throbber
CASE 0:20-cv-00358-ECT-HB Document 43 Filed 08/11/20 Page 1 of 27
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`
`
`Oxygenator Water Technologies, Inc.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Tennant Company,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Civil No. 20-cv-0358 (ECT/HB)
`
`
`
`PRETRIAL
`CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
`(PATENT CASES)
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of
`
`this Court, and in order to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this
`
`action, the following schedule shall govern these proceedings.
`
`This schedule may be modified only upon formal motion and a showing of good
`
`cause as required by Local Rule 16.3.1 Counsel must promptly notify the Court of
`
`developments in the case that could significantly affect the case management schedule.
`
`The Court expects the parties and their counsel to work cooperatively throughout
`
`this litigation to narrow the issues in dispute, and to use reasonable, good faith and
`
`proportional efforts to preserve, request, identify and produce relevant information and
`
`resolve discovery disputes.
`
`
`Parties who agree to seek a modification of this Scheduling Order may file a joint
`1
`motion with a proposed order to the Court without requesting a hearing; however, the
`joint motion must set forth good cause for modification of the order as required by Local
`Rule 16.3. The parties are reminded that even if they are in agreement, the decision
`about whether such a motion will be granted is ultimately that of the Court.
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-00358-ECT-HB Document 43 Filed 08/11/20 Page 2 of 27
`
`
`
`The parties are also reminded that Magistrate Judge Bowbeer’s Practice Pointers,
`
`which are periodically revised, are available on the United States District Court for the
`
`District of Minnesota’s website (mnd.uscourts.gov). All parties are expected to be
`
`familiar with and adhere to these Practice Pointers, including any variances from the
`
`Local Rules.
`
`
`
`Attachment A to this Order is a Schedule setting forth the key dates set forth in the
`
`order in chronological order. The Schedule is provided for the convenience of the Court
`
`and the parties, but is not intended to modify or supersede this Order. In all cases of
`
`apparent dispute, this Order controls.
`
`PLEADINGS
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`All motions that seek to amend or supplement the pleadings or to add
`parties, together with supporting documents, must be filed and served
`on or before December 3, 2020.
`
`Discovery will be permitted with respect to claims of willful
`infringement and defenses of patent invalidity or unenforceability
`not pleaded by a party, where the evidence needed to support the
`pleading of those claims or defenses is in whole or in part in the
`hands of another party. Once a party has provided the necessary
`discovery, and on or before the deadline set forth in Paragraph 1
`above, the opposing party may seek leave of Court to add claims or
`defenses for which it alleges, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, that
`it has support. Such support must be explained in the motion
`seeking leave. Leave will be liberally given where prima facie
`support is present, provided the party has been diligent in seeking
`the necessary discovery and that it seeks leave as soon as reasonably
`possible following receipt of the necessary discovery.
`
`3.
`
`Any motion that seeks to amend or supplement the pleadings must
`include a redlined version reflecting the changes contained in the
`proposed pleading. (See Local Rule 15.1.)
`
`2
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-00358-ECT-HB Document 43 Filed 08/11/20 Page 3 of 27
`
`4.
`
`The moving party may file a reply memorandum as a matter of right
`in connection with a motion for leave to amend a pleading if the
`other side argues that the amendment would be futile. In such case,
`the initial motion and supporting papers must be filed no less than
`21 days before the hearing date, and the reply must be filed no more
`than 7 days after the other side files its response arguing futility. To
`anticipate this expanded briefing schedule, the parties must discuss
`during the required pre-motion meet-and-confer whether the other
`side intends to argue futility. The total word count for the opening
`and reply memoranda may not exceed 12,000 words unless
`otherwise authorized. If the other side does not argue futility, no
`reply will be permitted without leave of Court. See ¶ 3 in the section
`on NON-DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS, below.
`
`FACT DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND LIMITS
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The parties must make their initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) on
`or before July 24, 2020.
