Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 3394
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 23-120-RGA
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`v.
`
`HP INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`Intervenor-Defendant.
`
`Intervenor-Defendant /
`Counterclaim Plaintiff in
`Intervention,
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff /
`Counterclaim Defendant in
`Intervention.
`
`EX-1020
`Microsoft Inc. v. LiTL LLC
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 3395
`
`C.A. No. 23-121-RGA
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC. and DELL
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`Intervenor-Defendant.
`
`Intervenor-Defendant /
`Counterclaim Plaintiff in
`Intervention,
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff /
`Counterclaim Defendant in
`Intervention.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 3396
`
`C.A. No. 23-122-RGA
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. and ASUS
`GLOBAL PTE. LTD.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`Intervenor-Defendant.
`
`Intervenor-Defendant /
`Counterclaim Plaintiff in
`Intervention,
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff /
`Counterclaim Defendant in
`Intervention.
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`11
`
`This
`
`day of
`
`January
`
`24
`, 20 _, the Court having conducted an initial Rule 16(b)
`
`scheduling conference pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(b), and the parties having determined after
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 3397
`
`discussion that the matter cannot be resolved at this juncture by settlement, voluntary mediation,
`
`or binding arbitration;
`
`IT IS ORDERED that:
`
`1.
`
`Coordination. The above-captioned actions are hereby coordinated for all pretrial
`
`purposes, including discovery, claim construction, and dispositive motions but shall proceed to
`
`trial separately. All filings pertaining to each of the above-captioned actions (“Related Cases”)
`
`shall be filed on the docket in their respective cases.
`
`2.
`
`Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, the
`
`parties shall make their initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) on
`
`February 12, 2024.
`
`3.
`
`Joinder of Other Parties and Amendment of Pleadings. All motions to join other
`
`parties, and to amend or supplement the pleadings, shall be filed on or before May 28, 2024.
`
`4.
`
`Discovery.
`
`a.
`
`Discovery Cut Off. All discovery in this case shall be initiated so that it
`
`will be completed on or before January 28, 2025.
`
`b.
`
`Document Production. Document production shall be substantially
`
`complete by August 27, 2024.
`
`c.
`
`Requests for Admission. Plaintiff may serve up to 30 requests for
`
`admission on each Defendant Group.1 Defendants in the Related Cases may collectively serve up
`
`1 The Defendants and Intervenor in each Action each constitute a “Defendant Group.”
`There are four Defendant Groups: (1) HP, Inc. (“HP”); (2) Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 3398
`
`to 15 joint requests for admission on Plaintiff, and each Defendant Group may individually serve
`
`up to 15 individual requests for admission on Plaintiff. Requests to admit the authenticity of a
`
`document shall not count toward this limit.
`
`d.
`
`Interrogatories. Plaintiff may serve up to 25 interrogatories on each
`
`Defendant Group. Defendants in the Related Cases may collectively serve up to 15 joint
`
`interrogatories on Plaintiff, and each Defendant Group may individually serve up to 10
`
`individual interrogatories on Plaintiff.
`
`e.
`
`Depositions.
`
`i.
`
`Limitation on Hours for Deposition Discovery. Plaintiff shall be
`
`limited to 40 hours of fact depositions of each Defendant Group (including Rule 30(b)(6)
`
`depositions but excluding non-party depositions). Defendants in the Related Cases shall be
`
`collectively limited to 60 hours of fact depositions of Plaintiff (including Rule 30(b)(6)
`
`depositions but excluding non-party depositions). Plaintiff shall be limited to 75 hours of non-
`
`party fact depositions in the Related Cases collectively. Defendants in the Related Cases shall be
`
`collectively limited to 100 hours of non-party fact depositions. The foregoing limitations do not
`
`apply to depositions of experts. A party may take more than one Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. While
`
`the above are the outer limits, the parties will work in good faith to minimize the total number of
`
`depositions and avoid duplication.
`
`ii.
`
`Location of Depositions. Parties will work together to schedule
`
`depositions at locations convenient to the witnesses.
