Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 55 Filed on 12/16/20 in TXSD Page 1 of 11
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-cv-2624
`(CONSOLIDATED)
`
`HON. ALFRED H. BENETT
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD. D/B/A
`GWEE
`
`vs.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD. D/B/A
`GWEE
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-cv-02652
`(CONSOLIDATED)
`
`HON. ALFRED H. BENETT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT SUBMISSION REGARDING AGREED AND NON-AGREED
`SCHEDULING DATES
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s instructions and minute entry of November 20, 2020 for “Counsel to
`
`confer by December 11th and submit jointly agreed upon dates by December 16th,” Plaintiff GUI
`
`Global Products, Ltd. d/b/a Gwee (“Gwee” or “Plaintiff”), Defendants Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.;
`
`and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (together, “Samsung”), and Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple”)
`
`have conferred, and they have agreed on some dates for these consolidated cases and not agreed on
`
`others. Each party’s position, including points of agreement and disagreement, is set forth below.
`
`I. PLAINTIFF GWEE’S POSITION
`
`
`
`In accordance with the Court’s instructions, Gwee respectfully submits the proposed
`
`scheduling orders for these consolidated cases at Exhibit 1, which has proposed dates through the trial
`
`of each case. The touchstone for Gwee’s proposed schedule is the Court’ Sample Patent Scheduling
`
`Order, with dates commencing after giving the Court time to decide the pending motion to transfer
`
`venue The dates for the Samsung case, which was filed first and has the lower civil action, largely
`
`Exhibit 1026
`Page 01 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 55 Filed on 12/16/20 in TXSD Page 2 of 11
`
`track those in the Court’s Sample Patent Scheduling Order. Consistent with the Court’s intent in
`
`consolidating these cases - both cases have a common Markman hearing date for claim construction.
`
`The Markman briefing dates for the Apple case are spaced two weeks after those in the Samsung case,
`
`and the post-Markman dates are generally spaced four weeks after those in the Samsung case. The
`
`foregoing is subject to some minor adjustments, mostly around holidays and between the start of the
`
`two trials.
`
`
`
`Gwee’s purpose in modestly spacing some of the dates for the two cases is to avoid
`
`overburdening Gwee with deadlines in both of these substantial cases falling on the same day, and to
`
`avoid overburdening the Court with filings by multiple parties on the same date on the same or similar
`
`issues, for example with expect to non-consolidated claim construction briefing, discovery disputes
`
`potentially clustered around expert and discovery deadlines, pretrial motion deadlines, expected
`
`rulings on pretrial motions, and pretrial filings.
`
`
`
`Consistent with the Court’ Sample Patent Scheduling Order and what Gwee understands to
`
`be the Court’s intent and instructions for the parties to submit case schedules, Gwee has submitted
`
`proposed case schedules – namely, full schedules for both consolidated cases with thirty-four (34)
`
`separate scheduling items. In contrast, Samsung and Apple are proposing only the first four of these
`
`thirty-four total scheduling items. Aside from this not being in accord with Gwee’s understanding of
`
`the Court’s intent and instructions, Gwee disagrees with Samsung and Apple’s approach of avoidance
`
`and delay. Gwee’s proposed schedule, which is at least essentially agreed upon for the first four
`
`items, presents a full schedule with set dates, and it accords adequate time for the Court to decide
`
`whether to grant the Defendants’ requested venue transfers. Gwee submits that the Court should enter
`
`a schedule with set dates, including so that the Court, the parties’ and their witnesses, including
`
`experts, can plan accordingly.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 1026
`Page 02 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 55 Filed on 12/16/20 in TXSD Page 3 of 11
`
`Further, Defendants’ opposition to scheduling claim construction disclosures is misplaced.
`
`Gwee’s already extended schedule anticipates that venue will have been ruled upon prior to claim
`
`construction disclosures being made. In any event, the parties’ would need to make initial claim
`
`construction disclosures under both the SDTX and NDCA patent rules.
