Case 1:20-cv-00158-NIQA-LAS Document 42 Filed 10/01/20 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 932
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`Civil Action No. 19-2083-NIQA-LAS
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 19-2090-NIQA-LAS
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 19-2149-NIQA-LAS
`
`
`MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and
`QUALCOMM CDMA TECHNOLOGIES
`ASIA-PACIFIC PTE LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`NANYA TECHNOLOGY
`CORPORATION, NANYA
`TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, U.S.A.,
`and NANYA TECHNOLOGY
`CORPORATION DELAWARE,
`
`
`
`
`MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2005, 0001
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00158-NIQA-LAS Document 42 Filed 10/01/20 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 933
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 20-0089-NIQA-LAS
`
`
`Civil Action No. 20-0158-NIQA-LAS
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`STMICROELECTRONICS N.V and
`STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.,
`MARVELL INTERNATIONAL LTD.,
`MARVELL ASIA PTE LTD., and
`MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER FOR PATENT CASES
`IN WHICH INFRINGEMENT IS ALLEGED
`
`AND NOW, this 1st day of October, 2020, the Court having ordered the filing of a proposed
`
`scheduling order; the parties having determined after discussion that the matter cannot be resolved
`
`at this juncture by settlement, voluntary mediation, or binding arbitration and having, therefore,
`
`reached agreement on the issues in this scheduling order1 except with respect to Section 9(f)(2)
`
`
`Both AMD and Qualcomm have requested, in several inter partes Review (IPR) petitions,
`1
`that the United States Patent and Trademark Office cancel certain claims of certain patents asserted
`by Monterey against AMD and Qualcomm. Monterey opposes institution of those IPR petitions,
`and the United States Patent and Trademark Office has not determined whether to institute them.
`AMD has moved to stay the entirety of case no. 19-2149-NIQA-LAS pending resolution of its IPR
`petitions. D.I. 52. Monterey opposes AMD’s motion and intends to file its opposition brief on
`September 16, 2020.
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2005, 0002
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00158-NIQA-LAS Document 42 Filed 10/01/20 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 934
`
`and Section 16 ¶ 2 and briefly explained by the parties in their May 19, 2020 Rule 26(f) submission,
`
`D.I. 39-2:
`
`it is hereby ORDERED that:
`
`1.
`
`Relevant Deadlines and Dates. All relevant deadlines and dates established by
`
`this Order are set forth in the chart attached as Exhibit A.
`
`2.
`
`Rule 26(a)(l) Initial Disclosures. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, the
`
`parties shall make their initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)
`
`within 21 days of the date of this Order.
`
`3.
`
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions. Unless otherwise
`
`agreed to by the parties, not later than 50 days after the date of this Order, a party claiming patent
`
`infringement shall serve on all parties a “Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`
`Contentions.” Separately for each opposing party, the “Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Initial
`
`Infringement Contentions” shall contain the following information:
`
`(a)
`
`Each claim of each asserted patent that is allegedly infringed by each
`
`opposing party, including for each claim, the applicable statutory subsections of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§271 asserted;
`
`(b)
`
`Separately for each asserted claim, each accused apparatus, product, device,
`
`process, method, act, or other instrumentality (“Accused Instrumentality”) of each
`
`opposing party of which the party is aware. This identification shall be as specific as
`
`possible. Each product, device, and apparatus shall be identified by name or model
`
`number, if known. Each method or process shall be identified by name, if known, or by
`
`any product, device, or apparatus which, when used, allegedly results in the practice of the
`
`claimed method or process;
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2005, 0003
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00158-NIQA-LAS Document 42 Filed 10/01/20 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 935
`
`(c)
`
`A chart identifying specifically where and how each limitation of each
`
`asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality, including for each limitation
`
`that such party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the identity of the structure(s),
`
`act(s), or material(s) in the Accused Instrumentality that performs the claimed function;
`
`(d)
`
`For each claim alleged to have been indirectly infringed, an identification
`
`of any direct infringement and a description of the acts of the alleged indirect infringer that
`
`contribute to or are inducing that direct infringement. Insofar as alleged direct
`
`infringement is based on joint acts of multiple parties, the role of each such party in the
`
`direct infringement must be described;
`
`(e) Whether each limitation of each asserted claim is alleged to be present
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents in the Accused Instrumentality;
`
`(f)
`
`For any patent that claims priority to an earlier application, the priority date
`
`to which each asserted claim is alleged to be entitled;
`
`(g)
`
`If a party claiming patent infringement wishes to preserve the right to rely,
`
`for any purpose, on the assertion that its own or its licensee’s apparatus, product, device,
`
`process, method, act, or other instrumentality practices the claimed invention, the party
`
`shall identify, separately for each asserted claim, each such apparatus, product, device,
`
`process, method, act, or other instrumentality that incorporates or reflects that particular
`
`claim;
`
`(h)
`
`The timing of the point of first infringement, the start of the claimed
`
`damages, and the end of claimed damages; and
`
`(i)
`
`If a party claiming patent infringement alleges willful infringement, the
`
`basis for such allegation.
