Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 387 Filed 07/21/20 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 36777
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00066-JRG
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`OPTIS WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY,
`LLC, PANOPTIS PATENT
`MANAGEMENT, LLC, UNWIRED
`PLANET, LLC, UNWIRED PLANET
`INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ORDER
`Before the Court is Defendant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) Motion to Continue Trial (the
`
`“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 341.) Also before the Court is Apple’s Further Response to the Court’s
`
`Questions at Status Conference (Dkt. No. 352), as well as the Opposition to Apple’s Motion to
`
`Continue Trial (Dkt. No. 352) filed by Plaintiffs Optis Wireless Technology, LLC; Optis Cellular
`
`Technology, LLC; PanOptis Patent Management, LLC; Unwired Planet, LLC; and Unwired Planet
`
`International Limited (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “Optis”). In the Motion, Apple moves to
`
`continue jury selection in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, from August 3, 2020 until
`
`October 5, 2020. Apple argues that continuing the trial would be in the best interests of the health
`
`and safety of trial participants and the local community, as well as the parties’ abilities to present
`
`a full and fair case. Plaintiffs oppose the Motion, arguing that the parties and the Court have taken
`
`appropriate precautions to limit public health risks and accommodate any barriers to a full and fair
`
`trial, and that trial should proceed because there is no evidence that the state of the public health
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2031
`
`Page 1 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 387 Filed 07/21/20 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 36778
`
`will be more favorable, and not less favorable, in October. Having considered the Motion and the
`
`related briefing, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion
`
`should be and hereby is DENIED.
`
`In light of this conclusion, the Court’s July 15, 2020 Order (Dkt. No. 342)1 and the
`
`imminent pretrial conference on July 27, 2020, Apple’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Reply
`
`in Support of Motion to Continue Trial (Dkt. No. 361) is DENIED, and, absent such leave, Apple’s
`
`reply (Dkt. No. 362) is ORDERED removed from the record.
`
`The Risk of the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Public Health.
`I.
`The crux of Apple’s argument is that proceeding with an August 3, 2020 jury trial would
`
`jeopardize the health and safety of all involved as well as the local community. (Dkt. No. 341
`
`at 3.) Apple states that the number of COVID-19 cases is rising throughout the United States, and
`
`in Texas in particular. (Id.) Apple points to guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and
`
`Prevention (“CDC”), as well as Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s Executive Orders regarding
`
`precautions that public spaces and members of the public must take in order to limit the spread of
`
`the disease. (Id. at 3–4, 8.) Apple further points to rising case numbers of the disease in Harrison
`
`County. (Id. at 5–7.) Apple attaches the declaration of Dr. Robert Haley, Professor of Internal
`
`Medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center. (Dkt. No. 341-1.) Dr. Haley identifies generic
`
`challenges associated with conducting an in-person trial during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Id.
`
`at ¶¶ 20, 21.) His opinions are not so much tied to this location as they seem to convey that no
`
`in-person jury trial should be undertaken—anywhere. What Dr. Haley does not do is project when
`
`
`1 Apple’s Motion was filed on July 14, 2020—one week ago. The next day the Court expedited a response
`from Optis and made it clear that neither a reply nor sur-reply should be filed without prior leave of the
`Court. This is usually understood by the parties to mean that the Court only wants a single response and
`not a litany of dueling briefs. By filing its Motion when it did, Apple put the Court on a very short timeline
`with the pretrial conference, jury selection, and trial on its doorstep.
`2
`
`
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2031
`
`Page 2 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 387 Filed 07/21/20 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 36779
`
`in the future his ultimate conclusion might change. When Dr. Haley believes an in-person jury
`
`trial might be able to go forward is strikingly absent. The Court assumes he does not know and
`
`has no way to know.
`
`Optis argues that the Court and the parties have proposed appropriate safety measures to
`
`address the dangers of COVID-19. (Dkt. No. 352 at 8–10 (laying out the precautions the Court
`
`has stated it is taking and will continue to take in order to ensure the safety and health of trial
`
`participants).) Optis views the Motion as a further attempt by Apple to “indefinitely delay this
`
`case,” despite having been aware of the challenges presented by COVID-19 for months, and
`
`having secured earlier relief in order to accommodate the challenges of the pandemic.2 Optis
`
`points out that there is no evidence of impending public health improvement, and asserts that
`
`“Apple, by failing to provide crucial independent information regarding the projected course of
`
`the virus, is asking the Court to make decisions based upon incomplete and inaccurate
`
`information.” (Id. at 5.) Further, Optis points to various precautions it has taken in order to
`
`minimize the risk of COVID-19, including safety training regarding COVID-19 prevention; hiring
`
`an industrial hygienist to provide properly distanced work areas in Marshall and appropriate
`
`personal protective equipment; temperature monitoring; and daily health self-screenings. (Id. at
`
`14; Dkt. No. 352-1 at ¶¶ 8–11.)