`
`(the “Dell Defendants”); (3) ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and ASUS Technology Pte. Limited (the
`“Asus Defendants”); and (4) Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 3399
`
`iii.
`
`Expert Depositions. Depositions of expert witnesses shall be
`
`limited to seven (7) hours per witness, per expert report. For purposes of this paragraph, an
`
`expert report includes both the opening and reply reports on the same topic, such that, for
`
`example, if the same expert issues an opening and reply report on invalidity, and an opening and
`
`reply report on noninfringement, that expert would be subject to one seven-hour deposition for
`
`each of their two expert reports, i.e., two seven-hour depositions. If an expert provides a report
`
`on both infringement and invalidity, that expert will be treated as having served two reports,
`
`even if infringement and invalidity are addressed in a single report.
`
`iv.
`
`Necessity for Interpreter. The parties agree that at depositions
`
`where the deponent requires an interpreter, there shall be an official interpreter hired by the side
`
`taking the deposition. The official interpreter shall have substantial experience performing
`
`verbatim translation at legal proceedings. Each side further reserves the right to hire its own
`
`interpreter to verify the translation by the official interpreter. Should a deponent require an
`
`interpreter, the deposing party will get up to three additional hours of deposition time with the
`
`deponent that will not be counted against the total time allotted to the deposing side under the
`
`deposition time limit above; and that will not be counted toward the presumptive seven-hour
`
`limit of deposition time per witness (i.e., the witness can be deposed for up to ten hours instead
`
`of the presumptive seven hours). The parties will work cooperatively to conduct such depositions
`
`over more than one day, where appropriate. To the extent necessary, the parties may seek
`
`additional time for good cause.
`
`f.
`
`Discovery Matters and Disputes Relating to Protective Orders. Should
`
`counsel find they are unable to resolve a discovery matter or a dispute relating to a protective
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 3400
`
`order, the parties involved in the discovery matter or protective order dispute shall contact the
`
`Court’s Case Manager to schedule an in-person conference/argument. Unless otherwise ordered,
`
`by no later than seven business days prior to the conference/argument, any party seeking relief
`
`shall file with the Court a letter, not to exceed three pages, outlining the issues in dispute and its
`
`position on those issues. By no later than five business days prior to the conference/argument,
`
`any party opposing the application for relief may file a letter, not to exceed three pages, outlining
`
`that party’s opposition. A party should include with its letter a proposed order with a detailed
`
`issue-by-issue ruling such that, should the Court agree with the party on a particular issue, the
`
`Court could sign the proposed order as to that issue, and the opposing party would be able to
`
`understand what it needs to do, and by when, to comply with the Court’s order. Any proposed
`
`order shall be e-mailed, in Word format, simultaneously with filing to rga_civil@ded.uscourts.gov.
`
`If a discovery-related motion is filed without leave of the Court, it will be denied
`
`without prejudice to the moving party’s right to bring the dispute to the Court through the
`
`discovery matters procedures set forth in this Order.
`
`g.
`
`Miscellaneous Discovery Matters.
`
`i.
`
`Patent Disclosures: The parties agree that the timetable for the
`
`patent disclosures required by the Delaware Default Standard for Discovery, Including
`
`Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (“Delaware Default ESI”) shall be as follows:
`
`February 9, 2024.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`The parties shall file a proposed protective order by
`
`The parties shall file a proposed order regarding the
`
`discovery of electronically stored information by February 9, 2024.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 3401
`
`c.
`
`Delaware Default ESI Rule 3 Disclosures: The disclosures
`
`required by Delaware Default ESI Rule 3 shall be made by February 12, 2024.
`
`d.
`
`Delaware Default ESI Rule 4(a) Disclosures: The
`
`disclosures required by Delaware Default ESI Rule 4(a) were made on December 22, 2023.
`
`e.
`
`Delaware Default ESI Rule 4(b) Disclosures: The
`
`disclosures required by Delaware Default ESI Rule 4(b) shall be made by March 1, 2024.