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2005, 0004
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00158-NIQA-LAS Document 42 Filed 10/01/20 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 936
`
`4.
`
`Document Production Accompanying Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`
`Infringement Contentions. With the “Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`
`Contentions,” the party claiming patent infringement shall produce to each opposing party or make
`
`available for inspection and copying:
`
`(a)
`
`Documents (e.g., contracts, purchase orders, invoices, advertisements,
`
`marketing materials, offer letters, beta site testing agreements, and third party or joint
`
`development agreements) sufficient to evidence each discussion with, disclosure to, or
`
`other manner of providing to a third party, or sale of or offer to sell, or any public use of,
`
`the claimed invention prior to the date of application for the asserted patent(s);
`
`(b)
`
`All documents evidencing the conception, reduction to practice, design, and
`
`development of each claimed invention, which were created on or before the date of
`
`application for the asserted patent(s) or the priority date identified pursuant to paragraph
`
`3(f) of this Order, whichever is earlier;
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`A copy of the file history for each asserted patent;
`
`All documents evidencing ownership of the patent rights by the party
`
`asserting patent infringement;
`
`(e)
`
`If a party identifies instrumentalities pursuant to paragraph 3(g) of this
`
`Order, documents sufficient to show the operation of any aspects or elements of such
`
`instrumentalities the patent claimant relies upon as embodying any asserted claims;
`
`(f)
`
`All agreements, including licenses, transferring an interest in any asserted
`
`patent;
`
`5
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2005, 0005
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00158-NIQA-LAS Document 42 Filed 10/01/20 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 937
`
`(g)
`
`All agreements that the party asserting infringement contends are
`
`comparable to a license that would result from a hypothetical reasonable royalty
`
`negotiation;
`
`(h)
`
`All agreements that otherwise may be used to support the party asserting
`
`infringement’s damages case;
`
`(i)
`
`If a party identifies instrumentalities pursuant to paragraph 3(g) of this
`
`Order, documents sufficient
`
`to show marking of such embodying accused
`
`instrumentalities; and if the party wants to preserve the right to recover lost profits based
`
`on such products, the sales, revenues, costs, and profits of such embodying accused
`
`instrumentalities; and
`
`(j)
`
`All documents comprising or reflecting a F/RAND commitment or
`
`agreement with respect to the asserted patent(s).
`
`A party’s production of a document as required by this paragraph shall not constitute an admission
`
`that such document evidences or is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`5.
`
`Invalidity Contentions.2 Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, not later than
`
`50 days after service upon it of the “Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions,”
`
`each party opposing a claim of patent infringement shall serve on all parties its “Invalidity
`
`Contentions” which shall contain the following information:
`
`(a)
`
`The identity of each item of prior art that the party alleges anticipates each
`
`asserted claim or renders the claim obvious. Each prior art patent shall be identified by its
`
`number, country of origin, and date of issue. Each prior art publication shall be identified
`
`
`2
`Depending on when the Scheduling Order is entered, this date may fall on or around the
`end-of-year holidays. In such eventuality, the Defendants reserve the right to seek a short
`extension to avoid the holidays.