`
`If the Court grants the requested transfers, the Court in NDCA can decide if it wishes to adopt
`
`this Court’s schedule or modify it in any respect. If the Court’s consideration of the motion to transfer
`
`venue takes longer than anticipated, then the parties can confer and submit any appropriate
`
`modifications to the schedule. If the Court does not grant the requested transfers, then these cases
`
`should proceed accordingly towards reasonably prompt trials in accordance with this Court’s normal
`
`scheduling practices.
`
`
`
`Gwee best understands Samsung’s fallback position as essentially concurring with Gwee’s
`
`proposed the schedule for the Apple case and for both cases to have the same deadlines through pre-
`
`trial. As noted above, Gwee submits that it unfairly burdens both Gwee and the Court, with no
`
`corresponding benefit, by making all filings and submissions in both cases fall on the same day.
`
`Samsung suggests below that Gwee’s proposed staggering of claim construction briefs results
`
`in six briefs instead of three. It is more correct to state that Samsung has indicated a willingness to
`
`submit a common brief with Apple if unspecified additional page limits are afforded, and Apple has
`
`left the issue to the Court’s discretion. Gwee also leaves it to the Court’s discretion whether Apple
`
`and Samsung should submit common claim construction brief. If that is the Court’s preference, then
`
`only one set of claim construction briefing deadlines would be needed. Irrespective, the sensible
`
`approach to the post-Markman and pretrial dates is stagger them modestly, which is Gwee’s position,
`
`which Apple appears either to agree with or at least not oppose.
`
`
`
`Apple’s submission below responsive to the Court’s directive for the parties to submit
`
`schedules (much like Samsung’s submission), seems directed primarily to arguing that the parties
`
`
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 1026
`Page 03 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 55 Filed on 12/16/20 in TXSD Page 4 of 11
`
`should not submit schedules, and to re-arguing Apple’s motion to stay. Samsung made similar stay
`
`arguments prior to the Court directing the parties to submit case schedules. Gwee has already
`
`responded to Apple’s Motion to Stay at Doc 38 in Case 4:20-cv-02652 (now consolidated into this
`
`case). Without belaboring all the points already briefed, Gwee would respectfully point out, as set
`
`out more fully in its Response, that (1) Apple’s selective case citations do not establish grounds
`
`favoring a stay, Doc 38, pp. 2-6; (2) Apple must show, but has failed to show, good cause for a stay,
`
`Id., pp. 7-9; and (3) Apple fails to show good cause for a stay because a stay would merely delay
`
`work – including patent disclosures required by both districts -- that that the parties must perform,
`
`Id., pp. 9-12. Further, Apple’s citation of cases regarding priority to be afforded venue motions makes
`
`an unjustified leap from priority to stay, and they miss the point that this Court is already addressing
`
`venue in a prompt fashion, and that the Court has prudently directed the parties to submit proposed
`
`schedules to govern in the event that the venue motions are denied.
`
`
`
`Gwee best understands Apple’s fallback position as basically concurring with, or at least not
`
`opposing, Gwee’s proposed schedules for both cases, including Gwee’s proposed relatively modest
`
`staggering of deadlines for the two cases. Gwee submits that Gwee’s position and Apple’s fallback
`
`position is the more fair and orderly arrangement for both cases to proceed.
`
`
`
`Samsung and Apple’s basic response to the Court’s direction to submit case schedules is to
`
`seek to avoid meaningful compliance with the Court’s directive, despite the fact that Gwee’s proposal
`
`provides sufficient time for venue to be decided before the cases proceed beyond early steps that
`
`would be necessary in either district. Gwee thus respectfully requests that the Court enter the
`
`proposed schedule at Exhibit 1, which is responsive to the Court’s instructions, and which addresses
`
`all scheduling items for both cases in a fair, definite and reasonable fashion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Exhibit 1026
`Page 04 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 55 Filed on 12/16/20 in TXSD Page 5 of 11
`
`II. DEFENDANT SAMSUNG’S POSITION
`
`Samsung believes its proposal (submitted at Exhibit 2) best accounts for two key issues. First,
`
`as discussed with the Court during the November 20, 2020 hearing, the exchange of disclosures under
`
`the patent rules would proceed. Second, in light of the pending Motions to Transfer, the schedule
`
`accounts for the determinations of the Motions before any submission to the Court (i.e., Samsung
`
`believes that the Court did not intend that it take on substantive claim construction issues prior to the
`
`determination of transfer).