`
`While the COVID-19 pandemic presents serious public health concerns, the Court has
`
`diligently undertaken to put in place reasonable precautions in order to facilitate a full and fair
`
`trial, while maintaining the health and safety of those involved. The Court abides by the
`
`recommendations of the CDC, both in spirit and in substance. In particular, the Court has
`
`
`2 The Parties have previously sought—and been granted—relief in accordance with the need to take
`precautions in light of COVID-19, including various scheduling extensions. (See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 158, 159.)
`Notably, Apple did not file this Motion until July 14, 2020—less than two weeks prior to the pretrial
`conference when a myriad of motions and disputes will be argued to the Court.
`3
`
`
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2031
`
`Page 3 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 387 Filed 07/21/20 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 36780
`
`circulated instructions and appropriate reassurances to the venire panel by means of the attached
`
`letter which the Court caused to be served on each citizen summonsed for jury duty on August 3,
`
`2020 by instructing the Clerk to attach an original version of such letter to every summons served
`
`in regard to this jury trial. (See Exhibit A.)
`
`In addition, the Court has undertaken extensive measures to ensure a full and fair trial in
`
`which the litigants may preserve social distancing and minimize contact with tight spaces or
`
`common surfaces. The Court has heretofore e-mailed counsel for the parties precise instructions
`
`in advance of the pretrial hearing set for July 27, 2020, which is also attached, and precludes
`
`entrance to the Courthouse to those:
`
`• Persons who have traveled to or from any of the following countries listed on the
`Centers
`for
`Disease
`Control
`and
`Prevention
`website
`[https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/from-other-countries.html]
`as “Travelers Prohibited from Entry to the United States” within the preceding 14
`days;
`• Persons who have had close contact with someone who has traveled to or from one
`of the countries referenced above within the preceding 14 days;
`• Persons who a medical doctor, doctor of osteopathy, hospital or public health
`agency has directed to self-quarantine, and such period of self-quarantining is
`ongoing;
`• Persons who have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and who have not obtained
`express medical verification as now being non-communicative/non-contagious
`from a medical doctor, doctor of osteopathy, hospital or public health agency;
`and/or
`• Persons who exhibit fever, cough or shortness of breath.
`(See Exhibit B.) Further, the Court intends to provide additional guidance to counsel for the parties
`
`as part of the pretrial conference set for July 27, 2020 including limiting the number of persons
`
`seated at counsel tables to three persons per table during voir dire and during trial; directing trial
`
`counsel and the jury—once the trial begins—to wear face shields which will allow for a full view
`
`of the lawyers’ and jurors’ faces and expressions while providing substantial protection from
`
`
`
`4
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2031
`
`Page 4 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 387 Filed 07/21/20 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 36781
`
`projection of breath droplets; and encouraging all participants to follow the CDC’s community-
`
`mitigation guidelines.3 The Court has arranged for daily sanitization of Courthouse facilities,
`
`including the Courtroom and all public bathrooms, as well as daily deep cleaning of the jury room,
`
`jury box, and juror restrooms.
`
`These precautions will help assure that the trial can go forward to produce a just, speedy
`
`resolution to the parties’ disputes while reasonably safeguarding the public health. This is
`
`especially challenging given the ever-changing state of the COVID-19 pandemic and the lack of
`
`any reliable assurances as to if and when the pandemic will subside. The unpredictability of the
`
`state of the pandemic in the future means that a continuance now will result in a delay of many
`
`months or even years. Nothing in Apple’s request assures the Court of anything more than a
`
`lengthy, protracted delay, which will simply guarantee material prejudice to all parties.
`
`The Court therefore finds that, on balance, in light of the precautions to be undertaken by
`
`the Court and the trial participants, the August 3, 2020 date for jury selection should be maintained.
`
`II.
`
`Due Process Concerns Can be Alleviated by the Presentation of Live Video
`Testimony at Trial.
