`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 170 Filed 10/18/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 5718
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC. and T-MOBILE US.
`INC.,
`
`LYFT, INC.,
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a UBER,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`§
`§ Case No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG
`§ (LEAD CASE)
`§
`§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§ Case No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG
`§ (MEMBER CASE)
`§
`§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`§ Case No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG
`§ (MEMBER CASE)
`§
`§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`§ Case No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG
`§ (MEMBER CASE)
`§
`§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`AMENDED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER
`
`WHATSAPP, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Before the Court is Plaintiff AGIS Software Development, LLC and Defendants T-Mobile
`
`USA, Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc., Lyft, Inc., and Uber Technologies, Inc., d/b/a Uber (collectively, the
`
`“Parties”) Joint Motions to Amend the Docket Control Order. Dkt. No. 163; Dkt. No. 165. The
`
`Parties have submitted two Joint Motions to Amend the Docket Control Order: the first motion was
`
`filed on October 7, 2021, Dkt. No. 163, and the second motion was filed on October 12, 2021, Dkt.
`
`No. 165, which corrects an error in the first motion.
`
`After due consideration, the Court DENIES the motion filed on October 7, 2021, Dkt. No.
`
`163, as moot and GRANTS the motion filed on October 12, 2021. Dkt. No. 165. It is hereby
`
`ORDERED that the following schedule of deadlines is in effect until further order of this Court:
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 170 Filed 10/18/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 5719
`
`
`CURRENT DATE
`
`NEW DATE
`
`EVENT
`
`March 7, 2022
`
`February 7, 2022
`
`February 2, 2022
`
`January 24, 2022
`
`January 24, 2022
`
`January 19, 2022
`
`January 18, 2022
`
`January 14, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`January 21, 2022
`
`*Jury Selection — 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas
`before Judge Rodney Gilstrap
`
`*If a juror questionnaire is to be used, an
`editable (in Microsoft Word format)
`questionnaire shall be jointly submitted to the
`Deputy Clerk in Charge by this date.1
`*Pretrial Conference — 9:00 a.m. in Marshall,
`Texas before Judge Roy Payne
`
`*Notify Court of Agreements Reached
`During Meet and Confer
`
`The parties are ordered to meet and confer on
`any outstanding objections or motions in
`limine. The parties shall advise the Court of
`any agreements reached no later than 1:00 p.m.
`three (3) business days before the pretrial
`*File Joint Pretrial Order, Joint Proposed Jury
`Instructions, Joint Proposed Verdict Form,
`Responses to Motions in Limine, Updated
`Exhibit Lists, Updated Witness Lists, and
`Updated Deposition Designations
`Serve Objections to Rebuttal Pretrial
`Disclosures
`
`*File Notice of Request for Daily Transcript or
`Real Time Reporting.
`
`If a daily transcript or real time reporting of
`court proceedings is requested for trial, the
`party or parties making said request shall file a
`notice with the Court and e-mail the Court
`Reporter.
`File Motions in Limine
`
`The parties shall limit their motions in limine to
`issues that if improperly introduced at trial
`would be so prejudicial that the Court could not
`alleviate the prejudice by giving appropriate
`instructions to the jury.
`
`
`1 The Parties are referred to the Court’s Standing Order Regarding Use of Juror Questionnaires in
`Advance of Voir Dire.
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 170 Filed 10/18/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 5720
`
`
`
`
`
`CURRENT DATE
`
`NEW DATE
`
`EVENT
`
`January 10, 2022
`
`January 17, 2022
`
`December 30, 2021
`
`January 5, 2022
`
`December 23, 2021
`
`December 30, 2021
`
`December 9, 2021
`
`December 13, 2021
`
`December 9, 2021
`
`December 13, 2021
`
`Serve Objections to Pretrial Disclosures;
`and Serve Rebuttal Pretrial Disclosures
`
`Serve Pretrial Disclosures (Witness List,
`Deposition Designations, and Exhibit List)
`by the Party with the Burden of Proof
`
`*Response to Dispositive Motions
`(including Daubert Motions).
`
`Responses to dispositive motions that were filed
`prior to the dispositive motion deadline,
`including Daubert Motions, shall be due in
`accordance with Local Rule CV-7(e), not to
`exceed the deadline as set forth in this Docket
`Control Order.2 Motions for Summary Judgment
`shall comply with Local Rule CV-56.
`
`*File Motions to Strike Expert
`Testimony (including Daubert Motions)
`
`No motion to strike expert testimony
`(including a Daubert motion) may be filed
`after this date without leave of the Court
`
`*File Dispositive Motions
`
`No dispositive motion may be filed after this
`date without leave of the Court.
`
`Motions shall comply with Local Rule CV-56
`and Local Rule CV-7. Motions to extend page
`limits will only be granted in exceptional
`circumstances. Exceptional circumstances
`require more than agreement among the parties.
