Patent Owner (id., Exh. Hat 12), my view is
`
`that discovery before the PT AB is an issue for the PT AB. Any confidentiality issues, if
`
`discovery is permitted, can be resolved at the same time by the PTAB. Thus, CallWave's
`
`request to use the Appendix 1 documents in the IPR is DENIED.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED this u day of February 2015.
`
`I
`
`
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