`Apple further raises concerns as to the parties’ rights to due process related to three
`
`European witnesses who will be precluded from testifying in-person at trial due to international
`
`travel restrictions. (Dkt. No. 341 at 14–15; Dkt. No. 347 at 1–2.) In particular, Apple argues that
`
`three witnesses will be unable to testify in-person at trial:
`
`• Mr. Rodermund, Apple’s expert on standards organization rules and their
`applications to the patents in this case, who lives in Germany;
`• Mr. Borghetti, Optis’s expert on French law, who lives in France; and
`
`
`3 Such mitigation strategies include: washing hands often; avoiding close contact with people who are sick;
`practicing social distancing; covering mouth and nose with a cloth face cover when around others; covering
`coughs and sneezes; and cleaning and disinfecting frequently touched services daily.
`5
`
`
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2031
`
`Page 5 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 387 Filed 07/21/20 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 36782
`
`• Dr. Virdis, Optis’s witness on testing for ’833 Patent-related issues, who lives in
`Italy.
`(Dkt. No. 347 at 2, 4.) Apple believes that its inability to present its witness or cross examine
`
`Optis’s witnesses in-person would impinge Apple’s due process rights. (Dkt. No. 341 at 15.)
`
`Optis counters that it has agreed that witnesses in Canada or Europe should testify live via
`
`video, but says that Apple has refused to agree to such an accommodation. (Dkt. No. 352 at 5–6.)
`
`Further, Optis argues that only Mr. Rodermund would actually testify during the jury trial. (Id. at
`
`6.) Mr. Borghetti, a French law expert, will testify at the bench portion of the trial, if he testifies
`
`at all.4 (Id.) Dr. Virdis “is a consultant who assisted testifying expert Dr. Madisetti by running
`
`simulations,” and “will not be called at trial.” (Id.) Finally, Optis points out that “there is no
`
`indication that delaying trial for another 60 days will enable the three E.U. witnesses to come to
`
`trial live.” (Id. at 7.)
`
`The Court believes that it is always preferable to have witnesses present testimony
`
`in-person from the witness stand in the physical presence of the jury. However, these are
`
`unprecedented times, which call for unprecedented measures. Real time live video testimony from
`
`these witnesses presented via monitors in the courtroom will enable the jury to make instantaneous
`
`deductions about each such witness and his testimony. This will allow counsel to direct and cross
`
`examine the witnesses in real time so that the jury can hear their answers, as well as observe the
`
`non-verbal responses and body language that informs any jury in making its critical judgments as
`
`to credibility and believability. In light of the acquiescence amongst the parties and the
`
`
`4 Optis states that it anticipates “this Court will simply read the reports of the French law experts.
`Mr. Borghetti will certainly not be testifying before the jury.” (Dkt. No. 352 at 6.)
`6
`
`
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2031
`
`Page 6 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 387 Filed 07/21/20 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 36783
`
`unprecedented nature of current events, the Court ORDERS that the testimony of Mr. Rodermund
`
`et al.5 may be presented by live video at trial.
`
`III. A Continuance Would Prejudice the Parties.
`
`Finally, Optis points to the prejudice it will suffer by a continuance of the trial date.
`
`Specifically, Optis argues it is ready to vindicate its rights. (Dkt. No. 352 at 13.) Optis further
`
`highlights the prejudice it would suffer from having “expended extraordinary amounts of time and
`
`resources to be prepared to try this case as scheduled and in a safe manner,” including preparation
`
`for pretrial and trial, as well as organizing COVID-19 precautions, many of which were likely
`
`spent and committed before Apple brought its Motion on July 14, 2020. (Id. at 13–14.)
`
`Apple argues that a continuance will not prejudice the parties because Optis only seeks
`
`monetary damages, which will not be impacted by a short continuance. (Dkt. No. 341 at 14.)
`
`Apple further asserts that the requested two-month continuance will not create unreasonable delay,
`
`and that such a delay would certainly not be “undue” in light of “the extraordinary nature of this
`
`unfolding pandemic.” (Id.)
`
`While a short continuance may arguably cause limited prejudice, Apple has failed to
`
`provide any assurances that a delay would indeed be brief. As mentioned supra, the effect of the
`
`current pandemic has drastically compacted and complicated the Court’s trial schedule well into
`
`the next year. Thus, the two-month continuance requested by Apple is likely to, in reality, result
`
`in a delay of many months, pushing this trial well into 2021 or 2022. Such a lengthy delay would
`
`clearly cause prejudice to Optis, placing both sides in a posture of limbo where they would languish
`
`unduly without the vindication of a public trial or a final resolution.
