`10370
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`v.
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD., AND
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`C.A. NO. 2:21-cv-00040-JRG
` LEAD CONSOLIDATED CASE
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`C.A. NO. 2:21-cv-00041-JRG
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`Before the Court is the Joint Stipulation Regarding Asserted Patents and Prior Art
`
`References between Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“GTP”) and Defendants
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”)
`
`(altogether, the “Parties”). Having considered the Parties’ stipulation, the Court ACCEPTS the
`
`Parties’ agreements set forth therein and orders the following.
`
`1.
`
`GTP’s allegations that Samsung infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,553,079 are dismissed
`
`with prejudice.
`
`2.
`
`GTP’s allegations that Samsung infringes claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
`
`20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431 are dismissed with prejudice.
`
`3.
`
`Samsung’s prior-art invalidity defenses at trial will be limited to six references,
`
`alone or in combination, together with all evidence relating to those six references. Four of the six
`
`references may be asserted as either primary or secondary references, depending on the ground.
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 222-1 Filed 01/29/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
`10371
`
`
`
`Two of the six references will be asserted solely as secondary references. The six references are
`
`MDScope; MERL; U.S. Patent No. 6,115,482 (“Sears”); U.S. Patent No. 6,144,366 (“Numazaki”);
`
`U.S Patent No. 6,539,100 (“Amir”); and Canadian Published Patent Application CA 2,237,939A1
`
`(“Mann”). This limitation does not preclude Samsung and its experts from relying on these and
`
`additional references as background art or for demonstrating the state of the art at the time of
`
`invention (including those that relate to Samsung’s § 101 defense), consistent with the disclosures
`
`set forth in Samsung’s expert report on invalidity.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`