`
`As to the production of core technical documents by Defendant, Defendant
`represents that there are owner’s manuals and parts manuals available on its
`website for all products that incorporate the accused electrolysis units, and
`that the parts manuals contain detailed drawings of the accused electrolysis
`units. Defendant represents that on July 31, 2020, it produced CAD files
`for the electrodes that were placed in floor scrubbers in production from
`2015-2020 and a chart that cross-references the CAD drawings with the
`floor scrubbers that incorporated those electrolysis units. Defendant further
`represents that it has produced manuals containing voltage information
`requested by Plaintiff. Defendant is currently searching for information
`concerning the current applied to the electrodes and will produce
`documents if it can locate any within its possession, custody, or control.
`
`Defendant has inquired, and Tennant is investigating, whether any
`additional electrodes were made, used, or sold by Tennant from 2015-2020.
`If additional relevant electrodes are identified, Defendant will promptly
`produce core technical documents comparable to those described above for
`those electrodes and the floor scrubbers that incorporated them. Provided
`that production is separately made and explicitly called to the attention of
`Plaintiff’s counsel (as opposed to being incorporated into a larger
`production), and unless otherwise ordered for good cause shown, Plaintiff
`must provide infringement contentions for products containing those
`electrodes no later than 3 weeks from the date CAD files and 2d drawings
`are produced for those electrodes.
`
`3
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-00358-ECT-HB Document 43 Filed 08/11/20 Page 4 of 27
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant has proposed that this case be bifurcated into a liability phase
`and a damages phase, with the latter phase deferred until and only if there is
`a finding of liability in favor of Plaintiff. The Court has considered the
`advantages and disadvantages of bifurcation in connection with its
`responsibility under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 to work with the
`parties toward a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of this case, and
`concludes that in the circumstances of this case, bifurcation would not be
`appropriate.
`
`That being said, the Court intends to work with the parties to explore
`opportunities for early resolution, and recognizes that although some
`damages-related information will be necessary to that discussion, it may be
`appropriate to defer more detailed and burdensome damages discovery until
`later in the period set aside for fact discovery. The Court therefore expects
`the parties to confer as discovery progresses regarding whether discovery
`can be prioritized in this or other ways to optimize the opportunities for a
`meaningful settlement discussion before the parties have exhausted their
`potential settlement flexibility on the cost of litigation.
`
`Fact discovery must be commenced in time to be completed on or before
`June 18, 2021.
`
`To facilitate the taking of depositions, the parties agree that document
`production should be substantially complete no later than April 16, 2021.
`
`No more than a total of 25 interrogatories, counted in accordance with
`Rule 33(a), shall be served by each side. No more than 75 document
`requests and no more than 75 requests for admissions shall be served by
`each side. A reasonable number of requests for admissions that are directed
`solely to the authenticity or genuineness of documents will not count
`toward this limit.
`
`The parties are reminded that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) provides that
`discovery must be both relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
`proportional to the needs of the case, considering, inter alia, the importance
`of the issues at stake in the action and the importance of the discovery in
`resolving those issues, as well as whether the burden or expense of the
`proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Accordingly, requests
`must be tailored and specific to the issues, and general requests for “all
`relevant documents” do not meet these criteria.
`
`At the same time, Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2) requires that a responding party
`must “state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request,
`including the reasons” and that the objection “must state whether any
`
`4
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-00358-ECT-HB Document 43 Filed 08/11/20 Page 5 of 27
`
`responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An
`objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of
`the rest.” Boilerplate or general objections that do not clearly communicate
`whether and to what extent the scope of the response is more limited than
`the scope of the request do not meet these criteria.
`
`8.
`
`Each side may take no more than 10 fact depositions, including Rule
`30(b)(6) and non-party depositions.
`
`The parties agree that three business days before any scheduled 30(b)(6)
`deposition, the party producing the 30(b)(6) witness(es) will identify the
`witness(es) being produced by name and will specifically identify the topics
`about which each witness will be prepared to testify.