`
`
`5 Should the parties determine that the testimonies of either Mr. Borghetti or Dr. Virdis are required at trial,
`the testimonies of these witnesses may also be presented by live video at trial. The Court expects that upon
`any such decision, the parties will meet and confer and present the Court with a joint outline as to both the
`ways and means of presenting such testimony.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2031
`
`Page 7 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 387 Filed 07/21/20 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 36784
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`The Court faces a conundrum of first impression. The task of balancing very real public
`
`health concerns against the right of the parties to resolve their far-reaching disputes is a challenge
`
`this Court has not sought and does not relish. However, as Robert Frost admonished in A Servant
`
`to Servants, “the best way out is always through.”6 When weighing the precautions crafted, the
`
`absolute lack of any reliable information as to when the current pandemic may abate, and the
`
`global struggle between these sophisticated parties which only worsens while a resolution is
`
`delayed, the Court is persuaded, on balance, that moving forward with the trial as scheduled is the
`
`better choice.7 Consequently, the Court finds that Apple’s Motion to Continue Trial (Dkt. No.
`
`341) should be and hereby is DENIED.
`
`It is further ORDERED that each parties’ actual trial counsel (who have entered an
`
`appearance of record) and who will physically appear before the jury arrive and be in Marshall,
`
`Texas by Friday, July 24, 2020, in advance of the pretrial conference Monday, July 27, 2020, and
`
`remain in Marshall through the end of trial.8
`
`It is also ORDERED that counsel forthwith contact the Deputy in Charge for the Marshall
`
`Division and through her coordinate with the Information Technology Department of the United
`
`
`6 Robert Frost, A Servant to Servants, North of Boston ln.56 (1914).
`7 “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4);
`see also Fontenot v. Upjohn Co.:
`
` A motion for continuance is addressed to the discretion of the trial court and its denial of
`such a motion will be reversed on appeal only when the action is, to use the conventional
`term, ‘an abuse of discretion.’. . . When the question for the trial court is a scheduling
`decision, such as whether a continuance should be granted, the judgment range is
`exceedingly wide, for, in handling its calendar and determining when matters should be
`considered, the district court must consider not only the facts of the particular case but also
`all of the demands on counsel’s time and the court’s.
`
`780 F.2d 1190, 1193 (5th Cir. 1986).
`8 This is intended to mitigate the risk of repeated travel through more pervasive areas of COVID-19
`infection such as DFW Airport and similar places.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2031
`
`Page 8 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 387 Filed 07/21/20 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 36785
`
`States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to arrange for the smooth deliverance of any
`
`testimony that will be presented by video.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`.
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 21st day of July, 2020.
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2031
`
`Page 9 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 387 Filed 07/21/20 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 36786
`
`Exhibit A
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2031
`
`Page 10 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 387 Filed 07/21/20 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 36787
`
`United States District Court
`Eastern District of Texas
`100 East Houston Street
`Marshall. TX 75670
`
`Chambers of
`Rodney Gilstrap
`Chief Judge
`
`July 13, 2020
`
`Telephone
`(903) 935-3868
`Fax
`(903) 935-2295
`
`To All Prospective Jurors
`Summoned to Appear for
`Jury Selection at the
`U. S. District Court
`in Marshall, Texas
`on Monday August 3, 2020
`
`RE: Your Upcoming Jury Service
`
`Dear Prospective Jurors:
`
`This letter is attached to the Summons directing you to appear for Jury Service at
`7:45 a.m. on Monday, August 3, 2020 at the Sam B. Hall, Jr. Federal Building and
`United States Courthouse at 100 East Houston Street in downtown Marshall.
`
`This will be one of the first jury trials which I have undertaken since the advent of
`the Coronavirus pandemic. I want to assure you that every reasonable precaution
`will be taken to enhance the health and safety of the jury, the parties, the lawyers
`and the Court staff during jury selection and the jury trial to follow.