`
`Accordingly, Samsung’s proposal allows the case to proceed where there would be minimal
`
`waste in effort if the case were transferred (i.e., allows the Patent Rule exchanges among the parties
`
`as the transferee district of NDCA has similar rules), but at the same time spends no resources on
`
`fashioning a speculative downstream schedule that would need to be reevaluated after the Motions to
`
`Transfers are determined.1
`
`In addition, as to the full schedule proposal submitted by Gwee, beyond it being inefficient
`
`for the reasons noted immediately above, its proposed staggering of the schedule between Samsung
`
`and Apple unnecessarily burdens the Court. For example, for claim construction, Gwee proposes six
`
`briefs by the parties (i.e., rather than three) at different times. Moreover, the staggering prejudices
`
`Samsung as Gwee proposes Samsung be first defendant to provide its positions. Gwee states that the
`
`reason for the staggering is case management (i.e., so that it has time to address each party separately)
`
`— but this can be managed by providing more time in between the events, not by prejudicing one
`
`defendant over another (and to note, it was Gwee’s choice to file suit against two defendants at the
`
`same time).2
`
`
`1 Gwee and Samsung agree to the dates up to the P.R. 4-2 exchange.
`2Gwee’s statement of Samsung’s position (what Gwee calls Samsung “fallback” position) is
`incomplete. Stated simply, Samsung’s position is that if a full schedule were to be adopted, both
`5
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1026
`Page 05 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 55 Filed on 12/16/20 in TXSD Page 6 of 11
`
`In any event, there is no need to deal with these issues now, nor should they be dealt with now
`
`given the pending Motions to Transfer. Accordingly, Samsung respectfully submits that its schedule
`
`be adopted.
`
`III. DEFENDANT APPLE’S POSITION
`
`As the Court is aware Apple was recently consolidated into this Action. Per Judge Hanks’s
`
`request, Apple filed its Motion to Stay (Dkt. 36 in Civ. No. 4:20-cv-02652) and that Motion is fully
`
`briefed. Apple’s position is that this case should be stayed and that no deadlines (other than those
`
`relating to venue discovery and briefing) should be entered while Apple’s Motion to Transfer (Dkt.
`
`40 in Civ. No. 4:20-cv-02652) is pending. As set forth more fully in Apple’s briefing in support of
`
`its Motion to Stay, such a stay is not only the most efficient and effective use of the Court’s and
`
`parties’ resources but also accords with the case-law of both the Federal Circuit and Fifth Circuit
`
`case-law which require that “disposition of [a transfer] motion should have taken top priority in the
`
`handling of this case by the . . . District Court.” (Dkt. 36 in Civ. No. 4:20-cv-02652 at p. 3-4) (citing
`
`In re Horseshoe Entm’t, 337 F.3d 429, 433 (5th Cir. 2003)). Indeed, just five weeks ago the Federal
`
`Circuit issued a decision ordering a patent case filed against Apple in WDTX be transferred to
`
`NCDAL, which reaffirmed “once a party files a transfer motion, disposing of that motion should
`
`unquestionably take top priority.” In re Apple, 979 F.3d 1332, 1343 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 9, 2020)
`
`Although Apple was not present at the Court’s discovery hearing between GUI and Samsung,
`
`counsel for Apple understands from counsel for those parties that the Court requested that the parties
`
`discuss and submit a proposed schedule. Consistent with Apple’s position as set forth in its Motion
`
`to Stay, as well as Apple’s understanding that GUI’s proposed schedule (as set forth above and in
`
`
`defendants should be on the same schedule through pre-trial and any case management issues for
`Gwee should be accommodated with more time between events (i.e., not staggered).