`
`December 3, 2021
`
`December 8, 2021
`
`Deadline to Complete Expert Discovery
`
`November 19, 2021
`
`November 29, 2021 Serve Disclosures for Rebuttal Expert Witnesses
`
`2 The parties are directed to Local Rule CV-7(d), which provides in part that “[a] party’s failure to
`oppose a motion in the manner prescribed herein creates a presumption that the party does not
`controvert the facts set out by movant and has no evidence to offer in opposition to the motion.” If the
`deadline under Local Rule CV 7(e) exceeds the deadline for Response to Dispositive Motions, the
`deadline for Response to Dispositive Motions controls.
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 170 Filed 10/18/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 5721
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CURRENT DATE
`
`NEW DATE
`
`EVENT
`
`November 16, 2021
`
`October 29, 2021
`
`October 22, 2021
`
`October 21, 2021
`
`October 19, 2021
`
`October 12, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Comply with P.R. 3-7 (Opinion of
`Counsel Defenses)
`
`November 8, 2021
`
`Serve Disclosures for Expert Witnesses by the
`Party with the Burden of Proof
`
`November 3, 2021
`
`
`
`Deadline to Complete Fact Discovery and
`File Motions to Compel Discovery
`
`*Claim Construction Hearing — 1:30 p.m.
`in Marshall, Texas before Judge Roy Payne
`
`*Comply with P.R. 4-5(d) (Joint Claim
`Construction Chart)
`
`*Comply with P.R. 4-5(c) (Reply
`Claim Construction Brief)
`
`(*) indicates a deadline that cannot be changed without showing good cause. Good cause is not
`shown merely by indicating that the parties agree that the deadline should be changed.
`
`ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
`
`Mediation: While certain cases may benefit from mediation, such may not be appropriate
`for every case. The Court finds that the Parties are best suited to evaluate whether mediation will
`benefit the case after the issuance of the Court’s claim construction order. Accordingly, the Court
`ORDERS the Parties to file a Joint Notice indicating whether the case should be referred for
`mediation within fourteen days of the issuance of the Court’s claim construction order. As a
`part of such Joint Notice, the Parties should indicate whether they have a mutually agreeable
`mediator for the Court to consider. If the Parties disagree about whether mediation is appropriate,
`the Parties should set forth a brief statement of their competing positions in the Joint Notice.
`
`Summary Judgment Motions, Motions to Strike Expert Testimony, and Daubert Motions:
`For each motion, the moving party shall provide the Court with two (2) hard copies of the completed
`briefing (opening motion, response, reply, and if applicable, sur-reply), excluding exhibits, in D-three-
`ring binders, appropriately tabbed. All documents shall be single-sided and must include the CM/ECF
`header. These copies shall be delivered to the Court within three (3) business days after briefing has
`completed. For expert-related motions, complete digital copies of the relevant expert report(s) and
`accompanying exhibits shall be submitted on a single flash drive to the Court. Complete digital copies
`of the expert report(s) shall be delivered to the Court no later than the dispositive motion deadline.
`
`Indefiniteness: In lieu of early motions for summary judgment, the parties are directed to
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 170 Filed 10/18/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 5722
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`include any arguments related to the issue of indefiniteness in their Markman briefing, subject to the
`local rules’ normal page limits.
`
`Motions for Continuance: The following excuses will not warrant a continuance nor justify a
`failure to comply with the discovery deadline:
`
`(a)
`
`The fact that there are motions for summary judgment or motions to dismiss pending;
`
`The fact that one or more of the attorneys is set for trial in another court on the same day,
`(b)
`unless the other setting was made prior to the date of this order or was made as a special provision for
`the parties in the other case;
`The failure to complete discovery prior to trial, unless the parties can demonstrate that it
`(c)
`was impossible to complete discovery despite their good faith effort to do so.
`
`Amendments to the Docket Control Order (“DCO”): Any motion to alter any date on the
`DCO shall take the form of a motion to amend the DCO. The motion to amend the DCO shall include
`a proposed order that lists all of the remaining dates in one column (as above) and the proposed
`changes to each date in an additional adjacent column (if there is no change for a date the proposed
`date column should remain blank or indicate that it is unchanged). In other words, the DCO in the
`proposed order should be complete such that one can clearly see all the remaining deadlines and the
`changes, if any, to those deadlines, rather than needing to also refer to an earlier version of the DCO.
`
`Proposed DCO: The Parties’ Proposed DCO should also follow the format described above
`under “Amendments to the Docket Control Order (‘DCO’).”
`
`Joint Pretrial Order: In the contentions of the Parties included in the Joint Pretrial Order,
`the Plaintiff shall specify all allegedly infringed claims that will be asserted at trial. The Plaintiff
`shall also specify the nature of each theory of infringement, including under which subsections of
`35 U.S.C. § 271 it alleges infringement, and whether the Plaintiff alleges divided infringement or
`infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Each Defendant shall indicate the nature of each
`theory of invalidity, including invalidity for anticipation, obviousness, subject-matter eligibility,
`written description, enablement, or any other basis for invalidity. The Defendant shall also specify
`each prior art reference or combination of references upon which the Defendant shall rely at trial, with
`respect to each theory of invalidity. The contentions of the Parties may not be amended, supplemented,
`or dropped without leave of the Court based upon a showing of good cause.
`
`