`
`f.
`
`Delaware Default ESI Rule 4(c) Disclosures: The
`
`disclosures required by Delaware Default ESI Rule 4(c) shall be made by April 1, 2024.
`
`g.
`
`Delaware Default ESI Rule 4(d) Disclosures: The
`
`disclosures required by Delaware Default ESI Rule 4(d) shall be made by May 1, 2024.
`
`h.
`
`Final Infringement Contentions: Plaintiff shall provide final
`
`infringement contentions within 4 weeks after the Court issues its claim construction order.
`
`i.
`
`Final Invalidity Contentions: Defendants in the Related
`
`Cases shall provide final invalidity contentions within 4 weeks after Plaintiff provides its final
`
`infringement contentions.
`
`ii.
`
`Other Litigations and Proceedings: The parties identify the
`
`following pending or completed litigation including IPRs and ex parte reexaminations involving
`
`one or more of the asserted patents:
`
`District Court
`• LiTL LLC v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al, C.A. No. 20-06089-RGA (Del.)
`IPRs
`• Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. LiTL LLC, IPR2021-00681 (denied institution on
`September 3, 2021)
`• Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. LiTL LLC, IPR2021-00786 (denied institution on
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 3402
`
`October 21, 2021)
`• Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. LiTL LLC, IPR2021-00800 (denied institution on
`November 2, 2021)
`• Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. LiTL LLC, IPR2021-00821 (denied institution on
`November 4, 2021)
`• Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. LiTL LLC, IPR2021-00822 (denied institution on
`October 21, 2021)
`• Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. LiTL LLC, IPR2021-01011 (denied institution on
`November 29, 2021)
`Ex Parte Reexaminations
`• Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 9,880,715 (filed by Lenovo
`(United States) Inc. on February 16, 2022; reexamination certificate issued on
`January 19, 2023 confirming all claims)
`• Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844 (filed by Lenovo
`(United States) Inc. on February 25, 2022; reexamination certificate issued on April
`27, 2023 confirming all challenged claims)
`• Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 10,289,154 (filed by Lenovo
`(United States) Inc. on May 6, 2022; reexamination remains pending)
`• Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,289,688 (filed by Lenovo
`(United States) Inc. on May 24, 2022; reexamination remains pending)
`
`Plaintiff states that it does not expect to institute any further litigation in this or other
`
`Districts within the next year.
`
`One or more of the Defendants are expected to file IPRs and expect to do so within the
`
`next 30 days.
`
`iii.
`
`Narrowing of Asserted Claims and Prior Art References: Within
`
`ten days after the Court issues its claim construction order, the parties shall meet and confer
`
`regarding whether a schedule for reducing the number of asserted claims and prior art references
`
`is necessary in advance of trial.
`
`iv.
`
`Licenses: If one or more of the patents-in-suit have already been
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 3403
`
`licensed or the subject of a settlement agreement, either (1) Plaintiff shall provide the licenses
`
`and/or settlement agreements to Defendant no later than the time of the initial Rule 16(b)
`
`scheduling conference, or (2) if Plaintiff requires a Court Order to make such disclosures,
`
`Plaintiff shall file any necessary proposed orders no later than twenty-four hours before the
`
`initial Rule 16(b) scheduling conference. Plaintiff represents that it has complied with this
`
`requirement. All parties shall be prepared to discuss at the conference what their preliminary
`
`views of damages are.
`
`v.
`
`Electronic Service: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`5(b)(2)(E), the parties consent to service by email.
`
`5.
`
`Application to Court for Protective Order. Should counsel find it will be
`
`necessary to apply to the Court for a protective order specifying terms and conditions for the
`
`disclosure of confidential information, counsel should confer and attempt to reach an agreement
`
`on a proposed form of order and submit it to the Court within ten days from the date of this
`
`Order. Should counsel be unable to reach an agreement on a proposed form of order, counsel
`
`must follow the provisions of Paragraph 3(f) above.