`
`The parties do not anticipate that any deposition will be taken outside the
`United States or conducted in a language other than English. If it is
`determined that a translator will be necessary, the parties will work together
`in good faith to reach agreement regarding any additional hours that might
`be required to conduct a full deposition.
`
`Based on the parties’ Draft Stipulation for Discovery Order (ECF No. 30)
`and the Court’s resolution of certain disputes therein, a Discovery Order
`governing the discovery and production of electronically stored information
`(“ESI”) has been entered (ECF No. 40). The parties are expected to be
`proactive and diligent in identifying and discussing any other issues that
`may arise relating to the scope, search, collection, review, and production
`of ESI. Any disputes that cannot be resolved through a good faith meet and
`confer process must be brought promptly to the Court for resolution so that
`such disputes do not impede the progress of discovery.
`
`9.
`
`10. Claims of Privilege or Protection as Attorney Work Product.
`
`a.
`
`Defendant may postpone the waiver of any applicable attorney-client
`privilege on topics relevant to claims of willful infringement, if any,
`until thirty (30) days after the Court issues its Claim
`Construction Order, provided that it will produce all relevant
`privileged documents no later than thirty (30) days after the Court
`issues its Claim Construction Order. All additional discovery
`regarding the waiver must be completed no later than the close of
`fact discovery or sixty (60) days after the Court issues its claim
`construction order, whichever is later.
`
`b.
`
`Unless otherwise ordered, the parties are not obligated to include on
`their privilege logs documents, communications, or other materials
`
`5
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-00358-ECT-HB Document 43 Filed 08/11/20 Page 6 of 27
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`that came into existence on or after the date that Plaintiff’s first
`complaint was filed in this action.
`
`Privilege logs must be provided by the producing party on or before
`April 30, 2021, or within 14 days of the production from which
`documents were withheld, whichever is later.
`
`To further the analysis of any privilege logs provided, the parties
`will also provide a list of all lawyers identified on the privilege log,
`identifying each as inside or outside counsel.
`
`The parties agree to follow the procedure set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P.
`26(b)(5)(B) regarding information produced in discovery that is
`subject to a claim of privilege or protection as trial-preparation
`material. Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502, the inadvertent production
`of any documents in this proceeding shall not constitute a waiver of
`any privilege or protection applicable to those documents in this or
`any other state or federal proceeding.
`
`11.
`
`In responding to discovery requests, each party must construe broadly
`terms of art used in the patent field (e.g., “prior art”, “best mode”, “on
`sale”), and read them as requesting discovery relating to the issue as
`opposed to a particular definition of the term used. Compliance with this
`provision is not satisfied by the respondent including a specific definition
`of the term of art in its response, and limiting its response to that definition.
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER AND HANDLING OF SEALED DOCUMENTS IN
`CONNECTION WITH MOTIONS
`
`
`By agreement of the parties, a Protective Order has been entered in this case to
`
`govern the handling of confidential information produced in discovery (ECF No. 33).
`
`If a dispute arises regarding whether that protective order should be modified, and that
`
`dispute cannot be resolved through a good faith meet and confer, the dispute should be
`
`submitted to the Court as soon as possible in accordance with the procedures governing
`
`non-dispositive motions.2 In the interim, however, absent extraordinary circumstances,
`
`
`Parties who agree to a modification of the protective order may file a stipulation
`2
`with the proposed modified order to the Court without a motion and do not need to
`
`6
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-00358-ECT-HB Document 43 Filed 08/11/20 Page 7 of 27
`
`any otherwise discoverable information that a producing party believes should be covered
`
`by the proposed modifications may not be withheld on the basis that the modifications
`
`have not yet been adopted. Instead, the information must be produced to opposing
`
`counsel, but it may be designated for restricted review in accordance with the proposed
`
`modifications if there is a good faith basis for doing so. Opposing counsel must comply
`
`with the interim restricted designation for such information until the Court resolves the
`
`dispute concerning the protective order. At that time, the producing party must re-
`
`produce and re-designate the documents if necessary to conform to the Court’s ruling.
