`FILED IN CHAMBERS
`u.snr.- -Rome
`JAN 09 Z014
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`JAM~~. HA~~~~rk
`l./'O..,l{(j'"'t)epu~,erk
`
`CANON, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`v.
`
`NO. 1:11-CV-3855-RLV
`
`INC. and
`COLOR IMAGING,
`GENERAL PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL
`CO., LTD.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`o R D E R
`
`After carefully considering the claims construction report and
`
`recommendation of Special Master Gaynell C. Methvin dated August
`
`26, 2013
`
`[Doc. No. 168], the court receives it with approval and
`
`adopts it as the opinion and order of this court.
`
`In adopting the
`
`Special Master's
`
`report
`
`and
`
`recommendation without
`
`any
`
`modifications, the court notes that it carefully considered the
`
`objections to the report and recommendation filed by the plaintiff
`
`and the defendants [Doc Nos. 158 a
`
`this court to alter some of the Spe
`
`terms, the court can find no legal
`
`Special Master's well-reasoned rep
`
`to do so would undermine the very p
`
`to the Special Master. Therefore,
`
`1
`
`GPI EXHIBIT 1005
`GENERAL PLASTIC v. CANON
`IPR2016-01361
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 169 Filed 01/09/14 Page 1 of 2
`FILED IN CHAMBERS
`u.snr.- -Rome
`JAN 09 Z014
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`JAM~~. HA~~~~rk
`l./'O..,l{(j'"'t)epu~,erk
`
`CANON, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`v.
`
`NO. 1:11-CV-3855-RLV
`
`INC. and
`COLOR IMAGING,
`GENERAL PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL
`CO., LTD.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`o R D E R
`
`After carefully considering the claims construction report and
`
`recommendation of Special Master Gaynell C. Methvin dated August
`
`26, 2013
`
`[Doc. No. 168], the court receives it with approval and
`
`adopts it as the opinion and order of this court.
`
`In adopting the
`
`Special Master's
`
`report
`
`and
`
`recommendation without
`
`any
`
`modifications, the court notes that it carefully considered the
`
`objections to the report and recommendation filed by the plaintiff
`
`and the defendants [Doc Nos. 158 and 159]. While the parties ask
`
`this court to alter some of the Special Master's claim construction
`
`terms, the court can find no legal or factual reason to alter the
`
`Special Master's well-reasoned report and recommendation.
`
`In fact,
`
`to do so would undermine the very purpose of referring this matter
`
`to the Special Master. Therefore, the court REJECTS the parties'
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 169 Filed 01/09/14 Page 2 of 2
`
`objections to the report and recommendation [Doc. Nos. 158 and 159]
`
`and ADOPTS the report and recommendation [Doc. No. 168].
`
`Within 10 days of the docketing of this order,
`
`the court
`
`DIRECTS the parties to file a status report informing the court
`
`whether there is any opposition to the continuation of the Special
`
`Master's referral.
`
`If there is no opposition to the continuation
`
`of the referral, the court DIRECTS the parties to file a proposed
`
`order that outlines the scope of the Special Master's continued
`
`referral within
`
`21
`
`days
`
`of
`
`the
`
`docketing
`
`of
`
`this
`
`order.1Additionally, the parties are DIRECTED to inform the court
`
`whether they believe that mediation would be productive at this
`
`stage in the litigation or whether such mediation would be more
`
`appropriate after the filing of dispositive motions.
`
`SO ORDERED, this q~ day of January, 2014.
`
`Judge
`
`1 Given this court's complete adoption of the Special Master's
`report and recommendation, the court expects that there may be some
`reluctance on the part of some parties to continue the referral.
`However,
`the Special Master,
`in this court's opinion, is best
`suited to hear any future dispositive motions which may be filed by
`the parties given his
`firm understanding of
`the
`claim
`constructions.
`
`2
`
`3