Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 67 Filed 11/20/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 4894
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`R2 Solutions LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Databricks, Inc.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-01147-ALM
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`ORDER FOCUSING PATENT
`CLAIMS AND PRIOR ART TO
`REDUCE COSTS
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 67 Filed 11/20/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 4895
`
`The Court ORDERS1 as follows:
`This Order supplements all other discovery rules and orders. It
`1.
`
`streamlines the issues in this case to promote a “just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`determination” of this action, as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1.
`
`Phased Limits on Asserted Claims and Prior Art References
`
`2.
`
`Within five business days of the date of this Order, the patent
`
`claimant shall serve a Preliminary Election of Asserted Claims, which shall assert
`
`no more than ten claims from each patent and not more than a total of 32 claims.
`
`Not later than 14 days after service of the Preliminary Election of Asserted Claims,
`
`the patent defendant shall serve a Preliminary Election of Asserted Prior Art, which
`
`shall assert no more than twelve prior art references against each patent and not more
`
`than a total of 40 references.2
`
`1 The parties are encouraged to discuss limits lower than those set forth in this Model Order based
`on case-specific factors such as commonality among asserted patents, the number and diversity of
`accused products, the complexity of the technology, the complexity of the patent claims, and the
`complexity and number of other issues in the case that will be presented to the judge and/or jury.
`In general, the more patents that are in the case, the lower the per-patent limits should be. In cases
`involving several patent families, diverse technologies, disparate claims within a patent, or other
`unique circumstances, absent agreement of the parties, the court will consider flexibly whether
`circumstances warrant expanding the limits on asserted claims or prior art references. The parties
`shall jointly submit any proposed modifications by the deadline for submission of proposed docket
`control or discovery orders, but in no event later than the deadline for service of initial disclosures.
`
`2 For purposes of this Order, a prior art instrumentality (such as a device or process) and associated
`references that describe that instrumentality shall count as one reference, as shall the closely related
`work of a single prior artist.
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 67 Filed 11/20/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 4896
`
`3.
`
`No later than 28 days before the service of expert reports by the
`
`party with the burden of proof on an issue, the patent claimant shall serve a Final
`
`Election of Asserted Claims, which shall identify no more than five asserted claims
`
`per patent from among the ten previously identified claims and no more than a total
`
`of 16 claims. By the date set for the service of expert reports by the party with the
`
`burden of proof on an issue, the patent defendant shall serve a Final Election of
`
`Asserted Prior Art, which shall identify no more than six asserted prior art
`
`references per patent from among the twelve prior art references previously
`
`identified for that particular patent and no more than a total of 20 references. For
`
`purposes of this Final Election of Asserted Prior Art, each obviousness combination
`
`counts as a separate prior art reference.
`
`4.
`
`If the patent claimant asserts infringement of only one patent, all
`
`per-patent limits in this order are increased by 50%, rounding up.
`
`Modification of this Order
`
`5.
`
`Subject to Court approval, the parties may modify this Order by
`
`agreement, but should endeavor to limit the asserted claims and prior art references
`
`to the greatest extent possible. Absent agreement, post-entry motions to modify this
`
`Order’s numerical limits on asserted claims and prior
`
`art references
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 67 Filed 11/20/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 4897
`
`must demonstrate good cause warranting the modification. Motions to modify
`
`other portions of this Order are committed to the sound discretion of the Court.3
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`3 This Order contemplates that the parties and the Court may further narrow the issues during
`pretrial proceedings in order to present a manageable case at trial.
`
`3
`
`