`
`
`
`The parties are reminded that Local Rule 5.6 governs the filing of documents
`
`under seal in this case.
`
`If a party intends to file in connection with a motion a document the party believes
`
`in good faith is not confidential but which has been designated by another party as
`
`confidential or protected, the party intending to file the document is encouraged to meet
`
`and confer with that party concerning the designation of the document and if necessary to
`
`follow the procedures set forth in the protective order to challenge the designation of the
`
`document, to the extent practicable, before the party’s submission is due.
`
`If a party files a document under seal, counsel must provide the Court with a
`
`courtesy copy of each sealed document either in hard copy or on a CD, thumb drive, or
`
`
`comply with Local Rule 7.1(b). If they agree that the order should be modified but
`disagree as to the details of the modification, they may still submit it by filing a
`stipulation and proposed order, provided they clearly set forth their respective positions
`on the terms as to which they disagree. However, if they disagree about whether the
`protective order should be modified at all, the onus is on the party seeking modification
`to seek relief from the Court by motion or, if the parties agree, through the IDR process.
`
`7
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-00358-ECT-HB Document 43 Filed 08/11/20 Page 8 of 27
`
`similar electronic storage media. The confidential information (i.e., the information that
`
`was redacted from the publicly filed document) must be highlighted in yellow on the
`
`courtesy copy. The sealing of entire pleadings, memoranda of law, exhibits, and the like
`
`is strongly discouraged; however, in the rare event that an entire document is filed under
`
`seal, the courtesy copy of that document must so note. The courtesy copies must be
`
`delivered to the Court no later than the next business day after the documents are e-filed.
`
`A joint motion for sealing filed pursuant to Local Rule 5.6 must not only set forth
`
`the justification(s) for continued sealing but must, to the extent practicable, identify with
`
`specificity the portion or portions of each document for which the parties seek continued
`
`sealing. That a document was designated as confidential under a protective order cannot
`
`be the sole reason to support continued sealing. If a redacted public version of any such
`
`document has not already been filed, or if further good faith review by the party who
`
`asserts confidentiality reveals that some of the previously redacted material does not
`
`require sealing, the parties must cooperate to prepare and file a redacted version of that
`
`document, and must refer to it in the joint motion for sealing.
`
`NON-DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
`
`
`
`Except where the parties and the Court have agreed to handle a dispute through
`
`Informal Dispute Resolution (see below), all non-dispositive motions must be scheduled,
`
`filed, and served in compliance with the Electronic Case Filing Procedures for the
`
`District of Minnesota and with Local Rules 7.1 and 37.1.3 The required “meet and
`
`
`The parties are reminded that under Local Rule 7.1, the time for filing and serving
`3
`a response to a non-dispositive motion is counted from the date of filing of the motion,
`
`8
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-00358-ECT-HB Document 43 Filed 08/11/20 Page 9 of 27
`
`confer” must be meaningful and must include attempts to do so through personal contact,
`
`rather than solely through correspondence. Unless a non-dispositive motion is
`
`unopposed, it must be scheduled for hearing prior to filing by calling Judith Kirby,
`
`Courtroom Deputy/Judicial Assistant for Magistrate Judge Bowbeer, even when all
`
`parties are in agreement that no hearing is required.4 If the moving party does not intend
`
`to file the motion promptly after receiving a hearing date from the Court, it must notify
`
`the other side in writing of the hearing date and the nature of the anticipated motion.
`
`Counsel are advised not to notice additional motions for hearing on an already existing
`
`hearing date without first contacting the Court for permission to do so.