`
`Any proposed protective order must include the following paragraph:
`
`Other Proceedings. By entering this order and limiting the
`disclosure of information in this case, the Court does not intend
`to preclude another court from finding that information may be
`relevant and subject to disclosure in another case. Any person or
`party subject to this order who becomes subject to a motion to
`disclose another party’s information designated as confidential
`pursuant to this order shall promptly notify that party of the
`motion so that the party may have an opportunity to appear and
`be heard on whether that information should be disclosed.
`
`6.
`
`Papers Filed Under Seal. When filing papers under seal, a redacted version of any
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 3404
`
`sealed document shall be filed electronically within seven days of the filing of the sealed
`
`document.
`
`7.
`
`Claim Construction Issue Identification. On or before May 21, 2024, the parties
`
`shall exchange a list of those claim term(s)/phrase(s) that they believe need construction and
`
`their proposed claim construction of those term(s)/phrase(s)2. This document will not be filed
`
`with the Court. Subsequent to exchanging that list, the parties will meet and confer to prepare a
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chart to be filed no later than June 18, 2024. The Joint Claim
`
`Construction Chart, in Word format, shall be e-mailed simultaneously with filing to
`
`rga_civil@ded.uscourts.gov. The Joint Claim Construction Chart should identify for the Court
`
`the term(s)/phrase(s) of the claim(s) in issue, and should include each party’s proposed
`
`construction of the disputed claim language with citation(s) only to the intrinsic evidence in
`
`support of their respective proposed constructions. The Joint Claim Construction Chart should
`
`include an explanation of why resolution of the dispute makes a difference. A copy of the
`
`patent(s) in issue as well as those portions of the intrinsic record relied upon shall be submitted
`
`with the Joint Claim Construction Chart. In this joint submission, the parties shall not provide
`
`argument.
`
`8.
`
`Claim Construction Briefing3. Plaintiff shall serve, but not file, its opening brief,
`
`2 If a party proposes a construction of a term to be its “plain and ordinary” meaning, the
`party must explain what that meaning is. If a term is arguably a means-plus-function term, and a
`party does not propose a function and a structure, it is waiving any right to propose a function
`and a structure at a later time.
`3 As each brief is written and provided to the opposing party, the individual responsible
`for verifying the word count will represent to the other party that it has so verified and by what
`means. These verifications should not be provided to the Court unless a dispute arises about
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 3405
`
`not to exceed 5,000 words, on July 9, 2024. Defendants in the Related Cases shall jointly serve,
`
`but not file, a single answering brief, not to exceed 7,500 words, on August 6, 2024. Plaintiff
`
`shall serve, but not file, its reply brief, not to exceed 5,000 words, on August 27, 2024.
`
`Defendants in the Related Cases shall jointly serve, but not file a single sur-reply brief, not to
`
`exceed 2,500 words, on September 10, 2024. No later than September 17, 2024, the parties shall
`
`file a Joint Claim Construction Brief. The parties shall copy and paste their unfiled briefs into
`
`one brief, with their positions on each claim term in sequential order, in substantially the form
`
`below.
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`A.
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`B.
`
`Representative Claims
`
`Agreed-upon Constructions
`
`Disputed Constructions
`
`[TERM 1]4
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position
`Defendant’s Answering Position
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position
`Defendant’s Sur-Reply Position
`
`[TERM 2]
`1.
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position
`2.
`Defendant’s Answering Position
`
`them. Pictures, Figures copied from the patent, and other illustrations do not count against the
`word limit. Plaintiff should include with its opening brief one or more representative claims with
`the disputed terms italicized. Should Defendant want to add additional representative claims,
`Defendant may do so. The representative claims and the agreed-upon claim constructions do not
`count against the word limits.
`4 For each term in dispute, there should be a table or the like setting forth the term in
`dispute, the parties’ competing constructions, and why resolution of the dispute matters. The
`table does not count against the word limits.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 3406
`
`3.
`4.
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position
`Defendant’s Sur-Reply Position
`
`Etc. The parties need not include any general summaries of the law relating to claim
`
`construction. If there are any materials that would be submitted in an appendix, the parties shall
`
`submit them in a Joint Appendix.