`6
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1026
`Page 06 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 55 Filed on 12/16/20 in TXSD Page 7 of 11
`
`Exhibit 1) is effectively a withdrawal of its opposition to Apple’s motion to stay, Apple provides its
`
`proposed schedule as set forth in Exhibit 3.
`
`Apple further provides the following response regarding Samsung’s and GUI’s respective
`
`statements above:
`
`First, Apple proposes that the Court enter a deadline by which the parties submit a proposed
`
`Scheduling Order to the Court providing the remaining dates through trial, calculated from the date
`
`of the Court’s order on Apple’s Motion for Transfer, if the case is not transferred to the Northern
`
`District of California. Alternatively, should the Court desire to enter a proposed schedule for
`
`additional deadlines beyond those relating to Apple’s transfer motion, Apple proposes that, rather
`
`than including deadlines that would not be appropriate while the Court has not yet ruled on the motion
`
`to transfer, that the Court enter deadlines based on the later of 1) the set of four initial dates on which
`
`Samsung and GUI agree, or 2) fourteen days after the Court’s order on Apple’s Motion to Transfer.
`
`This is a slight variation to Samsung’s proposal that will avoid the parties and the Court having to
`
`serially revisit this schedule at a later date if the Court has not yet ruled on Apple’s Motion to Transfer.
`
`As to the issue of whether Apple and Samsung’s briefing (and post-Markman deadlines)
`
`should be staggered or consolidated, Apple agrees with Samsung that there is no need to deal with
`
`these issues now and that it would be more efficient to deal with them at a later date, if necessary.
`
`However, should the Court enter a full schedule, Apple defers to whatever option the Court feels
`
`would be most helpful in analyzing the claim construction disputes, whether that is multiple briefs or
`
`consolidated briefing with additional pages to account for multiple defendants. As to the post-
`
`Markman deadlines, Apple suggests that the parties and the Court discuss those deadlines closer to
`
`the Markman hearing, if the case is not transferred and considering the parties’ pre-Markman
`
`deadlines are largely agreed.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Exhibit 1026
`Page 07 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 55 Filed on 12/16/20 in TXSD Page 8 of 11
`
`Dated: August 10, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Respectfully submitted:
`
`/s/ John J. Edmonds
`John J. Edmonds
`Texas Bar No. 789758
`Federal I.D. No. 22110
`Stephen F. Schlather
`Texas Bar No. 24007993
`EDMONDS & SCHLATHER PLLC
`2501 Saltus Street
`Houston, Texas 77003
`Telephone: (713) 364-5291
`Facsimile: (713) 222-6651
`jedmonds@ip-lit.com
`sschlather@ip-lit.com
`
`Barrett H. Reasoner
`Texas Bar No. 16641980
`Federal ID No. 14922
`breasoner@gibbsbruns.com
`Mark A. Giugliano
`Texas Bar No. 24012702
`Federal ID No. 29171
`mgiugliano@gibbsbruns.com
`Michael R. Absmeier
`Texas Bar No. 24050195
`Federal ID No. 608947
`mabsmeier@gibbsbruns.com
`Jorge M. Gutierrez
`Texas Bar No. 24106037
`Federal ID No. 3157999
`jgutierrez@gibbsbruns.com
`GIBBS & BRUNS, LLP
`1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 5300
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Telephone: (713) 650-8805
`
`Alistair B. Dawson
`Texas Bar No. Bar No. 05596100
`Federal Bar I.D. 12864
`adawson@beckredden.com
`Michael E. Richardson
`Texas Bar No. Bar No. 24002838
`Federal Bar I.D. 23630
`
`Exhibit 1026
`Page 08 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 55 Filed on 12/16/20 in TXSD Page 9 of 11
`
`mrichardson@beckredden.com
`Garrett S. Brawley
`Texas Bar No. 24095812
`Federal Bar I.D. 3311277
`gbrawley@beckredden.com
`Patrick Redmon
`Texas Bar I.D. 24110258
`Federal Bar I.D. 3367321
`predmon@beckredden.com
`BECK REDDEN LLP
`1221 McKinney St., Suite 4500
`Houston, Texas 77010-2010
`Telephone: (713) 951-3700
`Facsimile: (713) 951-3720
