Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 56 Filed 10/22/21 Page 1 of 7 PagelD #: 801
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`MARSHALLDIVISION
`
`Case No. 2:21-CV-00225-JRG-RSP
`
`§ §
`
`§ §
`
`§
`§
`
`§ §
`
`§
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv
`
`NETNUT LTD.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DOCKET CONTROL ORDER
`
`Before the Court is the Jomt Motion for Entry of Agreed Docket Control Order filed
`
`by Plaintiff Bright Data Ltd. and Defendant NetNut Ltd. The Court GRANTS the
`
`Motion. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDEREDthat the following schedule of deadlines is in
`
`effect until further order of this Court:
`
`September 12, 2022 pS *Jury Selection— 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas
`
`
`
`August 15, 2022
`
`August 9, 2022
`
`August 1, 2022
`
`*If a juror questionnaire is to be used, an
`editable (in Microsoft Word format)
`questionnaire shall be jointly submitted to the
`Deputy Clerk in Charge bythis date.’
`
`*Pretrial Conference — 9:00 a.m. in Marshall,
`Texas before Judge Roy Payne
`
`*Notify Court of Agreements Reached During
`Meetand Confer
`
`! The Parties are referred to the Court’s Standing Order Regarding Use of Juror Questionnaires
`in Advance of Voir Dire.
`
`NetNutLtd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2003
`Page 1 of 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 56 Filed 10/22/21 Page 2 of 7 PagelD #: 802
`
`July 25, 2022
`
`Theparties are ordered to meet and confer on
`any outstanding objections of motions in /imine.
`The parties shall advise the Court of any
`agreements reached nolater than 1:00 p.m. three
`(3) business days before the pretrial conference.
`
`*File Joint Pretrial Order, Joint Proposed Jury
`Instructions, Joint Proposed Verdict Form,
`Responses to Motions in /imine, Updated Exhibit
`Lists, Updated Witness Lists, and Updated
`Deposition Designations
`
`*File Notice of Request for Daily Transcript of
`Real Time Reporting
`
`If a daily transcript, or real time reporting of
`court proceedings is requestedfor trial, the party
`or parties makingsaid requestshall file a notice
`with the Court and e-mail the Court Reporter,
`Shawn McRoberts,at
`shawn _mcroberts@txed.uscourts. gov .
`
`- —
`
`- Serve Pretrial Disclosures (Witness List,
`
`July 18, 2022
`
`July 20, 2022
`
`File Motions in Limine
`
`The parties shall limit their motions in /imine to
`issues that if improperly introducedat trial
`would be so prejudicial that the Court could not
`alleviate the prejudice by giving appropriate
`instructions to the jury.
`
`July 18, 2022
`
`July 20, 2022
`
`Serve Objections to Rebuttal Pretrial Disclosures
`
`July 11, 2022
`
`July 13, 2022
`
`Serve Objections to Pretrial Disclosures; and
`Serve Rebuttal Pretrial Disclosures
`
`June 27, 2022
`
`June 29, 2022
`
`Deposition Designations, and Exhibit List) by
`the Party with the Burden of Proof
`
`*Response to Dispositive Motions (including
`Daubert Motions). Responses to dispositive
`motionsthat were filed prior to the dispositive
`motion deadline, including Daubert Motions,
`shall be due in accordance with Local RuleCV-
`
`NetNutLtd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2003
`Page 2 of 7
`
`

`

`3 N
`
`> The parties are directed to Local Rule CV-7(d), which providesin part that “[a] party’s failure
`to oppose a motion in the mannerprescribed herein creates a presumption that the party does not
`controvert the facts set out by movant and has no evidenceto offer in opposition to the motion.”
`If the deadline under Local Rule CV-7(e) exceeds the deadline for Response to Dispositive
`Motions, the deadline for Response to Dispositive Motionscontrols.
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 56 Filed 10/22/21 Page 3 of 7 PagelD #: 803
`
`June 6, 2022
`
`7(e), not to exceed the deadline as set forth in
`this Docket Control Order.” Motions for
`Summary Judgment shall comply with Local
`Rule CV-56.
`
`*File Motions to Strike Expert Testimony
`(including Daubert Motions).
`
`No motionto strike expert testimony (including
`a Daubert Motion) maybefiled after this date
`without leave of the Court.
`
`June 6, 2022
`
`*File Dispositive Motions
`
`No dispositive motion maybefiled after this
`date without leave of the Court.
`
`Motions shall comply with Local Rule CV-56
`and Local Rule CV-7. Motions to extend page
`limits will only be granted in exceptional
`circumstances. Exceptional circumstances
`require more than agreement amongtheparties.