`
`
`
`The parties must promptly bring disputes to the Court through its procedures for
`
`resolving non-dispositive motions where the parties have not been able to resolve those
`
`disputes through a diligent, good faith meet-and-confer process. In other words, simply
`
`because this Scheduling Order establishes a deadline for filing a particular type of non-
`
`dispositive motion does not mean the Court will automatically deem any motion brought
`
`by that deadline to have been timely filed. The Court will consider whether the relief
`
`sought by the motion is likely to impact the parties’ ability to meet the other deadlines in
`
`this Order and whether it appears that with the exercise of diligence, the motion could
`
`have been brought sooner.
`
`
`not from the date of service. Therefore, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) has no application to the
`timing for the filing and service of responses.
`4
`If the parties are in agreement that no hearing is necessary, that agreement must be
`clearly stated in the notice of motion. If the Court agrees, it will file an order canceling
`the hearing and stating its intention to take the motion under advisement on the papers.
`
`9
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-00358-ECT-HB Document 43 Filed 08/11/20 Page 10 of 27
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`All non-dispositive motions and supporting documents, other than those
`seeking to amend or supplement the pleadings or relating to expert
`discovery, must be filed and served on or before July 6, 2021. This
`includes motions relating to fact discovery and motions to amend this
`Scheduling Order. The Court reminds the parties that, except in
`extraordinary circumstances, they must obtain a hearing date for a motion
`to amend this Scheduling Order BEFORE the deadline that they wish to
`amend expires. (See LR 16.3(d).)
`
`All non-dispositive motions and supporting documents that relate to expert
`discovery must be filed and served on or before October 22, 2021.
`
`Reply Memoranda: For any non-dispositive motion other than a motion to
`amend the pleadings as to which the other side argues futility, the moving
`party must obtain leave of Court before filing a reply memorandum. If the
`Court grants leave to file a reply, the reply must be e-filed and delivered to
`chambers no later than four days after the filing of a response to a non-
`dispositive motion. For a case involving one or more parties who are not
`on the Court’s CM/ECF system (e.g., a case involving pro se litigants), the
`Court will set a date by which any reply is to be served and filed. Unless
`otherwise authorized, the reply memorandum may not exceed 1,750 words,
`including footnotes, and the total word count for the opening and reply
`memoranda may not exceed 12,000 words.
`
`4.
`
`Discovery Motions:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Before scheduling or filing any formal motion relating to discovery
`(i.e., where the parties have not agreed to IDR), the movant must
`request a telephone conference with the Court. The request for the
`telephone conference must be made well in advance of the
`anticipated filing deadline for any motion. The purpose of this call
`is to explore narrowing the discovery dispute, ensure that the parties
`have fully complied with their obligations to meet and confer, and to
`discuss the most efficient way to brief disputed issues. The movant
`shall request the telephone conference by submitting a short email to
`bowbeer_chambers@mnd.uscourts.gov (copying all counsel),
`describing the discovery dispute and indicating when the parties
`would be available for a conference call. No attachments are
`permitted. The Court will then schedule a conference call.
`
`Local Rule 37.1 governs the form of discovery motions. Counsel
`must adhere to the Rule; however, they should also take care to
`prepare their documents to offer a clear presentation of the discovery
`dispute in an efficient and effective way. The status of each dispute
`
`10
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-00358-ECT-HB Document 43 Filed 08/11/20 Page 11 of 27
`
`should be clear to the Court without having to cross-reference
`multiple exhibits. Arguments should be precise and should be
`grounded in the current Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing
`discovery, including recent amendments. To the extent a burden is
`asserted, support for this position must be included. One suggested
`approach is set forth below:
`
`
`
`Insert the actual discovery request
`
`Insert the actual response and objections
`
`Insert position after meet and confer to make clear any
`compromise positions offered by either side
`
`Legal argument
`
`Specific relief sought
`
`Upon good cause shown by letter request pursuant to Local Rule
`7.1(f)(1)(D), the Court will give a party leave to exceed the word
`limits for its memorandum if the additional words will help avoid the
`need for the Court to cross-reference multiple exhibits. The letter
`should reference this Scheduling Order.