`
`Butch Boyd
`Texas Bar No. 00783694
`Federal Bar I.D. 23211
`butchboyd@butchboydlawfirm.com
`BUTCH BOYD LAW FIRM
`2905 Sackett Street
`Houston, TX 77098
`Telephone: (713) 589-8477
`Facsimile: (713) 589-8563
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF GUI
`GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD
`
`/s/ Jin-suk Park (with permission)
`Jin-Suk Park
`Attorney-in-Charge
`DC Bar No. 484378
`jin.park@arnoldporter.com
`Paul Margulies
`DC Bar No. 1000297
`paul.margulies@arnoldporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER
`LLP
`601 Massachusetts Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel: 202.942.5000
`Fax: 202.942.5999
`
`Christopher M. Odell
`
`
`
`9
`
`Exhibit 1026
`Page 09 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 55 Filed on 12/16/20 in TXSD Page 10 of 11
`
`Texas Bar No. 24037205
`Christopher.odell@arnoldporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER
`LLP
`700 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000
`Houston, TX 77002-2755
`Tel: 713.576.2400
`Fax: 713.576.2499
`
`John H. Barr, Jr.
`Texas Bar No. 00783605
`S.D. Tex. Fed. ID. No. 15407
`jbarr@pattersonsheridan.com
`Patterson & Sheridan LLP
`24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
`Houston, TX 77046
`Tel: 713.577.4821
`Fax: 713.623.4846
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc.
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`
`By: /s/ Benjamin C. Elacqua
`Benjamin C. Elacqua
`Attorney-in-Charge
`Texas State Bar No. 24055443
`Federal ID No. 954566
`elacqua@fr.com
`John Brinkmann
`Texas State Bar No. 24068091
`Federal ID No. 1087852
`brinkmann@fr.com
`Kathryn Quisenberry
`Texas State Bar No. 24105639
`Federal ID No. 3137726
`quisenberry@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1221 McKinney St.
`Suite 2800
`Houston, TX 77010
`(713) 654-5300
`
`
`
`10
`
`Exhibit 1026
`Page 10 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 55 Filed on 12/16/20 in TXSD Page 11 of 11
`
`(713) 652-0109
`
`COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPLE
`INC.
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented
`electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF
`system, including per Local Rule CV-5.1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ John J. Edmonds
`John J. Edmonds
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that I have conferred with counsel for Defendants Samsung and Apple
`
`concerning the relief requested in this motion and the parties’ disagreements are framed herein
`and in the attached proposed competing schedules.
`
`
`
`/s/ John J. Edmonds
`John J. Edmonds
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Exhibit 1026
`Page 11 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 55-1 Filed on 12/16/20 in TXSD Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`Exhibit 1026
`Page 12 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 55-1 Filed on 12/16/20 in TXSD Page 2 of 6
`
`GUI Global v.
`Samsung
`Already served
`
`GUI Global v. Apple
`
`3/31/2021
`
`5/12/2021
`
`5/12/2021
`
`5/26/2021
`
`6/16/2021
`
`5/26/2021
`
`6/16/2021
`
` July 14, 2021
`
`July 14, 2021
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Comply with P.R. 3-1 and P.R. 3-2: Parties to make
`disclosure of asserted claims and preliminary infringement
`contentions & make document production.
`After this date, it is necessary to obtain leave of court to add
`and/or amend infringement contentions, pursuant to Patent
`Rule (P.R.) 3-7.
`Join additional parties. It is not necessary to file a motion to
`join additional parties before this date. Thereafter, it is
`necessary to obtain leave of court to join additional parties.
`Add new patents and/or claims for patents-in-suit. It is not
`necessary to file a motion to add additional patents or claims
`before this date. Thereafter, it is necessary to obtain leave of
`court to add patents or claims.
`Comply with P.R. 3-3 and 3-4: Parties to serve preliminary
`invalidity contentions and make document production.
