throbber
Case 6:19-cv-00600-ADA Document 31 Filed 02/08/20 Page 1 of 4
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 6:19-CV-600-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`
`
`GREEN MOUNTAIN GLASS, LLC and
`CULCHROME, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC. and OWENS-
`BROCKWAY GLASS CONTAINER INC.,
`
`
`Defendants/Counterclaimants.
`
`
`
`STIPULATED ORDER TO SUBSTITUTE PARTIES
`
`Before the Court is a Stipulated Order to Substitute Parties filed by Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Green Mountain Glass, LLC and Culchrome, LLC’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants
`
`Owens-Illinois, Inc. and Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). The
`
`Plaintiffs and Defendants jointly request that the Court dismiss with prejudice Owens-Illinois, Inc.
`
`as allowed under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and join O-I Glass, Inc.
`
`(“O-I Glass”) as a defendant in the above-captioned matter—such that (a) all claims made against
`
`Owens-Illinois, Inc. are now instead made against O-I Glass and (b) all counterclaims and defenses
`
`made by Owens-Illinois, Inc. are now instead made by O-I Glass. To effectuate such substitution,
`
`Plaintiffs, Defendants, and O-I Glass stipulate as follows for purposes only of the above-captioned
`
`matter:
`
`1. O-I Glass will not use any distinction in the identity of parties between O-I Glass;
`
`Owens-Illinois, Inc.; and Paddock Enterprises, LLC (“Paddock”) as a basis to withhold
`
`relevant information or as a basis to assert improper or inconvenient venue;
`
`O-I Glass, Inc.
`Exhibit 1067
`Page 001
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00600-ADA Document 31 Filed 02/08/20 Page 2 of 4
`
`2. For purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 286, the date of “the filing of the complaint” against O-I
`
`Glass is the date of “the filing of the complaint” against Owens-Illinois, Inc.;
`
`3. For purposes of discovery in the above-captioned matter, any relevant documents and
`
`information in the possession, custody, or control of Owens-Illinois, Inc. are also
`
`deemed to be in the possession, custody, or control of O-I Glass;
`
`4. O-I Glass will not object to a request for deposition on the grounds that the prospective
`
`deponent is an employee of Owens-Illinois, Inc. or any Owens-Illinois, Inc.
`
`subsidiary—rather than an employee of O-I Glass;
`
`5. O-I Glass will not take the position for purposes of conducting any reasonable royalty
`
`analysis that any profits, revenues, cost savings, or other benefits that Owens-Illinois,
`
`Inc. or its subsidiaries received from any alleged infringement of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`cannot be assessed against O-I Glass;
`
`6. Acts taken by Owens-Illinois, Inc. that Plaintiffs allege infringe the Patents-in-Suit are
`
`deemed to be acts taken by O-I Glass, but O-I Glass retains the same ability that Owens-
`
`Illinois, Inc. had to deny taking any such acts and to deny infringement;
`
`7. Neither Owens-Illinois, Inc. nor O-I Glass will take any action with the purpose of
`
`causing O-I Glass or Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. to be unable to fully
`
`satisfy any judgment entered against O-I Glass in this case;
`
`8. Plaintiffs agree to waive any and all claims against Paddock; its estate; and its wholly-
`
`owned subsidiary (Meigs Investments, LLC);
`
`9. Defendants, O-I Glass, and Paddock dispute that O-I Glass is a successor-in-interest to
`
`Owens-Illinois, Inc. or Paddock;
`
`2
`
`O-I Glass, Inc.
`Exhibit 1067
`Page 002
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00600-ADA Document 31 Filed 02/08/20 Page 3 of 4
`
`10. Plaintiffs agree not to take the position that O-I Glass is a successor-in-interest to
`
`Owens-Illinois, Inc. or Paddock;
`
`11. Plaintiffs agree that nothing herein shall be construed as O-I Glass admitting it is a
`
`successor-in-interest to Owens-Illinois, Inc. or Paddock; and
`
`12. Plaintiffs hereby withdraw their Motion to Substitute O-I Glass, Inc. as Successor-in-
`
`Interest to Defendant Owens-Illinois, Inc., filed as Dkt. No. 29 on January 17, 2020.
`
`13. The parties agree that this action, as revised by the terms of this stipulated order, is not
`
`stayed by the Paddock bankruptcy matter.
`
`The Court expressly relies on these stipulations and representations as a basis for its decision in
`
`this Order.
`
`Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS this Stipulated Order and hereby
`
`ORDERS as follows:
`
`i. This action, as revised by the terms of this stipulated order, is not stayed;
`
`ii. Owens-Illinois, Inc. is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE from the above-captioned
`
`case;
`
`iii. O-I Glass, Inc. is JOINED as a defendant in the above-captioned matter—such that
`
`(a) all claims made against Owens-Illinois, Inc. are now instead made against O-I
`
`Glass and (b) all counterclaims and defenses made by Owens-Illinois, Inc. are now
`
`instead made by O-I Glass;
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Rule 25(c) motion (Dkt. No. 29) is WITHDRAWN; and
`
`nothing herein shall be construed as O-I Glass admitting it is a successor-in-interest
`
`to Owens-Illinois, Inc. or Paddock.
`
`ORDERED this _____ day of ______ 2020.
`
`3
`
`O-I Glass, Inc.
`Exhibit 1067
`Page 003
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00600-ADA Document 31 Filed 02/08/20 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`_________________________
`ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`4
`
`O-I Glass, Inc.
`Exhibit 1067
`Page 004
`
`

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