MAYER° BROWN
`
`Hearing on Motion to Stay
`
`Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. LG Electronics Inc. et a/.,
`
`C.A. No. 13-2109-RGA
`
`October 19, 2015
`
`|DT_000020
`
`IDT_000020
`
`
`
`Hearing on Motion to Stay
`
`Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. LG Electronics Inc. et a/.,
`
`C.A. No. 13-2109-RGA
`
`October 19, 2015
`
`|DT_000020
`
`IDT_000020
`
`
`
`Ideal Candidate For a Stay
`
`°
`
`Simplification — |PRs will undoubtedly narrow the case
`
`—
`
`asserted patents and claims w_iH be canceled
`
`-
`
`Timing is ideal
`
`-
`
`—
`
`—
`
`—
`
`No claim construction hearing yet
`
`Trial is a year away
`
`Fact and expert discovery still to be conducted
`
`no stay will result in major confusion at very difficult times
`
`°
`
`No prejudice if case is stayed
`
`2
`
`MAYER'BROWN
`
`|DT_000021
`
`IDT_000021
`
`
`
`Factors Supporting a Motion to Stay
`
`
`
`A Stay Will Not Unduly
`Prejudice the Plaintiffs
`
`Timing Considerations Favor a
`
`Stay
`
`The Status of |PRs Favors a Stay
`
`The Relationship Among the
`
`Parties Favors a Stay
`
`A Stay will Simplify the
`Issues for Trial
`
`Procedural Posture is Ideal
`
`for a Stay
`
`3
`
`MAYER°BROWN
`
`|DT_000022
`
`IDT_000022
`
`
`
`N0 Prejudice - Plaintiffs’ Claims of Prejudice
`
`°
`
`”indefinite stay”
`
`—
`
`9 months is not indefinite
`
`° Defendants took too long to file IPRS
`
`—
`
`—
`
`Initial round filed before initial disclosures
`
`Second round filed around invalidity contentions
`
`° Not enough |PRs are instituted
`
`—
`
`—
`
`—
`
`6 lPRs instituted against 4 (of 7) patents
`
`5 pending petitions, implicating the other 2 (of 7) patents
`
`Only 1 patent not covered by instituted or pending IPRs
`
`4
`
`MAYER*BROWN
`
`|DT_000023
`
`IDT_000023
`
`
`
`NO Prejudice - Plaintiffs’ Claims of Prejudice
`
`"-
`|
`N Instituted/dropped Dropped
`B 2 dropped
`2 dropped
`”'°”"“
`2 dropped
`
`IPR (Pretech)
`
`Dropped
`
`2 dropped
`
`2 dropped
`
`Dropped
`
`Dropped
`
`Dropped
`
`
`
`5
`
`MAYER°BROWN
`
`|DT_000024
`
`
`
`
`Denied
`
`'
`
`'
`
`IDT_000024
`
`
`
`NO Prejudice — Plaintiffs’ Claims of Prejudice
`
`°
`
`"P|aintiffs’ ability to license the patents” is impacted
`
`—
`
`—
`
`—
`
`All but one patents expired
`
`All but remaining defendants already resolved their disputes
`
`No current licensing program for displays
`
`° No Preiudice to Plaintiffs
`
`6
`
`MAYER°BROWN
`
`|DT_000025
`
`IDT_000025
`
`
`
`Factors Supporting a Motion to Stay
`
`
`
`Timing Considerations Favor a
`Stay
`
`The Status of lPRs Favors a Stay
`
`The Relationship Among the
`Parties Favors a Stay
`
`‘/
`
`/
`
`‘/
`
`/
`
`A Stay Will Not Unduly
`Prejudice the Plaintiffs
`
`A Stay will Simplify the
`Issues for Trial
`
`Procedural Posture is Ideal