`
`9.
`
`Hearing on Claim Construction. Beginning at 9:00 a.m. on
`
`October 10
`
`
`, 2024,
`
`the Court will hear argument on claim construction. Absent prior approval of the Court (which,
`
`if it is sought, must be done so by joint letter submission no later than the date on which
`
`answering claim construction briefs are due), the parties shall not present testimony at the
`
`argument, and the argument shall not exceed a total of three hours. When the Joint Claim
`
`Construction Brief is filed, the parties shall simultaneously file a motion requesting the above-
`
`scheduled claim construction hearing, state that the briefing is complete, and state how much
`
`total time the parties are requesting that the Court should allow for the argument.
`
`10.
`
`Disclosure of Expert Testimony.
`
`a.
`
`Expert Reports. For the party who has the initial burden of proof on the
`
`subject matter, the initial Federal Rule 26(a)(2) disclosure of expert testimony is due on or before
`
`March 11, 2025. The supplemental disclosure to contradict or rebut evidence on the same matter
`
`identified by another party is due on or before April 22, 2025. Reply expert reports from the
`
`party with the initial burden of proof are due on or before June 3, 2025. No other expert reports
`
`will be permitted without either the consent of all parties or leave of the Court. If any party
`
`believes that an expert report does not comply with the rules relating to timely disclosure or
`
`exceeds the scope of what is permitted in that expert report, the complaining party must notify
`
`the offending party within one week of the submission of the expert report. The parties are
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 3407
`
`expected to promptly try to resolve any such disputes, and, when they cannot reasonably be
`
`resolved, use the Court’s Discovery Dispute Procedure or the complaint will be waived.
`
`Along with the submissions of the expert reports, the parties shall advise of the dates and
`
`times of their experts’ availability for deposition. Depositions of experts shall be completed on or
`
`before July 15, 2025.
`
`b.
`
`Objections to Expert Testimony. To the extent any objection to expert
`
`testimony is made pursuant to the principles announced in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,
`
`509 U.S. 579 (1993), as incorporated in Federal Rule of Evidence 702, it shall be made by
`
`motion no later than the deadline for dispositive motions set forth herein, unless otherwise
`
`ordered by the Court.
`
`11.
`
`Case Dispositive Motions. All case dispositive motions shall be served and filed
`
`on or before August 5, 2025. No case dispositive motion under Rule 56 may be filed more than
`
`ten days before the above date without leave of the Court. Absent an order of the Court upon a
`
`showing of good cause: Plaintiff is limited to one forty-page opening brief for each Defendant
`
`Group, each Defendant Group is limited to one forty-page answering brief, and Plaintiff is
`
`limited to one twenty-page reply brief for each Defendant Group for all of its Daubert and case
`
`dispositive motions; Defendants are each limited to one forty-page opening brief, Plaintiff is
`
`limited to one forty-page answering brief for each Defendant Group, and each Defendant Group
`
`is limited to one twenty-page reply brief for all of their Daubert and case dispositive motions.
`
`Answering briefs shall be filed on or before September 2, 2025. Reply briefs shall be filed on or
`
`before September 23, 2025.
`
`12.
`
`Applications by Motion. Except as otherwise specified herein, any application to
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 3408
`
`the Court shall be by written motion. Any non-dispositive motion should contain the statement
`
`required by Local Rule 7.1.1.
`
`13.
`
`9:00
`Trial Scheduling Conference. Beginning at
`
` a.m. on
`
`October 3
`
`
`, 2025,
`
`the Court will hold a trial scheduling conference to discuss trial logistics and the order of trial.
`
`The parties shall submit the proposals no less than 2 business days before the conference.
`
`14.
