IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00050-JRG
`
`ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Plaintiff Image Processing Technologies, LLC’s (“IPT”) Opposed
`
`Motion to Continue Trial (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 195.) Also, before the Court is Defendants
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s (collectively,
`
`“Samsung”) Statement in Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue (the “Response”)
`
`(Dkt. No. 196) and IPT’s Response in Support of Its Motion to Continue Trial (the “Reply”)
`
`(Dkt. No. 197). In the Motion, IPT requests that this Court continue the trial in the above-captioned
`
`case from July 6, 2020, to August 2020. IPT seeks this continuance based upon concerns related
`
`to COVID-19. In the supporting Declaration of Henry Bunsow, he specifically identifies personal
`
`apprehension about traveling through Houston or Dallas, where COVID-19 cases have
`
`increasingly been reported, to get to Marshall, Texas for trial.1 He also sets out specific personal
`
`reasons for himself and his co-counsel as a basis to continue the trial in this case.
`
`1 A simple internet search reveals that travel from the West Coast to Marshall, Texas can be accomplished by flying
`to Little Rock, Arkansas and making a three hour and twenty minute drive from there to Marshall, which does not
`require travel through airports in Dallas, Houston, or anywhere in Texas. Air travel to Dallas or Houston would
`require a similar or even longer drive to Marshall.
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2029 -p. 1
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`
`
`Samsung represents that it has been preparing diligently for trial to begin on July 6, 2020
`
`in Marshall. Samsung states that most of its trial team is already in Marshall. Furthermore,
`
`Samsung represents that various Samsung witnesses and representatives from Korea have already
`
`traveled to the United States and have been self-quarantining to ensure compliance with CDC
`
`guidelines as a part of this trial. Samsung requests that if a continuance is granted that any resulting
`
`continuance be until “a later date when quarantining of visitors from overseas will foreseeably no
`
`longer be necessary.”2 Samsung makes this request because it would be a substantial hardship for
`
`Samsung’s witnesses and representatives to go through the self-quarantining process again,
`
`especially since many of them will need to self-quarantine upon returning to their home countries.
`
`
`
`Having considered the Motion, the Response, the Reply, the Court’s schedule, and the
`
`current state of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Marshall Division, the Court is of the opinion that
`
`the Motion should DENIED. The Court finds that it would be prejudicial to Samsung, its
`
`witnesses, and its representatives to continue the trial. Samsung has expended great effort and
`
`expense to ensure that all its necessary witnesses and representatives are in Marshall, Texas and
`
`have complied in advance with CDC quarantine guidelines. To tell Samsung—so close to the July
`
`6 trial date—that all of its witnesses and representatives must go home and then return in a month
`
`or in a year would be unfair and a waste of resources.
`
`Furthermore, the moving of a trial date for a civil jury trial is an arduous task, especially
`
`when the trial is only a week away, the many pre-trial disputes have been heard and ruled on, and
`
`a jury panel of 125 citizens has been summonsed. Additionally, the Court has undertaken extensive
`
`efforts and planning to ensure that the trial in this case can proceed as safely as possible. The Court
`
`
`2 IPT represents in its Reply (Dkt. No. 197) that it “has no objection to a rescheduled new trial date later than August
`if, as Samsung suggests, that may be necessary to avoid current travel and quarantine restrictions.” As a practical
`matter this is to an unknown and unknowable date in the future, that guessed at on an optimistic basis would mean
`continuing this trial well into next year, with no guarantee it could be tried within 2021.
`
`2
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2029 -p. 2
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`also notes the effect of the current pandemic which has drastically compacted and complicated the
`
`Court’s trial schedule well into next year. Thus, the movement of a jury trial date at this late date
`
`would likely result in a delay of many months given the unavailability of open trial dates in the
`
`future.
`
`Finally, Marshall has so far been substantially spared from the current spike in cases of
`
`COVID-19 that Dallas and Houston have experienced.3 Texas is a large and diverse state, and
`
`while news from Dallas and Houston dominates the media coverage, the circumstances in less
`
`urban areas differ materially. While the Court strives to follow public health guidance from the
`
`CDC, the State of Texas, and the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts, the circumstances in
`
`this division and district have not impacted the Court’s operations, to date, as it has its sister Texas
`
`districts. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court believes that a continuance is not
`
`warranted at this time. As such, the Motion is hereby DENIED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 The Court notes that at the time this Order issued, Harrison County has reported only 16 new cases of COVID-19
`in the last week. Texas COVID-19 Trends by County, Texas Health and Human Services (June 29, 2020, 4:23 PM),
`https://tabexternal.dshs.texas.gov/t/THD/views/COVIDExternalQC/COVIDTrends?%3AisGuestRedirectFromViz
`portal=y&%3Aembed=y.
`
`3
`
`So Ordered this
`Jun 29, 2020
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2029 -p. 3
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`