`
`for a Stay
`
`7
`
`MAYER°BROWN
`
`|DT_000026
`
`IDT_000026
`
`
`
`A Stay Will Simplify the Case
`
`°
`
`lPRs are already working
`
`—
`
`2 patents dropped, with claims canceled
`
`° Virtual certainty of additional canceled claims
`
`— About half of challenged claims are canceled
`
`— About 86% of ”e|ectrica|/computer” claims are canceled in
`final written decisions
`
`-
`
`Case is unmanageable right now — 53,000 assertions
`
`8
`
`MAYER*BROWN
`
`|DT_000027
`
`IDT_000027
`
`
`
`No Stay Will Complicate the Case
`
`°
`
`Institutions and Final Written Decisions due:
`
`—
`
`—
`
`—
`
`just as expert discovery is starting (1 FWD in January; 2 IDs in
`February);
`
`just as expert discovery is wrapping up (3 IDs in March; 1 FWD in
`March); and
`
`just as we are past summaryjudgment/daubert and ramping up
`for trial (2 FWDs in July)
`
`9
`
`MAYER°BROWN
`
`|DT_000028
`
`IDT_000028
`
`
`
`Stay Saves Resources
`
`°Pe“"'g
`Expert Reports
`Feb. 1, 2016 Rebuttal
`
`Reports
`
`Feb. 29, 2016
`
`Reply
`
`March 21, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`Fact Djssovery
`
`Oct. 24, 2016
`
`Expert
`
`Discovery Closes
`
`April 22, 2016
`Dispositive
`Motions
`
`June 3, 2016
`
`Trial
`
`
`
`'973, ‘660 FWD
`
`July 2016
`
`'816, '974, 370 ID
`
`Mar. 22, 2016
`
`'177 FWD
`
`Feb. 2, 2016
`
`15‘ 370 FWD
`
`1o
`
`Ja“13r2°15
`
`MAYER°BROWN
`
`|DT_000029
`
`IDT_000029
`
`
`
`Factors Supporting a Motion to Stay
`
`
`
`A Stay Will Not Unduly
`Prejudice the Plaintiffs
`
`A Stay will Simplify the
`Issues for Trial
`
`Procedural Posture is Ideal
`
`for a Stay
`
`Timing Considerations Favor a
`
`Stay
`
`The Status of lPRs Favors a Stay
`
`The Relationship Among the
`
`Parties Favors a Stay
`
`\
`
`\\'\\
`
`11
`
`MAYER°BROWN
`
`|DT_000030
`
`IDT_000030
`
`
`
`Procedural Posture — Ideal Time for a Stay
`
`° Trial date more than a year from today.
`
`- No claim construction hearing yet
`
`° Expert discovery not even begun
`
`- Fact discovery not complete
`
`12
`
`MAYER*BROWN
`
`|DT_000031
`
`IDT_000031
`
`
`
`16+ Depositions To Be Scheduled
`
`1. Greg Coghlan (10/7/15)
`2. Bob Ezell (10/7/15)
`3. Tim McCo||um (10/8/15)
`
`Jeffrey Parker
`1.
`2. Funitomo Hide
`3. David Pristash
`
`4. Acacia Research Corporation/Acacia Research
`
`S°9°.“9‘S-"'
`
`Group LLC
`
`Jaime Siegel
`
`Jonathan Taub,
`
`Rambus Inc./Rambus Delaware LLC
`
`LG Display- 30(b)(6)
`LG Electronics - 30(b)(6)
`10. P|aintiffs- 30(b)(6)
`
`11. 3M
`
`12. Lumitex, Inc.
`
`13. Alfredo Lezama
`
`14. Maurice Daniel
`
`15. Stefan Tamme
`
`16. Michael Nguyen
`
`13
`
`MAYER'BROWN
`
`|DT_000032
`
`IDT_000032
`
`
`
`13+ Outstanding Document Subpoenas
`
`.‘°9°.\'.°‘9‘P'S*’!\’!‘
`
`Sprint Corporation
`
`Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., lnc.