`
`6
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2005, 0006
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00158-NIQA-LAS Document 42 Filed 10/01/20 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 938
`
`by its title, date of publication, and, where feasible, author and publisher. Each alleged
`
`sale or public use shall be identified by specifying the item offered for sale or publicly used
`
`or known, the date the offer or use took place or the information became known, and the
`
`identity of the person or entity which made the use or which made and received the offer,
`
`or the person or entity which made the information known or to whom it was made known.
`
`For pre-AIA claims, prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) shall be identified by providing the
`
`name of the person(s) from whom and the circumstances under which the invention or any
`
`part of it was derived. For pre-AIA claims, prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) shall be
`
`identified by providing the identities of the person(s) or entities involved in and the
`
`circumstances surrounding the making of the invention before the patent applicant(s);
`
`(b) Whether each item of prior art anticipates each asserted claim or renders it
`
`obvious. If obviousness is alleged, an explanation of why the prior art renders the asserted
`
`claim obvious, including an identification of any combinations of prior art showing
`
`obviousness;
`
`(c)
`
`A chart identifying specifically where and how in each alleged item of prior
`
`art each limitation of each asserted claim is found, including for each limitation that such
`
`party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or
`
`material(s) in each item of prior art that performs the claimed function; and
`
`(d)
`
`Any grounds of invalidity based on 35 U.S.C. § 101, indefiniteness under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b), or lack of enablement or insufficient written description under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112(a) of any of the asserted claims.
`
`7
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2005, 0007
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00158-NIQA-LAS Document 42 Filed 10/01/20 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: 939
`
`6.
`
`Document Production Accompanying Invalidity Contentions. With the “Invalidity
`
`Contentions,” the party opposing a claim of patent infringement shall produce or make available
`
`for inspection and copying:
`
`(a)
`
`Source code, specifications, schematics, flow charts, artwork, formulas, or
`
`other documentation sufficient to show the operation of any aspects or elements of an
`
`Accused Instrumentality identified by the patent claimant in its chart produced pursuant to
`
`paragraph 3(c) of this Order;
`
`(b)
`
`A copy or sample of the prior art identified pursuant to paragraph 5(a) that
`
`does not appear in the file history of the patent(s) at issue. To the extent any such item is
`
`not in English, an English translation of the portion(s) relied upon shall be produced;
`
`(c)
`
`All agreements that the party opposing infringement contends are
`
`comparable to a license that would result from a hypothetical reasonable royalty
`
`negotiation;
`
`(d)
`
`Documents sufficient to show the sales, revenue, cost, and profits for
`
`Accused Instrumentalities identified pursuant to paragraph 3(b) of this Order for any period
`
`of alleged infringement; and
`
`(e)
`
`All agreements that may be used to support the damages case of the party
`
`that is denying infringement.
`
`7.
`
`Amendment to Contentions. Amendment of the Infringement Contentions or the
`
`Invalidity Contentions may be made only by order of the Court upon a timely showing of good
`
`cause. Non-exhaustive examples of circumstances that may, absent undue prejudice to the non-
`
`moving party, support a finding of good cause include (a) recent discovery of material prior art
`
`despite earlier diligent search, and (b) recent discovery of nonpublic information about the
`
`8
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2005, 0008
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00158-NIQA-LAS Document 42 Filed 10/01/20 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 940
`
`Accused Instrumentality which was not discovered, despite diligent efforts, before the service of
`
`the Infringement Contentions. The duty to supplement discovery responses does not excuse the
`
`need to obtain leave of the Court to amend contentions.
`
`8.
`
`Joinder of Other Parties and Amendment of Pleadings. All motions to join other
`
`parties, and to amend or supplement the pleadings, shall be filed on or before August 11, 2021.
`
`9.
`
`Discovery.
