Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID 428
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`DALLAS DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
`
`Plaintiff R2 Solutions LLC (“R2”) and Defendants Hilton Domestic Operating Company
`
`Inc. (“Hilton”), 7-Eleven, Inc. (“7-Eleven”), and Southwest Airlines Co. (“Southwest”)
`
`R2 Solutions LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`Hilton Domestic Operating Company Inc.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`R2 Solutions LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`7-Eleven, Inc.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`R2 Solutions LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`Southwest Airlines Co.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-02761-S
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-02868-S
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-02869-S
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID 429
`
`(collectively, “Defendants”) hereby submit this Joint Case Management Statement in accordance
`
`with the Order Setting Initial Hearing entered in each case. The parties have met and conferred
`
`regarding the matters set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), and Miscellaneous
`
`Order No. 62 ¶ 2-1(a), and they jointly submit the following for the Court’s consideration.
`
`1. Proposed modification of the deadlines provided for in this Order, and the effect
`of any such modification on the date and time of the claim construction hearing,
`if any.
`
`The parties have agreed to adopt and modify the deadlines set forth in Second Amended
`
`
`
`Miscellaneous Order No. 62, as reflected in the parties’ proposed Scheduling Order attached hereto
`
`as Exhibit A.
`
`2. Electronic discovery plan or any proposed e-discovery order (see Appendix B).
`
`The Parties will submit an Order Governing E-Discovery in Patent Cases separately for the
`
`Court’s consideration and entry.
`
`3. The need for presenting technical tutorials to the presiding judge and the mode
`for presenting same.
`
`The Parties do not believe that technical tutorials are necessary.
`
`
`
`4. Deviations from and additions to the model orders described in paragraph 2-l(e).
`
`The Parties will separately submit a protective order, e-discovery order, and order focusing
`
`patent claims and prior art. To the extent these orders differ from the model orders, the Parties will
`
`conspicuously identify the modifications and designate the party proposing them. In the interim,
`
`the parties agree to be bound by the model Protective Order included with Second Amended
`
`Miscellaneous Order No. 62.
`
`5. Whether either party desires the presiding judge to hear live testimony at the
`claim construction hearing.
`
`The Parties do not plan to present live testimony at the claim construction hearing.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID 430
`
`6. The need for and any specific limits on discovery relating to claim construction,
`including depositions of witnesses, including expert witnesses.
`
`The parties propose a thirty page (30) limit for Defendants’ opening claim construction
`
`
`
`brief, a thirty (30) page limit for Plaintiff’s responsive claim construction brief, a fifteen (15) page
`
`limit for Defendants’ reply brief, and a fifteen (15) page limit for Plaintiff’s sur-reply.
`
`Southwest does not wish to participate in consolidated claim construction briefing and
`
`prefers that the above-referenced briefing limits apply to each case.
`
`R2 believes that consolidated claim construction briefing is most efficient. The same five
`
`patents are asserted against each defendant, and one additional patent is asserted against Hilton.
`
`Four of the six patents at issue have previously been subjected to two claim construction
`
`proceedings in the Eastern District of Texas, one of which involved multiple defendants with
`
`consolidated briefing.
`
`7. The scheduling of a claim construction prehearing conference between attorneys
`to be held after the filing of the joint claim construction and prehearing statement
`required by paragraph 4-3.
`
`The Parties do not believe a claim construction pre-hearing conference is necessary.
`
`8. The need for any deviation from the ordinary practice of early and late
`mediations, as well as the potential dates for early and late mediations.
`
`The Parties propose that they be required to mediate at least ninety (90) days before the
`
`Trial Setting, as contemplated by the Court’s model scheduling order. The parties propose separate
`
`mediations before one of Hon. David Folsom (Ret.), Hon. Jeff Kaplan (Ret.), or Hesha Abrams.
`
`9. What changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under
`these rules or by local rule, and what other limitations should be imposed.
`
`The parties propose the following limitations on discovery:
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID 431
`
`Interrogatories: Plaintiff and Defendants (collectively) may serve 20 common
`
`interrogatories. Additionally, Plaintiff may serve on each Defendant 5 party-specific
`
`interrogatories. Each Defendant may serve on Plaintiff 5 party-specific interrogatories.
