`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[MODEL] ORDER FOCUSING
`
`PATENT CLAIMS AND PRIOR ART
`
`TO REDUCE COSTS
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1037, P. 1
`
`
`
`The Court ORDERS1 as follows:
`
`1.
`
`This Order supplements all other discovery rules and orders. It
`
`streamlines the issues in this case to promote a “just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`determination” of this action, as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1.
`
`Phased Limits on Asserted Claims and Prior Art References
`
`2.
`
` By the date set for completion of claim construction discovery
`
`pursuant to P.R. 4-4, the patent claimant shall serve a Preliminary Election of
`
`Asserted Claims, which shall assert no more than ten claims from each patent and
`
`not more than a total of 32 claims. Not later than 14 days after service of the
`
`Preliminary Election of Asserted Claims, the patent defendant shall serve a
`
`Preliminary Election of Asserted Prior Art, which shall assert no more than twelve
`
`prior art references against each patent and not more than a total of 40 references.2
`
`
`1 The parties are encouraged to discuss limits lower than those set forth in this Model Order
`based on case-specific factors such as commonality among asserted patents, the number and
`diversity of accused products, the complexity of the technology, the complexity of the patent
`claims, and the complexity and number of other issues in the case that will be presented to the
`judge and/or jury. In general, the more patents that are in the case, the lower the per-patent
`limits should be. In cases involving several patent families, diverse technologies, disparate
`claims within a patent, or other unique circumstances, absent agreement of the parties, the court
`will consider flexibly whether circumstances warrant expanding the limits on asserted claims or
`prior art references. The parties shall jointly submit any proposed modifications by the deadline
`for submission of proposed docket control or discovery orders, but in no event later than the
`deadline for service of initial disclosures.
`
`2 For purposes of this Order, a prior art instrumentality (such as a device or process) and
`associated references that describe that instrumentality shall count as one reference, as shall the
`closely related work of a single prior artist.
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1037, P. 2
`
`
`
`3.
`
`No later than 28 days before the service of expert reports by the
`
`party with the burden of proof on an issue, the patent claimant shall serve a Final
`
`Election of Asserted Claims, which shall identify no more than five asserted claims
`
`per patent from among the ten previously identified claims and no more than a
`
`total of 16 claims. By the date set for the service of expert reports by the party
`
`with the burden of proof on an issue, the patent defendant shall serve a Final
`
`Election of Asserted Prior Art, which shall identify no more than six asserted prior
`
`art references per patent from among the twelve prior art references previously
`
`identified for that particular patent and no more than a total of 20 references. For
`
`purposes of this Final Election of Asserted Prior Art, each obviousness
`
`combination counts as a separate prior art reference.
`
`4.
`
`If the patent claimant asserts infringement of only one patent,
`
`all per-patent limits in this order are increased by 50%, rounding up.
`
`Modification of this Order
`
`5.
`
` Subject to Court approval, the parties may modify this Order
`
`by agreement, but should endeavor to limit the asserted claims and prior art
`
`references to the greatest extent possible. Absent agreement, post-entry motions to
`
`modify this Order’s numerical limits on asserted claims and prior art references
`
`
`
`2
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1037, P. 3
`
`
`
`must demonstrate good cause warranting the modification. Motions to modify
`
`other portions of this Order are committed to the sound discretion of the Court.3
`
`
`3 This Order contemplates that the parties and the Court may further narrow the issues during
`pretrial proceedings in order to present a manageable case at trial.
`
`
`
`3
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1037, P. 4
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
