Roku Can't Delay Streaming-Tech Patent Trial
`Amid COVID-19
`decide at the appropriate time whether the June trial needs to be postponed."Page 1 of 2Roku Can't Delay Streaming-Tech Patent Trial Amid COVID-19 -Law360
`
`https://www.law360.com/articles/1262115/print?section=ip
`6/18/2020
`Law360 (April 9, 2020, 4:27 PM EDT) -- U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright has denied
`Roku's request to postpone an upcoming patent infringement trial over media streaming
`technology, saying it would be premature to reschedule the June 1 start date despite
`health and logistical concerns amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
`The Texas federal judge said he was for now rejecting Roku Inc.'s request in a one-line
`order Wednesday. The company had asked for a postponement because its attorneys in
`Maryland and Virginia are under stay-at-home orders and might not be able to travel to
`Texas to litigate the streaming company's dispute with MV3 Partners LLC.
`Judge Albright, who touts his court as a place to get patent cases to trial quickly,
`followed up with a standing order Thursday. He acknowledged that patent trial preparation
`is "an arduous task in the best of times" but even more difficult amid the COVID-19 crisis.
`"The court is willing to consider all reasonable adjustments to the current scheduling
`orders to allow the parties to complete discovery, and have adequate time to complete
`expert reports, take expert depositions, and file appropriate motions," Judge Albright said.
`Parties should confer prior to contacting the court, Judge Albright said, adding he would
`give "great deference" to proposals filed jointly. The order applies to all cases past the
`claim construction phase, when parties in patent litigation debate the meaning of key
`words.
`Roku made its opposed request for rescheduling on April 2, saying its attorneys were being
`prevented from preparing for the trial owing to lockdowns as states across the country
`seek to tame the novel coronavirus. The company said travel restrictions have few
`exceptions and will be in place until June 10.
`"In recognition of these unique risks and the unprecedented circumstances associated with
`the Covid-19 pandemic, courts have granted continuances, including trials scheduled later
`than the June 1 date in this case," Roku argued.
`MV3 opposed Roku's motion but did not file a response. The company's counsel told
`Law360 in a statement Thursday that Judge Albright was correct to deem the request
`premature, saying there was still plenty of time to reschedule if need be.
`"We are diligently and effectively preparing for trial remotely, and frankly don't understand
`why Roku, a prominent technology company, and its lawyers can't also do so," Kasowitz
`Benson Torres LLP partner Jonathan K. Waldrop said. "We are sure that Judge Albright will
`Portfolio Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, 5th floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com
`Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | customerservice@law360.com
`By Jack Queen
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1024, Page 1
`
`

`

`Roku Can't Delay Streaming-Tech Patent Trial Amid COVID-19 -Law360
`Page 2 of 2
`https://www.law360.com/articles/1262115/print?section=ip
`6/18/2020
`Florida-based MV3 filed its suit in October 2018, alleging Roku infringed its U.S. Patent
`No. 8,863,223, which describes a system that streams media content from a mobile phone
`to larger displays such as televisions.
`Roku had argued in an unsuccessful motion to dismiss that MV3 failed to put forth a
`detailed enough explanation of its theory that the accused products — including the Roku
`TV, Roku Streaming Stick, Roku Ultra and Roku Express — infringe the patent.
`Roku also moved in February 2019 to transfer the case to California, arguing the suit
`revolves around its witnesses and documents located primarily in the Golden State. Judge
`Albright rejected the request in June of that year, finding the company hadn't shown
`that California would be more convenient.
`Counsel for Roku did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.
`MV3 is represented by J. Mark Mann, G. Blake Thompson and Andy Tindel of Mann Tindel &
`Thompson; Craig D. Cherry of Haley & Olson PC; and Jonathan K. Waldrop, Darcy L. Jones,
`Marcus A. Barber, John W. Downing, Heather S. Kim, Jack Shaw, ThucMinh Nguyen, Daniel
`C. Miller, Paul G. Williams and Rodney R. Miller of Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP.
`Roku is represented by Alexander J. Hadjis, Lisa M. Mandrusiak and Michael D. West of
`Oblon McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP; Richard D. Milvenan of McGinnis Lochridge LLP;
`and David N. Deaconson of Pakis Giotes Page & Burleson PC.
`The case is MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku Inc., case number 6:18-cv-00308, in the U.S.
`District Court for the Western District of Texas.
`--Additional reporting by Lauren Berg, Kevin Penton, Michelle Casady and Britain Eakin.
`Editing by Daniel King.
`All Content © 2003-2020, Portfolio Media, Inc.
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1024, Page 2
`
`