`
`Requests for Admission: Each side (i.e., Plaintiff and Defendants collectively) may serve
`
`25 common requests for admission. Additionally, Plaintiff may serve on each Defendant 5 party-
`
`specific requests for admission. Each Defendant may serve on Plaintiff 5 party-specific requests
`
`for admission. The number of requests for admission to establish the document authenticity,
`
`business record status, or date of publication or public availability of a document is unlimited.
`
`Fact Depositions: 50 hours1 of non-expert oral deposition testimony may be taken by
`
`each side in each individual case filed by Plaintiff (i.e., each Defendant receives 50 hours).
`
`Although the parties shall work in good faith to avoid duplicative questioning of any party witness,
`
`nothing herein is intended to limit Defendants collectively to 7 hours of deposition time with any
`
`fact witness.
`
`Expert Depositions: Plaintiff and Defendants agree that expert depositions shall be
`
`limited to 7 hours per expert report. To the extent any expert submits an omnibus report that
`
`addresses multiple parties (i.e., an infringement report that addresses alleged infringement by more
`
`than one Defendant or a damages report that addresses more than one Defendant), the portion of
`
`the omnibus report addressing each party will be treated as a separate report for purposes of the
`
`deposition hours limits set forth above.
`
`Dated: May 9, 2023
`
`
`/s/ Edward R. Nelson III
`Edward R. Nelson III
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ David E. Finkelson
`David E. Finkelson (pro hac vice)
`
`
`1 The parties agree that time will only accrue against the 50 hour total when a party is actively
`taking a deposition. Hours spent attending a deposition and not taking will not count against an
`individual party’s 50 hour total.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID 432
`
`State Bar No. 00797142
`Brent N. Bumgardner
`State Bar No. 00795272
`Christopher G. Granaghan
`State Bar No. 24078585
`John P. Murphy
`State Bar No. 24056024
`Carder W. Brooks
`State Bar No. 24105536
`Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC
`3131 West 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`817.377.9111
`ed@nelbum.com
`brent@nelbum.com
`chris@nelbum.com
`murphy@nelbum.com
`carder@nelbum.com
`
`COUNSEL FOR
`PLAINTIFF R2 SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`/s/ Nan Lan
`Neil J. McNabnay
`njm@fr.com
`Texas Bar No. 24002583
`David B. Conrad
`conrad@fr.com
`Texas Bar No. 24049042
`Ricardo J. Bonilla
`rbonilla@fr.com
`Texas Bar No. 24082704
`Michael R. Ellis
`ellis@fr.com
`Texas Bar No. 24102726
`Nan Lan
`lan@fr.com
`Texas Bar No. 24121711
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1717 Main Street, Suite 5000
`
`
`
`McGuireWoods LLP
`800 East Canal Street
`Richmond, VA 23219-3916
`(804) 775-1000
`(804) 698-2016 – fax
`dfinkelson@mcguirewoods.com
`
`Thomas J. Gohn
`Texas Bar No. 24097742
`McGuireWoods LLP
`2000 McKinney Avenue
`Dallas, TX 75201
`(214) 932-6400
`(214) 932-6499 – fax
`tgohn@mcguirewoods.com
`
`Corinne S. Hockman (pro hac vice)
`Texas Bar No. 24102541
`McGuireWoods LLP
`845 Texas Avenue, 24th Floor
`Houston, TX 77002-2906
`(713) 571-9191
`(713) 571-9652 – fax
`chockman@mcguirewoods.com
`
`COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
`HILTON DOMESTIC OPERATING
`COMPANY INC.
`/s/ Wallace Dunwoody
`Michael C. Wilson
`Texas State Bar No. 21704590
`mwilson@munckwilson.com
`S. Wallace Dunwoody, IV
`Texas State Bar No. 24040838
`wdunwoody@munckwilson.com
`Elliott C. Riches
`Texas State Bar No. 24125381
`eriches@munckwilson.com
`MUNCK WILSON MANDALA, LLP
`12770 Coit Road, Suite 600
`Dallas, Texas 75251
`Telephone: (972) 628-3600
`Facsimile: (972) 628-3616
`
`COUNSEL FOR
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID 433
`
`Dallas, TX 75201
`(214) 747-5070 (Telephone)
`(214) 747-2091 (Facsimile)
`
`COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
`7-ELEVEN, INC.
`
`DEFENDANT SOUTHWEST AIRLINES
`CO.
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`On May 9, 2023, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the clerk of court
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing system of
`
`the court. I hereby certify that I have served all counsel and/or pro se parties of record
`
`electronically or by another manner authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Edward R. Nelson III
`
`6
`
`
`
`