`
`So that you won t be surprised when you arrive, please be aware of the following:
`
`1. Each prospective juror will have their temperature taken via a hand-held
`thermometer as they enter the Courthouse, to ensure that no one with
`fever or an elevated temperature is admitted;
`2. Once you enter the building and pass through the initial security
`screening, you will be separately escorted by Court Staff to the Courtroom
`and seated to achieve the ma imum distancing possible;
`3. Masks will be distributed, or you may wear your own when you enter the
`Courthouse. Until the eight (8) person jur is actually selected, seated and
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2031
`
`Page 11 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 387 Filed 07/21/20 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 36788
`
`sworn, everyone appearing as a prospective juror will be required to wear
`a mask, unless the Court directs otherwise;
`4. Latex gloves will be available for those who wish to wear them, but gloves
`are not required. If you would like gloves, ask the Court staff for them
`when you are seated in the Courtroom;
`5. Smartphones, iPads or similar electronic devices should be left outside
`the Courthouse. You may certainly leave them in your vehicle rather than
`at home, if you choose, but do not bring them into the Courthouse;
`6. Hand sanitizer (alcohol based) will be available to you at multiple locations
`inside the Courthouse, and you may ask Court Security Officers to make
`it available at your seat, once you are seated in the Courtroom;
`7. Those selected for this jury should know that the eight (8) jurors will be
`spaced in the fourteen (14) seat jur box to achieve ma imum distancing
`between jurors during the trial;
`8. The jury box, jury room and jury room bathrooms will be deep cleaned
`each evening when the Court recesses, and this will continue throughout
`the trial;
`9. Individual lunches will be provided by the Court to the eight (8) selected
`jurors during each day of the trial, to minimize any travel in and out of
`the Courthouse and to minimize juror s interaction at local restaurants.
`
`If you:
`a) have been diagnosed by a licensed physician as having Coronavirus
`anytime within the past 30 days; or
`b) are actively caring for a family member or loved one who has tested positive
`for the Coronavirus; or
`c) are now in self-quarantine status and that status will continue on August
`
`3rd;
`
`then, in any of these situations: you should immediately advise Mrs. Kecia
`Clendening, the Court’s Deputy in Charge, at her phone number in the attached
`summons. Her phone number is also listed at the conclusion of this letter. She may
`ask you to furnish documentation regarding such from your physician, for the
`Court.
`
`There is more than one case now scheduled to begin trial on August 3rd. At this
`time, I am not sure which of these cases will actually begin trial on the 3rd.
`However, my best estimate is that any of these trials should last from Monday,
`August 3rd through Friday, August 7th. That being the case, if you have a
`scheduled surgical procedure for yourself or a dependent that can’t be rescheduled,
`or if you have some other pre-existing obligation that would make it extremely
`difficult and create a real hardship on you to be here each day during the week of
`August 3rd, then you should immediately advise Mrs. Kecia Clendening, the
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2031
`
`Page 12 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 387 Filed 07/21/20 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 36789
`
`Court s Deputy in Charge, at her phone number. Again, her phone number is listed
`at the conclusion of this letter.
`
`Please be aware that the right to trial by jury is one of the cornerstones of our
`democracy, and jury trials necessarily involve sacrifice from those citizens called
`upon to serve. This has always been true, but it is especially true during these
`unique and trying times. It is my personal conviction that jury service is the second
`highest form of public service that any American can perform (second only to
`service in the Armed Forces). The right to trial by jury has been enshrined within
`the Seventh Amendment to our U. S. Constitution since 1791, and it was one of
`the stated principles in the Declaration of Independence which fueled our struggle
`to become an independent nation. Only those with extreme hardships should seek
`to be excused based on pre-existing obligations.
`
`It is vital that you appear and present yourself for jury service on August 3rd;
`however, the Court wants you to know that we are mindful of these challenging
`times and we will take every reasonable precaution to maintain your health as well
`as that of the parties, lawyers and Court staff during this upcoming trial.
`
`I hope this personal letter is helpful and informative. I look forward to seeing you
`in Marshall on August 3rd.