`
`May31, 2022 BC Deadline to Complete Expert Discovery
`
`May16, 2022
`
`May18, 2022
`
`Serve Disclosures for Rebuttal Expert Witness
`
`April 25, 2022
`
`April 27, 2022
`
`April 25, 2022
`
`April 13, 2022
`
`March 9, 2022
`
`April 6, 2022
`
`March 30, 2022
`
`Serve Disclosures for Expert Witnesses by the
`Party with the Burden of Proof
`
`Deadline to Complete Fact Discovery and File
`Motions to Compel Discovery
`
`*Claim Construction Hearing — 9:00 a.m. in
`Marshall, Texas before Judge Roy Payne
`
`Comply with P.R. 3-7 (Opinion of Counsel
`Defenses
`
`etNutLtd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2003
`Page 3 of 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 56 Filed 10/22/21 Page 4 of 7 PagelD #: 804
`
`Construction Chart)
`
`February 16, 2022
`
`March 16, 2022
`
`*Comply with P.R. 4-5(c) (Reply Claim
`Construction Brief)
`
`February 9, 2022
`
`March9, 2022
`
`Comply with P.R. 4-5(b) (Responsive Claim
`Construction Brief)
`
`
`
`January 26, 2022 February 23,2022|Comply with P.R. 4-5(a) (Opening Claim
`Construction Brief) and Submit Technical
`Tutorials (if any)
`
`Good cause must be shown to submit technical
`tutorials after the deadline to comply with P.R.
`4-S(a).
`
`January 12, 2022
`
`February 9, 2022
`
`Comply with P.R. 4-4 (Deadline to Complete
`Claim Construction Discovery)
`
`Deadline to Substantially Complete Document
`Production and Exchange Privilege Logs
`
`Counsel are expected to make goodfaith efforts
`to produce all required documents as soon as
`they are available and not wait until the
`substantial completion deadline.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ccseca)seca)withP.R.4-3(JointClaimConstruction
`
`oe
`
`a—E23, 2022 March 23, 2022
`*Complywith P.R. 4-5(d) (Jomt Claim
`
`
`
`January 26, 2022
`
`December15,2021
`
`November24, 2021
`
`January26,2022
`
`January 5, 2022
`
`Comply with P.R. 4-2 (Exchange Preliminary
`Claim Constructions)
`
`January 5, 2022
`
`File Response to Amended Pleadings
`
`December 22, 2021
`
`*File Amended Pleadings
`
`It is not necessary to seek leave of Court to
`amend pleadingsprior to this deadline unless the
`amendmentseeks to assert additional patents.
`
`NetNutLtd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2003
`Page 4 of 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 56 Filed 10/22/21 Page 5 of 7 PagelD #: 805
`
`=Date
`
`
`
`November10, 2021 December 17, 2021|Comply with Standing Order Regarding Subject-
`Matter Eligibility Contentions?
`
`
`
`November10, 2021 December 17, 2021|Comply with P.R. 3-3 & 3-4 (Invalidity
`Contentions)
`
`December 15, 2021|Serve E-mail production requests subject to the
`ESI Order
`
`
`
`November3, 2021 December 8, 2021|Comply with P.R. 4-1 (Exchange Proposed
`Claim Terms)
`
`December8, 2021|Exchangelist of e-mail custodians subject to the
`ESI Order
`
`December8, 2021|Comply with P.R. 3-1 & 3-2 (Supplemental
`Infringement Contentions)
`
`September 15, 2021
`
`October 20, 2021
`
`October 20, 2021
`
`*File Proposed Protective Order and Comply
`with Paragraphs 1 & 3 of the Discovery Order
`(Initial and Additional Disclosures)
`
`The Proposed Protective Order shall be filed as a
`separate motion with the caption indicating
`whetheror not the proposed order is opposed in
`any part.
`
`*File Proposed Docket Control Order and
`Proposed Discovery Order
`
`The Proposed Docket Control Order and
`Proposed Discovery Ordershall be filed as
`separate motions with the caption indicating
`whether or not the proposed order is opposed in
`any part.
`
`October6, 2021
`
`Join Additional Parties
`
`Comply with P.R. 3-1 & 3-2 (Infringement
`Contentions)
`
`3 h
`
`ttps://www.txed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/judgeFiles/EDTX%20Standing%200rder%20R
`e%20Subject%20Matter%20Eligibility’o20Contentions%20.pdf [https://perma.cc/RQN2-YUSP]
`
`5
`
`NetNutLtd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2003
`Page 5 of 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 56 Filed 10/22/21 Page 6 of 7 PagelD #: 806
`
`(*) indicates a deadline that cannot be changed without showing good cause. Good causeis not
`shown merely by indicating that the parties agree that the deadline should be changed.