`
`(a)
`
`Coordination: The parties will make best efforts to coordinate discovery to
`
`minimize the burdens of discovery on all parties and on the Court.
`
`(b)
`
`Fact Discovery Cut Off. All fact discovery in this case shall be initiated so
`
`that it will be completed on or before November 20, 2021.
`
`(c)
`
`Document Production. Document production shall be substantially
`
`completed on or before April 6, 2021.
`
`(d)
`
`Requests for Admission. The parties may exchange up to twenty (20)
`
`individual requests for admission between Plaintiff and each Defendant Group.3
`
`Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a party does not agree to stipulate to the authenticity of
`
`documents, there is no limitation on the number of requests for admission relating to the
`
`authenticity of documents, which shall be served in time to be completed before the close
`
`of fact discovery.
`
`(e)
`
`Interrogatories. A maximum of fifteen (15) common interrogatories,
`
`including contention interrogatories, are permitted for Plaintiff towards all Defendants and
`
`
`3
`For purposes of counting discovery requests and deposition hours, a Defendant Group is
`all entities in a single case brought by Plaintiff. For example, the Qualcomm Defendant Group
`would contain Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm CDMA
`Technologies Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd.
`
`9
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2005, 0009
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00158-NIQA-LAS Document 42 Filed 10/01/20 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 941
`
`fifteen (15) common interrogatories from all Defendants towards Plaintiff. The parties
`
`may exchange up to an additional fifteen (15) individual interrogatories between Plaintiff
`
`and each Defendant Group.
`
`(f)
`
`Depositions.
`
`(1)
`
`Coordination: To the extent possible, Defendants agree to
`
`coordinate third party discovery and third party depositions where the third party
`
`has knowledge relevant to common issues, such as third party inventors of patents
`
`asserted in multiple cases, or former assignees of patents asserted in multiple cases,
`
`or invalidity issues related to patents asserted in multiple cases. Defendants also
`
`agree, to the extent possible, to coordinate its individual and corporate depositions
`
`of Plaintiff to avoid duplicative depositions on common issues.
`
`(2)
`
`Hours. In each case, Plaintiff is limited to no more than 60 hours of
`
`deposition testimony, inclusive of 30(b)(6) deposition time and depositions of third
`
`parties. The Defendant Group of that case is limited to no more than 60 hours of
`
`deposition testimony, inclusive of 30(b)(6) deposition time and depositions of
`
`third-parties. Expert depositions do not count toward a party’s deposition time.
`
`The Defendants also are collectively limited across all five above-captioned cases
`
`to no more than 80 total hours of deposition of Plaintiff and its Affiliates, including
`
`their past or current officers, employees, and agents
`
`(3)
`
`Time Limits. Each individual fact deposition is limited to 7 hours,
`
`unless the parties agree otherwise or the Court so permits. To the extent more than
`
`one party seeks to depose the same fact witness, the parties shall confer regarding
`
`the total time to be allotted for deposing that fact witness and shall promptly raise
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2005, 0010
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00158-NIQA-LAS Document 42 Filed 10/01/20 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 942
`
`any unresolved disputes with the Court. This limitation shall not apply to the
`
`deposition of the parties’ designated experts. The parties shall confer regarding the
`
`time to be allotted for expert depositions following service of expert reports. For
`
`any deposition conducted primarily through an interpreter, 1.5 hours of time on the
`
`record will count for 1 hour of deposition time against this total allotment.
`
`(4)
`
`Location of Depositions. Any party or representative (officer,
`
`director, or managing agent) of a party filing a civil action in this District Court
`
`must ordinarily be required, upon request, to submit to a deposition at a place
`
`designated within this District. Exceptions to this general rule may be made by
`
`order of the Court or by agreement of the parties. A defendant who becomes a
`
`counterclaimant, cross-claimant, or third-party plaintiff shall be considered as
`
`having filed an action in this Court for the purpose of this provision.
`
`10.