`
`INFORMAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION (IDR)
`
`If the meet and confer required by Local Rule 7.1 is not successful in resolving a
`
`dispute concerning a non-dispositive issue between the parties, the parties to the dispute
`
`should, prior to scheduling any non-dispositive motion, meet and confer regarding
`
`whether the issue may be resolved through Informal Dispute Resolution (IDR) with the
`
`magistrate judge. If all parties to the dispute do not agree to submit the dispute through
`
`the IDR process, the “moving party” (i.e., the party seeking relief from the Court) must
`
`proceed by formal motion. If the parties agree to submit the dispute through the IDR
`
`process, the “moving party” must file on CM/ECF a letter representing that the parties
`
`11
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-00358-ECT-HB Document 43 Filed 08/11/20 Page 12 of 27
`
`wish to engage in IDR, and setting forth (1) the well-defined issue to be resolved,
`
`(2) the party’s position on the issue, and the factual and legal basis for that position, and
`
`(3) a clear bullet-point summary of the relief sought. Within three business days after the
`
`“moving party’s” letter is submitted, each responding party must file a letter confirming
`
`its agreement that the dispute may be resolved through IDR and setting forth its position
`
`on the merits of the dispute. For purposes of this process, a letter that is filed after
`
`4:30 p.m. Central Time will be considered as having been submitted the following day.
`
`Because of the short turn-around time for the IDR process, the parties’ IDR letters must
`
`also be emailed to chambers (bowbeerchambers@mnd.uscourts.gov) at the same time
`
`they are filed.
`
`The subject line of each letter must include the name of the case and the case
`
`number, and must clearly denote that the letter pertains to an IDR request. In addition,
`
`the subject line of the “moving party’s” initial letter must state the date (no earlier than
`
`three days following the date the responsive letter is due) by which the parties would like
`
`to be heard. Each letter may not exceed five (5) pages, single-spaced, and may include
`
`no more than three (3) exhibits. The letter may include a concise discussion of legal
`
`authorities, but the magistrate judge will not review lengthy briefs or voluminous
`
`exhibits, as the purpose of the IDR process is to reduce the time and expense associated
`
`with the resolution of non-dispositive issues that may arise during the pretrial process.
`
`The magistrate judge will request additional exhibits or authorities if needed, and may in
`
`its discretion conclude that the issue should instead be submitted by formal motion.
`
`12
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-00358-ECT-HB Document 43 Filed 08/11/20 Page 13 of 27
`
`The “moving party” will be responsible for contacting chambers to request a date
`
`and time for a telephone conference, and will coordinate that date with the responding
`
`party or parties. At least one (1) attorney for each party knowledgeable about each
`
`disputed issue must participate in the conference, but no more than two (2) attorneys for
`
`each party to the dispute may participate.
`
`If the magistrate judge agrees that the dispute is appropriate for informal
`
`resolution, she will read the written submissions, hear counsel’s arguments at the
`
`conference, and issue her decision at the conclusion of the conference or shortly
`
`thereafter. There will be no transcript or other recording of the IDR conference call;
`
`however, the magistrate judge’s order on the dispute will be reflected in a minute entry
`
`on CM/ECF, and is enforceable by the same means and to the same extent as if it had
`
`been rendered at the conclusion of formal motion practice.
`
`In view of the absence of formal briefing, the lack of any transcript or recording of
`
`the conference call, and the fact that the minute entry will not discuss the reasoning
`
`underlying the magistrate judge’s decision, the decision of the magistrate judge on an
`
`issue submitted through the IDR process is final and cannot be appealed to the District
`
`Judge or preserved for the Court of Appeals, nor can a party revive the issue by filing a
`
`formal motion. In other words, by agreeing to submit a dispute to IDR, the party is
`
`agreeing to live with the decision the magistrate judge renders on that dispute at the
`
`conclusion of the IDR process.