`Thereafter, it is necessary to obtain leave of Court to add
`and/or amend invalidity contentions, pursuant to P.R.. 3-7.
`
`Comply with P.R. 4-1: Parties’ exchange of proposed terms
`and claim elements needing construction.
`Comply with P.R. 4-2: Parties’ exchange of preliminary
`claim constructions and extrinsic evidence.
`Privilege Logs to be exchanged by parties (or a letter to the
`Court stating that there are no disputes as to claims of
`privileged documents).
`Deadline to comply with P.R. 4-3: Filing of joint claim
`construction and pre-hearing statement.
`
`Disclosure of parties’ claim construction experts & service
`of FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2) materials
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1026
`Page 13 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 55-1 Filed on 12/16/20 in TXSD Page 3 of 6
`
` July 14, 2021
`
`July 14, 2021
`
`August 18, 2021
`
`August 18, 2021
`
`August 18, 2021
`
`August 18, 2021
`
`September 1, 2021
`September 15, 2021
`
`September 1, 2021
`September 15, 2021
`
`October 6, 2021
`
`October 20, 2021
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`
`11
`
`Deadline for all parties to file amended pleadings (pre-
`claim construction). It is not necessary to file a Motion for
`Leave to Amend before the deadline to amend pleadings. (It
`will be necessary to file a Motion for Leave to Amend after this
`deadline.)
`
`NOTE:
`the amendment would affect preliminary
`If
`contentions
`or
`preliminary
`invalidity
`infringement
`contentions, a motion must be made pursuant to P.R. 3-7
`irrespective of whether the amendment is made prior to this
`deadline.
`
`Add any inequitable conduct allegations to pleadings.
`Before this date, it is not necessary to file a motion for leave
`to add
`inequitable conduct allegations
`to pleadings.
`Thereafter, it is necessary to obtain leave of court to add
`inequitable conduct allegations to pleadings
`Each party to provide name, address, phone number, and
`curriculum vitae for up to three (3) candidates for a court-
`appointed special master (see FED. R. CIV. P. 53) or court-
`appointed expert (see FED. R. EV. 706), with information
`regarding the nominee’s availability for Markman hearing or
`other assignments as deemed necessary by the court. The
`parties shall indicate if they agree on any of the nominees.
`
`Deadline for parties (optional) to provide Court with written
`tutorials concerning technology involved in patent in issue.
`If a special master or court-appointed expert is hereafter
`selected, the parties will provide each tutorial to the master or
`expert.
`Responses to amended pleadings due.
`Discovery deadline on claim construction issues
`(see P.R. 4-4)
`Comply with P.R. 4-5(a): the party claiming patent
`infringement must serve and file a Claim Construction
`Opening Brief with its supporting evidence. The moving party
`is to provide the Court with 2 copies of the binders containing
`their Opening Brief and exhibits. If a special master or court-
`appointed expert has been appointed, the moving party must
`provide the Opening Brief on disk or CD along with a hard
`copy, tabbed and bound in notebook format with exhibits, to
`the special master or court- appointed expert.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 1026
`Page 14 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 55-1 Filed on 12/16/20 in TXSD Page 4 of 6
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Comply with P.R. 4-5(b): Responsive Brief and supporting
`evidence due to party claiming patent infringement. The
`moving party is to provide the Court with two (2) courtesy
`copies of the Responsive Brief and exhibits. If a special master
`or court- appointed expert has been appointed, the nonmoving
`party must supply a copy of its Response on disk or CD along
`with a hard copy, tabbed and bound in notebook format with
`exhibits, to the special master or court-appointed expert.
`Comply with P.R. 4-5(c): Party claiming infringement shall
`file a Reply Brief and supporting evidence on claim
`construction. The moving party is to provide the Court with
`two (2) copies of the Reply Brief and exhibits.
`
`If a special master or court-appointed expert has been
`appointed, the moving party must provide the Reply Brief on
`disk or CD along with a hard copy, tabbed and bound in
`notebook format with exhibits, to the special master or court-
`appointed expert.