`
`Respectfully,
`
`Chief United States District Judge
`
`cc: Mrs. Kecia Clendening
`Deputy Clerk in Charge
`Phone: 903.935.2912
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2031
`
`Page 13 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 387 Filed 07/21/20 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 36790
`
`Exhibit B
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2031
`
`Page 14 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 387 Filed 07/21/20 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 36791
`
`Taylor Mauze
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Counsel,
`
`Taylor Mauze
`Monday, July 20, 2020 5:01 PM
`Amy.Pearlman@wilmerhale.com; astrabone@irell.com; Ben.Ernst@wilmerhale.com;
`bstevens@wscylaw.com; brittany.amadi@wilmerhale.com; cwoodin@mckoolsmith.com;
`cmcnett@mckoolsmith.com; Dan.Wewers@wilmerhale.com; ddezern@grayreed.com;
`echen@irell.com; etautfest@grayreed.com; efountain@mckoolsmith.com; hcannom@wscylaw.com;
`hengelmann@mckoolsmith.com; hzhong@irell.com; ipetersen@irell.com; jhoggan@grayreed.com;
`jsheasby@irell.com; Jennifer.John@wilmerhale.com; jtruelove_mckoolsmith.com;
`jyim@mckoolsmith.com; Nina.Garcia@wilmerhale.com; joseph.haag@wilmerhale.com;
`joseph.mueller@wilmerhale.com; kathryn.zalewski@wilmerhale.com; kevin.o'brien@wilmerhale.com;
`jbindler_grayreed.com; mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com; mindy.sooter@wilmerhale.com;
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com; michael.summersgill@wilmerhale.com;
`michaela.sewall@wilmerhale.com; mmckool@mckoolsmith.com; sbaxter_mckoolsmith.com;
`shasenour@mckoolsmith.com; spollinger@mckoolsmith.com; timothy.syrett@wilmerhale.com
`2:19-cv-66 - Optis Wireless Tech., LLC et al. v. Apple Inc. - Pretrial Conference Monday, July 27, 2020
`
`The above-captioned case (2:19-cv-66) is set for an in-person pretrial conference on Monday, July 27, 2020 at 9:00 am
`central. To facilitate such and assuage any public health concerns, the Court has put into place various mitigation
`protocols. During the pretrial conference, you and all persons attending with you are required to comply with the
`following:
`
`
`
`
`
`First, the Court will continue to adhere to the following specific visitor restrictions:
`o Persons who have traveled to or from any of the following countries listed on the Centers for Disease
`Control and Prevention website
`[https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/from-other-
`countries.html] as “Travelers Prohibited from Entry to the United States” within the preceding 14 days;
`o Persons who have had close contact with someone who has traveled to or from one of the countries
`referenced above within the preceding 14 days;
`o Persons who a medical doctor, doctor of osteopathy, hospital or public health agency has directed to self-
`quarantine, and such period of self-quarantining is ongoing;
`o Persons who have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and who have not obtained express medical verification
`as now being non-communicative/non-contagious from a medical doctor, doctor of osteopathy, hospital or
`public health agency;
`o Persons who exhibit fever, cough or shortness of breath;
`o If you or anyone attending court with you falls within one or more of the above restricted categories, you
`must advise the Court by email (copying all counsel of record) within 24 hours. All such persons will not
`be granted admission to the courthouse.
`
`Second, the Court will be enforcing social distancing protocols among parties, counsel, and court staff. To the
`greatest extent reasonably possible, the Court will strive to maintain a six-foot distance between all those
`present. The Court will also be implementing various mitigation strategies in the courtroom, including limiting
`the number of persons seated at counsel tables to three persons per party per table. The parties are each
`responsible for determining which persons are to sit at their respective counsel tables; all other party
`representatives, counsel, consultants, and observers should sit in the gallery. Those not at counsel table are
`encouraged to wear a face covering while inside the courtroom, but the Court will neither require nor provide
`one.
`
` Third, the Court encourages all participants to follow the CDC’s community-mitigation guidelines before
`attending the proceeding. That includes washing hands often; avoiding close contact with people who are sick
`1
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2031
`
`Page 15 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 387 Filed 07/21/20 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 36792
`and practicing social distancing; covering mouth and nose with a cloth face cover when around others; covering
`coughs and sneezes; and cleaning and disinfecting frequently touched surfaces daily.
`
`In further advance of the pretrial conference set for Monday, July 27, 2020, the Court requests that the Parties e-mail me
`(Taylor_Mauze@txed.uscourts.gov) by 5:00 pm central on Tuesday, July 21, 2020 the following information:
`
` An agreed suggested order in which to address pretrial motions. Please include any relevant groupings of
`categories of related disputes, to the extent grouping is appropriate. Please include name(s) of counsel who will
`argue each motion;
` An agreed suggested order of motions in limine (“MILs”) that are grouped into categories of related disputes, to
`the extent grouping is appropriate. Please also include name(s) of counsel who will argue each MIL; and
` An agreed suggested order of disputed exhibits that are grouped into categories of related disputes (“buckets”) and
`that identifies representative exhibit(s) for said category. Please also include name(s) of counsel who will argue
`each disputed exhibit.
`
`Please use the following template in your response:
`
`Group #  Group Name  MIL #s OR Exhibits OR Motion  Plaintiffs’ Arguing Attorney 
`
`Defendant's Arguing 
`Attorney 
`
`If you have questions as to the above, please let the Court know.
`
`Sincerely, 
`
`Taylor Mauze
`Law Clerk to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`100 E. Houston Street
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Taylor_Mauze@txed.uscourts.gov
`
`2
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2031
`
`Page 16 of 16
`
`