`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY
`PARTNERS, LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP
` (LEAD CASE)
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court is the Joint Stipulation Regarding Outstanding Motions (“Stipulation”),
`
`filed by Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“GTP”) and Defendants Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”)
`
`(altogether, “Parties”). Dkt. No. 219. The parties have represented the following stipulations that
`
`the Court expressly relies on in accepting the Stipulation. Those stipulations are:
`
`1.
`
`GTP agrees not to introduce or seek to introduce at trial any evidence, testimony,
`
`or argument regarding the Contested Applications, individually or collectively, with
`
`respect to its allegations regarding infringement.1 The parties agree to and do withdraw the
`
`following motions for all purposes:
`
`• Samsung’s Motion to Strike and/or Compel (Dkt. No. 51);
`
`• Samsung’s Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. No. 84); and
`
`• GTP’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 99).
`
`
`1 The Contested Applications are: Tracking Autofocus, Selfie Focus, Smart OIS, Smart Pause, Smart Scroll, Blur
`Background, Internet Transfer After Sense (e.g., QR Code), Bixby Vision, Control Exposure Based on Location, Live
`Masks Track/Apply, Live Stickers Track, Beauty Mode, and Portrait Mode.
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 229 Filed 02/01/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 10393
`
`2. Samsung agrees to and does withdraw its Motion to Strike Supplemental Expert Reports
`
`of Plaintiff’s Experts David Kennedy and Andreas Groehn (Dkt. No. 133). To allow
`
`Samsung to address and respond to the supplemental opinions set forth in the supplemental
`
`expert reports, the Parties request that the Court: (a) permit Samsung to file a single
`
`supplemental brief of no more than seven (7) pages as to its dispositive motions and
`
`motions to strike expert testimony (including Daubert motions) that are impacted by GTP’s
`
`supplemental expert reports no later than January 28, 2022; (b) permit Samsung to serve
`
`a supplemental rebuttal expert report no later than February 7, 2022; and (c) permit GTP
`
`to file a single responsive supplemental brief of no more than seven (7) pages no later than
`
`February 11, 2022.
`
`3. GTP agrees to and does withdraw its Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. No. 92). Samsung
`
`agrees that it will not inquire at trial about litigation funding, litigation funders, or fee
`
`arrangements. GTP agrees that, if asked at trial, Dr. Pryor will confirm that he is the 100%
`
`owner of GTP, that in the event GTP obtains any recovery in this case he may choose to
`
`have GTP distribute to him all net proceeds (i.e., after paying attorneys, expenses, etc.),
`
`and that if GTP obtains its requested damages in this case and he chooses to have GTP
`
`distribute to him all net proceeds he expects to receive many millions of dollars.
`
`4. GTP represents that it produced its documents from the negotiation of the Huawei License
`
`to Samsung on January 24, 2022. The parties agree to and do withdraw the following
`
`motions for all purposes:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Samsung’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 100);
`
`Samsung’s Motion for Leave (Dkt. No. 120);
`
`Samsung’s Motion for Leave (Dkt. No. 127); and
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 229 Filed 02/01/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 10394
`
`•
`
`Samsung’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 128).
`
`After due consideration, the Court GRANTS the Stipulation. It is therefore
`
`ORDERED that the posture of the pending motions are affected as outlined herein.
`
`
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