`
`Parties to file a notice with the Court stating the estimated
`amount of time requested for the Claim Construction
`(Markman) Hearing. The Court will notify the parties if it is
`unable to accommodate this request.
`Parties to submit Claim Construction Chart in WordPerfect
`8.0 (or higher) format in compliance with P.R. 4-5(d).
`Claim Construction (Markman) Hearing at ___ a.m. at the
`United States District Court, 515 Rusk Street, Courtroom 8-
`C, Houston, Texas
`Court’s Decision on Claim Construction (Markman
`Ruling) (If ruling is late, parties may seek amendment of
`remaining dates in Scheduling Order.)
`Deadline for final infringement contentions and to amend
`pleadings on infringement claims
`NOTE: Except as provided in P.R. 3-6, if the amendment
`would affect preliminary or final infringement contentions, a
`motion must be made under P.R. 3-7 irrespective of whether
`the amendment is made before this deadline.
`Deadline for final invalidity contentions and to amend
`pleadings on invalidity claims.
`NOTE: Except as provided in P.R. 3-6, if the amendment
`would affect preliminary or final invalidity contentions, a
`motion must be made under P.R. 3-7 irrespective of whether
`the amendment is made before this deadline.
`Comply with P.R.3-8. All parties furnish documents and
`privilege logs pertaining to willful infringement.
`
`
`
`3
`
`October 20, 2021
`
`November 3, 2021
`
`October 27, 2021
`
`November 10, 2021
`
`December 8, 2021
`
`December 8, 2021
`
`The parties suggest
`December 15, 2022
`
`The parties suggest
`December 15, 2021
`
`February 7, 2022
`
`February 7, 2022
`
`March 7, 2022
`
`April 4, 2022
`
`March 21, 2022
`
`April 18, 2022
`
`March 7, 2022
`
`April 4, 2022
`
`Exhibit 1026
`Page 15 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 55-1 Filed on 12/16/20 in TXSD Page 5 of 6
`
`Date for designation of expert witnesses on non-
`construction issues on which the party has the burden of
`proof (“BOP”) and service of expert witness reports.
`[Refer to Fed. Rules of Civil Proc. for information required.]
`Date for designation of responsive expert witnesses on non-
`claim construction issues on which party does not have
`BOP, and service of responsive expert witness reports.
`[Refer to Fed. Rules of Civil Proc. for information required.]
`Fact discovery deadline.
`
`Expert discovery deadline.
`
`(If ruling is late, parties may seek amendment of remaining
`dates in Scheduling Order.)
`Dispositive and Non-Dispositive Motions
`and
`Briefing deadlines
`
`Court’s ruling on all pending motions
`Joint Pretrial Order due including all components required
`by Local Rules and this Court’s Procedures (such as witness
`lists, exhibit lists and copies of exhibits (see # 29 below), and
`(a) in bench trials, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
`law with citation to authority and (b) for jury trials, joint
`proposed jury instructions with citation to authority, and
`proposed verdict form). Statement of Expected Length of
`Trial: ten days (~6 hours with jury per day).
`Written notice due for request for daily transcript or real
`time reporting of trial proceedings.
`Video and Deposition Designations due.
`Each party who proposes to offer a deposition by video must
`file a disclosure identifying the line and page numbers to be
`offered.
`
`All other parties will have 1 week to file a response requesting
`cross designation line and page numbers to be included.
`Each party is responsible for preparation of the final edited
`video in accordance with their parties’ designations and the
`Court’s rulings on objections.
`Motions in Limine due.