`
`Pretrial Conference. On the dates identified in the Trial section below, the Court
`
`will hold a Rule 16(e) final pretrial conference in Court with counsel beginning at 9:00 a.m. The
`
`parties shall file a joint proposed final pretrial order in compliance with Local Rule 16.3(c) no
`
`later than 5 p.m. on the fourth business day before the date of each of the final pretrial
`
`conferences. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the parties shall comply with the
`
`timeframes set forth in Local Rule 16.3(d) for the preparation of the proposed joint final pretrial
`
`order.
`
`15. Motions in Limine. Motions in limine shall be separately filed, with each motion
`
`containing all the argument described below in one filing for each motion. Any supporting
`
`documents in connection with a motion in limine shall be filed in one filing separate from the
`
`motion in limine. Each party shall be limited to three in limine requests, unless otherwise
`
`permitted by the Court. The in limine request and any response shall contain the authorities
`
`relied upon; each in limine request may be supported by a maximum of three pages of argument
`
`and may be opposed by a maximum of three pages of argument, and the party making the in
`
`limine request may add a maximum of one additional page in reply in support of its request. If
`
`more than one party is supporting or opposing an in limine request, such support or opposition
`
`shall be combined in a single three page submission (and, if the moving party, a single one page
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 3409
`
`reply). No separate briefing shall be submitted on in limine requests, unless otherwise permitted
`
`by the Court.
`
`16.
`
`Jury Instructions, Voir Dire, and Special Verdict Forms. Where a case is to be
`
`tried to a jury, pursuant to Local Rules 47.1(a)(2) and 51.1, the parties should file (i) proposed
`
`voir dire, (ii) preliminary jury instructions, (iii) final jury instructions, and (iv) special verdict
`
`forms no later than 6 p.m. on the fourth business day before the date of the final pretrial
`
`conference. Areas of dispute shall be identified as narrowly as possible and in a manner that
`
`makes it readily apparent what the dispute is. The parties shall submit simultaneously with filing
`
`each of the foregoing four documents in Word format to rga_civil@ded.uscourts.gov.
`
`17.
`
`Trial. The first trial in the Related Cases is scheduled for a five (5) day5 jury trial
`
`beginning at 9:30 a.m. on (see chart below), with the subsequent trial days beginning at 9:30
`
`a.m. Until the case is submitted to the jury for deliberations, the jury will be excused each day at
`
`5:00 p.m. The trial will be timed, as counsel will be allocated a total number of hours in which to
`
`present their respective cases. Each of the remaining Related Cases are each scheduled for
`
`separate, five-day jury trials beginning on the dates specified in the chart below.
`
`First Trial
`Second Trial
`Third Trial
`Fourth Trial
`
`Final Pretrial Conference
`January 9, 2026, at 9:00 am
`
`February 6, 2026, at 9:00 am
`March 6, 2026, at 9:00 am
`April 10, 2026, at 9:00 am
`
`Trial date
`January 20, 2026, at 9:30 am
`February 17, 2026, at 9:30 am
`March 16, 2026, at 9:30am
`April 20, 2026, at 9:30 am
`
`5 Five days (i.e., about ten to thirteen hours per side) is the presumptive length of a patent
`jury trial. If the parties think it is obvious that this will not be enough, they may put in a different
`length and should be prepared to explain why at the Rule 16 conference. A final decision on the
`precise length of trial will not be made before the final pretrial conference.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 3410
`
`18.
`
`Mediation. The Parties are required to engage in good faith in an in-person
`
`mediation. They are to hire a jointly agreed-upon mediator. The timing of mediation efforts is
`
`left to the discretion of the Parties, but the mediation efforts need to be conducted in advance of
`
`the pretrial conference. The Parties are required to submit a joint statement no later than one
`
`week before the pretrial conference. The joint statement is to include the identification of the
`
`mediator, the lead counsel for each party at the mediation, the length of the mediation, and the
`
`certification of the lead mediation counsel that they have engaged in the efforts in good faith. If
`
`the Parties anticipate any further efforts by the mediator at the time of the submission, they
`
`should so advise. The joint statement should not disclose the substance of any offers, counter-
`
`offers, or other negotiations.
`
`/s/ Richard G. Andrews
`_________________________________
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`17
`
`