Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 273 Filed 12/21/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 11492
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00283-JRG
`§
`(LEAD CASE)
`§
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00284-JRG
`§
`(MEMBER CASE)
`§
`§
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00285-JRG
`§
`(MEMBER CASE)
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC., PANASONIC
`LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO.
`LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Court issues this Order sua sponte. The Court held a telephonic status conference
`
`regarding the above-captioned cases on December 14, 2021. (Dkt. No. 270). At the status
`
`conference, counsel for Plaintiffs Japan Display Inc. and Panasonic Liquid Crystal Display Co.,
`
`Ltd. (together, “JDI”) and Defendant Tianma Microelectronics Co. Ltd. (“Tianma”) unequivocally
`
`informed the Court that—notwithstanding this Court’s order of April 20, 2021 (Dkt. No. 57) which
`
`consolidated the three related cases for all pretrial issues only—all parties request to proceed with
`
`a single unified trial addressing all issues in the three above-captioned cases; in short, that the
`
`above three cases be consolidated and tried as a single action with a single jury trial.
`
`
`
`Having considered the parties’ expressed preferences, and in order to efficiently manage
`
`its docket, the Court ORDERS that Case Nos. 2:20-cv-00283, 2:20-cv-00284, and 2:20-cv-00285
`
`are consolidated for all purposes. Consistent with this Order, the Court sets the date for jury
`
`selection of the consolidated case for Monday, February 28, 2022 through Friday, March 11,
`
`2022.
`
`Page 1
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2019
`TMC v. JDI
`IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 273 Filed 12/21/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 11493
`
`
`
`In light of foregoing, the parties’ narrowing obligations under the previous Order of
`
`November 18, 2021 (Dkt. No. 202) are TERMINATED. The Court ORDERS that JDI will
`
`proceed to trial asserting up to but not more than 8 Patents and up to but not more than 20 asserted
`
`claims. Tianma will proceed to trial asserting up to but not more than 24 prior art references. Each
`
`anticipation challenge and each obviousness combination or assertion shall be considered a
`
`separate prior art reference.1 The parties shall have 21 hours per side to put on their evidence
`
`during trial, not including jury selection, opening statements, and closing statements.
`
`
`
`Further, considering the consolidation ordered herein, the Court DENIES-AS-MOOT
`
`JDI’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s November 18, 2021 Order (Dkt. No. 202)
`
`Requiring Plaintiffs to Narrow the Number of Asserted Patents to Fewer than Eight. (Dkt. No.
`
`220).
`
`
`
`Additionally, the Court ORDERS the parties to mediate in this consolidated case promptly
`
`and at a mutually agreeable date, but no later than Friday, February 11, 2022. The mediation
`
`shall be conducted by the Hon. David Folsom, 6002-B Summerfield Drive, Texarkana, Texas
`
`75503, dfolsom@jw.com. To ensure that mediation is as productive as possible, the Court hereby
`
`ORDERS that each party shall personally attend such mediation with lead counsel, local counsel,
`
`and a representative who has full and unilateral authority to act on and compromise on all pending
`
`disputes. No party or representative shall leave the mediation session, once it begins, without the
`
`approval of the mediator. The district’s applicable local rules shall otherwise govern and apply in
`
`all respects.
`
`
`1 For example, an assertion that prior art A invalidates counts as one prior art reference. Likewise, an assertion that
`prior art B invalidates counts as a second prior art reference. Also, an assertion that the combination of prior art A and
`prior art B invalidates counts as a separate reference. Further, the assertion that a combination of prior art B and prior
`art C invalidates would count as a separate prior art reference. Such an assertion would not allow argument that prior
`art C alone invalidates, unless prior art C is elected as a separate reference. In short, each unique prior art reference or
`combination of prior art references counts as a separate reference for these purposes.
`2
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2019
`TMC v. JDI
`IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 273 Filed 12/21/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 11494
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`So Ordered this
`Dec 21, 2021
`
`Page 3
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2019
`TMC v. JDI
`IPR2021-01058
`
`