`
`4
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`April 4, 2022
`
`May 2, 2022
`
`May 2, 2022
`
`May 23, 2022
`
`June 27, 2022
`
`August 8, 2022
`
`July 25, 2022
`
`September 5, 2022
`
`Motions due: 9/6/22
`
`Responsive Briefs
`due: 10/3/2020
`Rely Briefs due:
`10/17/22
`December 12, 2022
` January 16, 2023
`
`Motions due: 10/3/22
`
`Responsive Briefs
`due: 10/31/2020
`Rely Briefs due:
`11/14/22
`January 16, 2023
`February 13, 2023
`
` January 16, 2023
`
`February 13, 2023
`
` January 16, 2023
`
`February 13, 2023
`
` January 16, 2023
`
`February 13, 2023
`
`Exhibit 1026
`Page 16 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 55-1 Filed on 12/16/20 in TXSD Page 6 of 6
`
`Objections to opponents’ proposed witnesses, proposed
`exhibits, designated deposition testimony, and any other
`matters due.
`The parties are directed to confer and advise the Court about
`(a) which limine requests the parties agree to.
`9:00 a.m. Docket Call/ Final Pretrial Conference at the
`United States District Court, 515 Rusk Street, Houston, Texas.
` Mediation is required prior to Docket Call,
`
`9:00 a.m. JURY SELECTION at the United States District
`Court
`JURY TRIAL (9:30 a.m.) commences, subject to Court’s
`criminal docket
`
` January 23, 2023
`
`February 20, 2023
`
`[1 day before Docket
`Call – 3 p.m.]
`The parties propose the
`week of 3/13/2023
`Mediation
`to be
`completed by this
`date. The parties
`must
`select
`a
`mediator
`for
`this
`case. The parties
`and mediator must
`comply with S.D.
`TEXAS
`LOCAL
`RULE 16.
`The parties propose the
`week of 3/13/2023
`The parties propose the
`week of 3/20/2023
`
`[1 day before Docket
`Call – 3 p.m.]
`The parties propose
`the week of 4/24/2023
`Mediation
`to be
`completed by this
`date. The parties
`must
`select
`a
`mediator for this
`case. The parties
`and mediator must
`comply with S.D.
`TEXAS LOCAL
`RULE 16.
`The parties propose
`the week of 4/24/2023
`The parties propose
`the week of 5/1/2023
`
`5
`
`29
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`33
`
`34
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1026
`Page 17 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 55-2 Filed on 12/16/20 in TXSD Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`Exhibit 1026
`Page 18 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 55-2 Filed on 12/16/20 in TXSD Page 2 of 2
`
`Exhibit 2
`Samsung’s Proposed Schedule
`
`
`
`Comply with P.R. 3-1 and P.R. 3-2: Parties to make
`disclosure of asserted claims and preliminary infringement
`contentions & make document production.
`After this date, it is necessary to obtain leave of court to add
`and/or amend infringement contentions, pursuant to Patent
`Rule (P.R.) 3-7.
`Join additional parties. It is not necessary to file a motion to
`join additional parties before this date. Thereafter, it is
`necessary to obtain leave of court to join additional parties.
`Add new patents and/or claims for patents-in-suit. It is not
`necessary to file a motion to add additional patents or claims
`before this date. Thereafter, it is necessary to obtain leave of
`court to add patents or claims.
`Comply with P.R. 3-3 and 3-4: Parties to serve preliminary
`invalidity contentions and make document production.
`Thereafter, it is necessary to obtain leave of Court to add
`and/or amend invalidity contentions, pursuant to P.R.. 3-7.
`
`Comply with P.R. 4-1: Parties’ exchange of proposed terms
`and claim elements needing construction.
`Comply with P.R. 4-2: Parties’ exchange of preliminary
`claim constructions and extrinsic evidence.
`Privilege Logs to be exchanged by parties (or a letter to the
`Court stating that there are no disputes as to claims of
`privileged documents).
`
`GUI Global v.
`Samsung
`
`GUI Global v. Apple
`
`Already served
`
`3/31/2021
`
`5/12/2021
`
`5/26/2021
`
`6/16/2021
`
`1
`
`0
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1026
`Page 19 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 55-3 Filed on 12/16/20 in TXSD Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`Exhibit 1026
`Page 20 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 55-3 Filed on 12/16/20 in TXSD Page 2 of 2
`
`0
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`
`
`Comply with P.R. 3-1 and P.R. 3-2: Parties to make
`disclosure of asserted claims and preliminary infringement
`contenti