`
`Pinpoint Citations. Pinpoint citations are required in all briefing, letters, and
`
`concise statements of facts. The Court will ignore any assertions of controverted facts and
`
`controverted legal principles not supported by a pinpoint citation to, as applicable: the record, an
`
`attachment or exhibit, and/or case law or appropriate legal authority.
`
`11.
`
`Application to Court for Protective Order. Should counsel find it will be necessary
`
`to apply to the Court for a protective order specifying terms and conditions for the disclosure of
`
`confidential information, counsel should confer and attempt to reach an agreement on a proposed
`
`form of order and submit it to the Court by September 15, 2020.
`
`Any proposed protective order must include the following paragraph:
`
`Other Proceedings. By entering this Order and limiting the
`disclosure of information in this case, the Court does not intend to
`preclude another court from finding that information may be
`relevant and subject to disclosure in another case. Any person or
`
`11
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2005, 0011
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00158-NIQA-LAS Document 42 Filed 10/01/20 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 943
`
`party subject to this Order who becomes subject to a motion to
`disclose another party’s information designated as confidential
`pursuant to this Order shall promptly notify that party of the motion
`so that the party may have an opportunity to appear and be heard on
`whether that information should be disclosed.
`
`12.
`
`Disputes Relating to Discovery Matters and Protective Orders. Should counsel find
`
`they are unable to resolve a dispute relating to a discovery matter or protective order, the parties
`
`shall contact the Court’s Case Manager to schedule an in-person conference/argument.
`
`(a)
`
`Unless otherwise ordered, by no later than 120 hours prior to the
`
`conference/argument, the party seeking relief shall file with the Court a letter, not to exceed
`
`three pages, outlining the issues in dispute and the party’s position on those issues. The
`
`party shall submit as attachments to its letter (1) an averment of counsel that the parties
`
`made a reasonable effort to resolve the dispute and that such effort included oral
`
`communication that involved Delaware counsel for the parties, and (2) a draft order for the
`
`Court’s signature that identifies with specificity the relief sought by the party. The party
`
`shall file concurrently with its letter a motion that in no more than one paragraph sets forth
`
`the relief sought.
`
`(b)
`
`By no later than 72 hours prior to the conference/argument, any party
`
`opposing the application for relief may file a letter, not to exceed three pages, outlining
`
`that party’s reasons for its opposition.
`
`(c)
`
`The parties will comply with the Judge’s preferences regarding hard copies
`
`of discovery papers.
`
`(d)
`
`If a motion concerning a discovery matter or protective order is filed
`
`without leave of the Court that does not comport with the procedures set forth in this
`
`paragraph, the motion will be denied without prejudice to the moving party’s right to bring
`
`the dispute to the Court through the procedures set forth in this paragraph.
`
`12
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2005, 0012
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00158-NIQA-LAS Document 42 Filed 10/01/20 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 944
`
`13.
`
`Papers Filed Under Seal. When filing papers under seal, counsel shall deliver to
`
`the Clerk an original and two copies of the papers. A redacted version of any sealed document
`
`shall be filed electronically within seven days of the filing of the sealed document.
`
`14.
`
`Hard Copies. The parties will comply with the Judge’s preferences regarding hard
`
`copies of motions and other papers.
`
`15.
`
`Claim Construction Issue Identification. The parties will make best efforts to
`
`coordinate claim construction to minimize the burdens of discovery on all parties and on the Court.