`
`13
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-00358-ECT-HB Document 43 Filed 08/11/20 Page 14 of 27
`
`DISCOVERY RELATING TO CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff’s Claim Chart.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Plaintiff’s claim chart must be served on or before September 11,
`2020.
`
`Plaintiff’s claim chart must provide a complete and detailed
`explanation of:
`
`(i)
`
`which claim(s) of its patent(s) it alleges are being infringed,
`whether literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`(ii) which specific products or methods of defendant it alleges
`literally infringe each claim;
`
`(iii)
`
`(iv)
`
`specifically where and how each limitation of each asserted
`claim listed in paragraph 1(b)(i) is found within each product
`or method listed in paragraph 1(b)(ii), including the basis for
`each contention that each limitation is present, and including
`for each limitation that Plaintiff contends is governed by
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or
`material(s) in the accused product that perform(s) the claimed
`function;
`
`insofar as Plaintiff contends Defendant has indirectly
`infringed any claim, an identification of any direct
`infringement (with the specificity required in subparagraphs
`(i), (ii), and (iii) above, and a summary of the acts of the
`Defendant that contribute(d) to or induce(d) the direct
`infringement sufficient to put Defendant on notice of the
`nature of the alleged contribution or inducement, insofar as it
`is known to Plaintiff at the time the claim chart is served5;
`and
`
`(v)
`
`if Plaintiff contends there is infringement of any claim(s)
`under the doctrine of equivalents, plaintiff must separately
`indicate this on its claim chart and, in addition to the
`information required for literal infringement, plaintiff must
`also explain each function, way, and result that it contends are
`
`
`More detailed and/or updated information regarding Plaintiff’s contentions of
`5
`indirect infringement may be sought through contention interrogatories.
`
`14
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-00358-ECT-HB Document 43 Filed 08/11/20 Page 15 of 27
`
`equivalent, and why it contends that any differences are not
`substantial.
`
`c.
`
`Plaintiff may amend its claim chart only by agreement of the parties
`or leave of the Court for good cause shown.
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`Good cause may, for example, include, but is not
`limited to, the acquisition of information that Plaintiff
`did not have and could not through the exercise of
`reasonable diligence have obtained before it produced
`its claim chart (provided that it acts reasonably
`promptly to notify Defendant of its intention to seek
`leave to amend its claim chart after obtaining that
`information).
`
`If Plaintiff’s claim construction proposal as to a
`particular term or phrase is not adopted by the Court,
`or the Court issues a claim construction different from
`either party’s proposal, Plaintiff may request
`permission to amend its contentions, only related to
`that particular term/phrase. Such requests must be
`made to the magistrate judge no later than 14 days
`after the Court’s claim construction order.
`
`(iii)
`
`If Plaintiff seeks leave to amend its claim chart, it must
`meet and confer with Defendant before filing a motion.
`If the parties do not agree and the dispute is not
`resolved, Plaintiff may file its motion pursuant to
`Local Rule 7.1.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant’s Claim Chart.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Defendant’s claim chart must be served on or before October 22,
`2020.
`
`Defendant’s claim chart must indicate with specificity which
`elements on plaintiff’s claim chart it admits are present in its accused
`device or process, and which it contends are absent, including in
`detail the basis for its contention that the element is absent. And, as
`to the doctrine of equivalents, Defendant must indicate on its chart
`its contentions concerning any differences in function, way, and
`result, and why any differences are substantial.
`
`15
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-00358-ECT-HB Document 43 Filed 08/11/20 Page 16 of 27
`
`c.
`
`Defendant may amend its claim chart only by agreement of the
`parties or leave of Court for good cause shown.
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`Good cause may, for example, include, but is not
`limited to, the acquisition of information that
`Defendant did not have and could not through the
`exercise of reasonable diligence have obtained before
`it produced its claim chart (provided that it acts
`reasonably promptly to notify Plaintiff of its intention
`to seek leave to amend its claim chart after obtaining
`that information).
`
`If Defendant’s claim construction proposal as to a
`p

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