`
`IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`REVOLAZE LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`J.C. PENNEY COMPANY,INC., J.C.
`
`PENNEY CORPORATION,INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`
`:
`: CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00043-JRG
`:
`
`§
`
`:
`
`ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Plaintiff RevoLaze LLC and Defendants J.C. Penney Company,Inc.
`
`and J.C. Penney Corporation,Inc.’s (collectively, the “Parties”) Joint Motion for Entry of Mostly
`
`Agreed Docket Control Order (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 28.) The Parties “agree on most aspects
`
`of the proposed [docket control] order[].” (/d. at 1.) However, “the Parties disagree on whether
`
`additional deadlines should be included to require reduction of asserted claims and reduction of
`
`asserted prior art, as set forth in General order 13-20.” (/d.) Given that Plaintiff is currently
`
`asserting sixty-seven claims across five patents, the Court finds that, in the interests of judicial
`
`economy and to promote a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of this action, as
`
`provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure1, it is appropriate to include deadlines in the Docket
`
`Control Order that require the Parties to reduce the numberof asserted claims and prior art
`
`references for adjudication. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the Defendants’ proposed
`
`deadlines for preliminary andfinal elections of asserted claimsandprior art references, as set forth
`
`in the concurrently filed Docket Control Order in the above-captioned case.
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1038, P. 1
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1038, P. 1
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00043-JRG Document 32 Filed 06/04/19 Page 2 of 2 PagelD #: 1602
`
`So Ordered this
`
`Jun 4, 2019
`
`
`
` RODNEY GILSYTRAP
`UNITED STATES
`DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1038, P. 2
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1038, P. 2
`
`
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