`
`Claim Construction briefing shall occur separately but concurrently for each patent. On or before
`
`February 15, 2021, Plaintiff and the Defendant Groups against whom each respective patent is
`
`asserted shall exchange a list of those claim term(s)/phrase(s) that the parties believe need
`
`construction (the “Term Disclosure”). On or before March 1, 2021, Plaintiff and the Defendant
`
`Groups against whom a respective patent is asserted shall exchange their proposed claim
`
`construction of those term(s)/phrase(s) (the “Proposed Constructions”). Neither the Term
`
`Disclosure nor the Proposed Constructions will be filed with the Court. Subsequent to exchanging
`
`the Term Disclosure and the Proposed Constructions, Plaintiff shall meet and confer with the
`
`Defendant Groups against whom each respective patent is asserted to prepare a Joint Claim
`
`Construction Chart with respect to that patent to be filed no later than March 15, 2021. The Joint
`
`Claim Construction Charts, in Word format, shall be e-mailed simultaneously to the Court. The
`
`text for the Joint Claim Construction Charts shall be 14-point and in Times New Roman or a
`
`similar typeface. The Joint Claim Construction Charts should identify for the Court the
`
`term(s)/phrase(s) of the claim(s) in issue and should include each party’s proposed construction of
`
`the disputed claim language with citation(s) only to the intrinsic evidence in support of their
`
`respective proposed constructions. A separate text-searchable PDF of each of the patent(s) in issue
`
`13
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2005, 0013
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00158-NIQA-LAS Document 42 Filed 10/01/20 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: 945
`
`shall be submitted with each Joint Claim Construction Chart. This joint submission will not
`
`include argument. Each party shall file concurrently with each Joint Claim Construction Chart a
`
`“Motion for Claim Construction” that requests the Court to adopt the claim construction position(s)
`
`of that party set forth in the Joint Claim Construction Chart. The motion shall not contain any
`
`argument and shall simply state that the party “requests that the Court adopt the claim construction
`
`position[s] of [the party] set forth in the Joint Claim Construction Chart (D.I. [ ]).”
`
`16.
`
`Claim Construction Briefing. After the submission of the Joint Claim Construction
`
`Charts, the parties shall meet and confer about the number of terms to be construed and the word
`
`limits for briefing. By March 22, 2021, the parties should either submit a stipulation on these
`
`topics or their competing proposals to the Court for resolution.
`
`17.
`
`Each brief must include a certification by counsel that the brief complies with the
`
`type and number limitations set forth above. The person who prepares the certification may rely
`
`on the word count of the word-processing system used to prepare the brief.
`
`No later than July 8, 2021, Plaintiff and the Defendant Groups against whom each
`
`respective patent is asserted shall file a separate Joint Claim Construction Brief with respect to that
`
`patent. The parties shall copy and paste their untitled briefs into one brief, with their positions on
`
`each claim term in sequential order, in substantially the form below.
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Agreed-upon Constructions
`
`Disputed Constructions
`
`A.
`
`[TERM 1]
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs Opening Position
`Defendant’s Answering Position
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position
`Defendant’s Sur-Reply Position
`
`14
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2005, 0014
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00158-NIQA-LAS Document 42 Filed 10/01/20 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: 946
`
`B.
`
`[TERM2]
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs Opening Position
`Defendant’s Answering Position
`Plaintiffs Reply Position
`Defendant’s Sur-Reply Position
`
`Etc.
`
`The Joint Claim Construction Briefs need not include any general summaries of the law relating
`
`to claim construction. If there are any materials that would be submitted in an appendix, Plaintiff
`
`and the Defendant Groups against whom each respective patent is asserted shall submit such
`
`materials in a Joint Appendix to each Joint Claim Construction Brief. Citations to intrinsic
`
`evidence shall be set forth in the Joint Claim Construction Brief. Citations to expert declarations
`
`and other extrinsic evidence may be made in the Joint Claim Construction Brief as the parties deem
`
`necessary, but the Court will review such extrinsic evidence only if the Court is unable to construe
`
`the disputed claim terms based on the intrinsic evidence. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
`
`Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Declarations shall not contain legal argument or be
`
`used to circumvent the briefing word limitations imposed by this paragraph. The Joint Claim
`
`Construction Brief and Joint Appendix shall comply with paragraphs 10 and 14 of this Order.
