throbber
Case 2:15-cv-00183-JRG-RSP Document 131 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 5472
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-00183-JRG-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
`LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
`LLC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER
`
`The Pretrial Conference is scheduled for April 6, 2016 in Marshall, Texas, pursuant to the
`
`Court’s Amended Docket Control Order (Dkt. No. 96), Local Rule CV-16(b), and Rule 16 of the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The following parties submit this Joint Pretrial Order: Plaintiff
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “MTel”) and Defendants
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc., and Samsung
`
`Telecommunications America, LLC (“Samsung” or “Defendant”).
`
`Text highlighted in yellow is text that Plaintiff MTel proposes and to which Defendant
`
`Samsung has not agreed. Text highlighted in blue is text that Defendant Samsung proposes and
`
`to which Plaintiff MTel has not agreed.
`
`I. COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff:
`
`Daniel R. Scardino
`Texas State Bar No. 24033165
`Raymond W. Mort, III
`Texas State Bar No. 00791308
`Henning Schmidt
`Texas State Bar No. 24060569
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1014
`Page 1 of 2
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00183-JRG-RSP Document 131 Filed 03/29/16 Page 14 of 29 PageID #: 5485
`
`V. STIPULATIONS AND UNCONTESTED FACTS
`
`a. The Parties Agree To The Following Uncontested Facts And Stipulations.
`
`MTel filed its Original Complaint in this action on February 9, 2015.
`
`MTel filed its Amended Complaint in this action on July 31, 2015.
`
`The ’946 Patent, entitled “Nationwide Communication System,” issued on
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`May 19, 1998.
`
`4.
`
`Patent Application No. 08/124,219 (the “’946 Patent Application”) was filed on
`
`September 21, 1993.
`
`5.
`
`The named inventors of the ’946 Patent are Dennis Cameron, Walter Roehr,
`
`Rade Petrovic, Jai Bhagat, Masood Garahi, William Hays, and David Ackerman.
`
`6.
`
`MTel asserts infringement of claims 1, 4, and 8 of the ʼ946 Patent against
`
`Defendant.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`The ʼ946 Patent has a priority date of September 21, 1993.
`
`The ’428 Patent, entitled “Method and Device for Processing Undelivered Data
`
`Messages in a Two-Way Wireless Communications System,” issued on September 15, 1998.
`
`9.
`
`Patent Application No. 08/687,034 (the “’428 Patent Application”) was filed on
`
`July 25, 1996.
`
`10.
`
`The named inventors listed on the ’428 Patent are Masood Garahi, William Hays,
`
`John Hale, and Gregory Pinter.
`
`11. MTel asserts infringement of Claim 4 of the ʼ428 Patent against Samsung.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`The ʼ428 patent has a priority date of July 25, 1996.
`
`The ’403 Patent, entitled “Method and System for Efficiently Providing Two Way
`
`Communication Between a Central Network and Mobile Unit,” issued on December 31, 1996.
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1014
`Page 2 of 2

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket