`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-0036-RWS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER FOCUSING PATENT CLAIMS AND PRIOR ART TO REDUCE COSTS
`
`The Court ORDERS as follows:
`
`1.
`
`This Order supplements all other discovery rules and orders. It 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.
`
`By the date set in the Court’s Docket Control Order governing the above captioned
`
`case, the patent claimant shall serve a Preliminary Election of Asserted Claims, which shall assert
`
`no more than ten (10) claims from each patent and not more than a total of 40 claims. By the date
`
`set in the Court’s Docket Control Order governing the above captioned case, the patent defendant
`
`shall serve a Preliminary Election of Asserted Prior Art, which shall assert no more than twelve
`
`(12) prior art references against each patent and not more than a total of 45 prior art references.1
`
`
`1 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.
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 44 Filed 07/02/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 529
`
`3.
`
`By the date set in the Court’s Docket Control Order governing the above captioned
`
`case, the patent claimant shall serve a Final Election of Asserted Claims, which shall identify no
`
`more than five (5) asserted claims per patent from among the ten previously identified claims
`
`and no more than a total of 20 claims. By the date set in the Court’s Docket Control Order
`
`governing the above captioned case, the patent defendant shall serve a Final Election of Asserted
`
`Prior Art, which shall identify no more than six (6) 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 prior art 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 must demonstrate good cause warranting the modification. Motions to
`
`modify other portions of this Order are committed to the sound discretion of the Court.2
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`2 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.
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`.
`
`
`
`____________________________________
`ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`SIGNED this 2nd day of July, 2019.
`
`
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