`
`ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
`
`Mediation: While certain cases may benefit from mediation, such may not be appropriate
`for every case. The Court finds that the Parties are best suited to evaluate whether mediation will
`benefit the case after the issuance of the Court’s claim construction order. Accordingly, the Court
`ORDERStheParties to file a Joint Notice indicating whether the case should be referred for
`mediation within fourteen days of the issuance of the Court’s claim construction order. As a
`part of such Joint Notice, the Parties should indicate whether they have a mutually agreeable
`mediator for the Court to consider. If the Parties disagree about whether mediation is appropriate,
`the Parties should set forth a brief statement of their competing positions in the Joint Notice.
`
`Summary Judgment Motions, Motions to Strike Expert Testimony, and Daubert
`Motions: For each Motion, the moving party shall provide the Court with two (2) hard copies of
`the completed briefing (opening motion, response, reply, and if applicable, sur-reply), excluding
`exhibits, in D-three-ring binders, appropriately tabbed. All documents shall be single-sided and
`must include the CM/ECFheader. These copies shall be delivered to the Court within three (3)
`business days after briefing has completed. For expert-related motions, complete digital copies of
`the relevant expert report(s) and accompanying exhibits shall be submitted on a single flash drive
`to the Court. Complete digital copies of the expert report(s) shall be delivered to the Court no
`later than the dispositive motion deadline.
`
`Indefiniteness: In lieu of early motions for summary judgment, the Parties are directed to
`include any argumentsrelated to the issue of indefiniteness in their Markmanbriefing, subject to
`the local rules’ normalpage limits.
`
`Lead Counsel: The Parties are directed to Local Rule CV-11(a)(1), which provides that
`“To|n the first appearance through counsel, each party shall designate a lead attorney on the
`pleadings or otherwise.” Additionally, once designated, a party’s lead attorney may only be
`changedbythe filing of a Motion to Change Lead Counseland thereafter obtaining from the
`Court an Order granting leave to designate different lead counsel.
`
`Motions for Continuance: The following excuses will not warrant a continuance norjustify
`a failure to comply with the discovery deadline:
`
`a) The fact that there are motions for summary judgment or motions to dismiss pending;
`
`b) The fact that one or moreof the attorneys is set for trial in another court on the same day,
`unless the other setting was madepriorto the date of this order or was madeas a special
`
`NetNutLtd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2003
`Page 6 of 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 56 Filed 10/22/21 Page 7 of 7 PagelD #: 807
`
`provision for the parties in the other case;
`
`c) The failure to complete discovery priorto trial, unless the parties can demonstrate that it
`was impossible to complete discovery despite their good faith effort to dos o.
`
`Amendments to the Docket Control Order (“DCO”): Any motionto alter any date on the
`DCOshall take the form of a motion to amend the DCO. The motion to amend the DCOshall
`include a proposed order that lists all of the remaining dates in one column (as above) and the
`proposed changesto each date in an additional adjacent column (if there is no change for a date
`the proposed date column should remain blank or indicate that it is unchanged). In other words,
`the DCO in the proposed order should be complete such hat one can clearly see all the remaining
`deadlines and the changes, if any, to those deadlines, rather than needed to also refer to an earlier
`version of the DCO.
`
`Proposed DCO: TheParties’ Proposed DCO should also follow the format described above
`under “Amendments to the Docket Control Order (‘DCO’).”
`
`Joint Pretrial Order: In the contentions of the Parties included in the Joint Pretrial Order,
`the Plaintiff shall specify all allegedly infringed claims that will be asserted at trial. The Plaintiff
`shall also specify the nature of each theory of infringement, including under which subsections
`of 35 U.S.C. § 271 it alleges infringement, and whether the Plaintiff alleges divided infringement
`or infringement underthe doctrine of equivalents. Each Defendant shall indicate the nature of
`each theory of invalidity, including invalidity for anticipation, obviousness, subject-matter
`eligibility, written description, enablement, or any other basis for invalidity. The Defendantshall
`also specify each prior art reference or combination of references upon which the Defendant
`shall rely at trial, with respect to each theory of invalidity. The contentions of the Parties may not
`be amended, supplemented, or dropped without leave of the Court based upon a showing of good
`cause.
`
`SIGNEDthis 22nd day of October, 2021.
`
`5. V
`
`ROY S. PAYNE
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`NetNutLtd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2003
`Page 7 of 7
`
`