`
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
`
`Sony Corporation of America
`
`Lumitex, Inc.
`
`Alfredo Lezama
`
`Maurice Daniel
`
`Stefan Tamme
`
`Michael Nguyen
`
`|—\ .0 Apple
`
`I—‘ 5'‘
`
`3M
`
`l—‘ l‘-’ Hewlett-Packa rd/Compaq
`
`|—\ 5*’
`
`IBM
`
`14
`
`MAYER‘BROWN
`
`|DT_000033
`
`IDT_000033
`
`
`
`Procedural Posture — Ideal Time for a Stay
`
`° Major Potential Complications
`
`— Disputes over scope of case
`
`— Disputes over claim charts
`
`— Re-do of claim construction
`
`— Re-do of expert reports
`
`— Re-do of expert depositions
`
`— Re-do summaryjudgment
`
`— Re-frame entire case in months before trial
`
`15
`
`MAYER'BROWN
`
`|DT_000034
`
`IDT_000034
`
`
`
`Stay Saves Resources
`
`°Pe"i"8
`
`Expert Reports
`
`15+ depositions
`
`9+ document subpoena
`
`Written discovery responses
`
`HT
`Markman
`Fact
`
`Discovery
`Hearing
`Oct. 27, 2015 Closes
`
`Fact Discovery
`
`'973, '660 FWD
`
`
`
`July 2016
`
`’816, '974, ’370 ID
`
` Mar. 22, 2016
`
`'177 FWD
`
`Feb. 2, 2016
`
`1st 370 FWD
`
`1.;
`
`Ja"13r-’-°15
`
`MAYER-BROWN
`
`|DT_000035
`
`
`
`Reports
`
`Feb. 29, 2016
`
`Reply
`
`March 21, 2016
`
`Expert
`
`Discovery Closes
`Apr" 22: 2015
`Dispositive
`Motions
`
`June 3, 2016
`
`Trial
`
`Oct. 24, 2016
`
`IDT_000035
`
`
`
`Factors Supporting a Motion to Stay
`
`
`
`A Stay Will Not Unduly
`Prejudice the Plaintiffs
`
`A Stay will Simplify the
`
`Issues for Trial
`
`Procedural Posture is Ideal
`for a Stay
`
`Timing Considerations Favor a
`Stay
`
`The Status of |PRs Favors a Stay
`
`The Relationship Among the
`Parties Favors a Stay
`
`‘/
`
`‘/
`
`‘/
`
`¢
`
`‘/
`
`‘/
`
`17
`
`MAYER°BROWN
`
`|DT_000036
`
`IDT_000036
`
`
`
`Conclusion
`
`- no prejudice to Plaintiffs if the case is stayed
`
`- the case would be greatly simplified by letting the
`|PRs run their course
`
`- the case would be greatly complicated if not stayed
`
`° procedurally, this is the ideal time to stay the case
`
`18
`
`MAYER‘BROWN
`
`|DT_000037
`
`IDT_000037
`
`
`
`° Following slide if needed
`
`19
`
`MAYER‘BROWN
`
`|DT_000038
`
`IDT_000038
`
`
`
`Only Minor Differences Between The First Instituted
`‘370 IPR Claims and the Asserted Claims
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`15‘ ‘370 IPR Claims
`
`1/13. both the front and 15/27. at least one of the
`back sides havinga pattern sides having a pattern of
`of
`light
`extracting light extracting deformities
`deformities
`that
`are that
`are
`projections
`or
`projections or depressions depressions on or in the at
`on or in the sides to cause least one side to cause light
`light
`to be emitted from to be emitted from the
`
`a panel member
`in
`the panel member
`predetermined
`output predetermined
`distribution,
`distribution,
`
`a
`in
`output
`
`20
`
`MAYER°BROWN
`
`|DT_000039
`
`IDT_000039
`
`
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