`
`18. Meet and Confer Confirmation and Amended Claim Chart. On or before July 12,
`
`2021, local and lead counsel for Plaintiff shall meet separately for each patent with the Defendant
`
`Groups against whom each respective patent is asserted to meet and confer. Plaintiff and the
`
`Defendant Groups against whom each respective patent is asserted shall thereafter file an Amended
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chart that sets forth the terms that remain in dispute. During the meet
`
`and confer, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Groups against whom each respective patent is asserted
`
`shall attempt to reach agreement on any disputed terms where possible and to narrow the issues
`
`related to the remaining disputed terms. Plaintiff and the Defendant Groups against whom each
`
`15
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2005, 0015
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00158-NIQA-LAS Document 42 Filed 10/01/20 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 947
`
`respective patent is asserted shall file with the Amended Joint Claim Construction Chart a letter
`
`that identifies by name each individual who participated in the meet and confer, when and how
`
`(i.e., by telephone or in person) the meet and confer occurred, and how long it lasted. If no
`
`agreements on constructions have been reached or if no dispute has been narrowed as a result of
`
`the meet and confer, the letter shall so state and the parties need not file an Amended Joint Claim
`
`Construction Chart.
`
`19.
`
`Hearing on Claim Construction. Sometime following the parties’ meet-and-confer
`
`with respect to claim construction, the Court will hear argument on claim construction. Absent
`
`prior approval of the Court (which, if it is sought, must be done by joint letter submission no later
`
`than the date on which answering claim construction briefs are due to be served), the parties shall
`
`not present testimony at the argument, and the argument shall not exceed a total of three hours.
`
`20.
`
`Disclosure of Expert Testimony.
`
`(a)
`
`To the extent that the Court has not issued its Claim Construction Order 30
`
`days before the first deadline listed in this section, the Parties shall meet and confer with
`
`respect to adjusting the dates for expert disclosures, for the purpose of receiving the Court’s
`
`Claim Construction Order before the Parties’ disclosure of expert reports.
`
`(b)
`
`Expert Reports. For the party with the initial burden of proof on the subject
`
`matter, the initial Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) disclosure of expert testimony
`
`is due on or before January 13, 2022. The supplemental disclosure to contradict or rebut
`
`evidence on the same matter identified by another party is due on February 14, 2022. Reply
`
`expert reports from the party with the initial burden of proof are due on or before March 8,
`
`2022. No other expert reports will be permitted without either the consent of all parties or
`
`leave of the Court. Along with the submissions of the expert reports, the parties shall
`
`16
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2005, 0016
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00158-NIQA-LAS Document 42 Filed 10/01/20 Page 17 of 22 PageID #: 948
`
`provide the dates and times of their experts’ availability for deposition. Depositions of
`
`experts shall be completed on or before April 7, 2022.
`
`(c)
`
`Objections to Expert Testimony. To the extent any objection to expert
`
`testimony is made pursuant to the principles announced in Daubert v. Merrell Dow
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), as incorporated in Federal Rule of Evidence
`
`702, it shall be made by motion no later than the deadline for dispositive motions set forth
`
`herein, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
`
`21.
`
`Case Dispositive Motions.
`
`(a)
`
`No Early Motions Without Leave. All case dispositive motions and the
`
`opening briefs and affidavits supporting such motions shall be served and filed on or before
`
`May 12, 2022. No case dispositive motion under Rule 56 may be filed more than ten days
`
`before this date without leave of the Court.
`
`(b) Motions to be Filed Separately. A party shall not combine into a single
`
`motion multiple motions that rely in whole or in part on different facts.
`
`(c) Word Limits Combined with Daubert Motion Word Limits. The parties
`
`agree to meet and confer to discuss page and/or word limits with respect to case dispositive
`
`motions and Daubert motions and, if unable to reach consensus, raise the issue with the
`
`Court on or before March 20, 2022.
`
`(d)
`
`Concise Statement of Facts Requirement. Any motion for summary
`
`judgment shall be accompanied by a separate concise statement detailing each material fact
`
`as to which the moving party contends that there are no genuine issues to be tried that are
`
`essential for the Court’s determination of the summary judgment motion (not the entire
`
`17
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2005, 0017
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00158-NIQA-LAS Document 42 Filed 10/01/20 Page 18 of 22 PageID #: 949
`