throbber
Case 1:20-cv-00692-ADA Document 65 Filed 03/17/21 Page 1 of 6
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`RAVGEN, INC.,
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00692-ADA
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`NATERA, INC. AND NSTX, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`UPDATED ORDER GOVERNING PROCEEDINGS – PATENT CASE
`
`This Updated Order shall govern proceedings in this case.
`
`DISCOVERY
`
`Except with regard to venue, jurisdictional, and claim construction-related discovery, all other
`discovery is stayed until after the Markman hearing. Notwithstanding this general stay of
`discovery, the Court will permit limited discovery by agreement of the parties, or upon request,
`where exceptional circumstances warrant. For example, if discovery outside the United States is
`contemplated, the Court will be inclined to allow such discovery to commence before the
`Markman hearing.
`
`With respect to venue and jurisdictional discovery, the Court generally grants leave for the
`parties to conduct targeted discovery. The Court’s default venue/jurisdiction discovery limits are
`as follows:
`
`Interrogatories: 5 per party
`1.
`2. Requests for Production: 5 per party
`3. Fact depositions: 4 hours for a 30(b)(6) witness per party
`
`To the extent a party provides multiple declarations in support or against a motion to transfer
`venue or a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction, the Court will allow the other side to
`have additional interrogatories (e.g., 2 more), RFPs (e.g., 2 more), and deposition time (e.g., 2
`more hours). To the extent the parties cannot agree what the additional number of
`interrogatories, RFPs, and deposition time should be, the Court encourages the parties to contact
`the Court to request a telephonic discovery hearing.
`
`Following the Markman hearing, the following discovery limits will apply to this case. The
`Court will consider reasonable requests to adjust these limits should circumstances warrant.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00692-ADA Document 65 Filed 03/17/21 Page 2 of 6
`
`1. Interrogatories: 30 per side1
`
`2. Requests for Admission: 45 per side; The parties are allowed unlimited requests seeking
`an admission as to the authenticity of a particular document or thing.
`
`3. Requests for Production: 75 per side
`
`4. Fact Depositions: 70 hours per side (for both party and non-party witnesses combined).
`Upon a showing of good cause, a party may request additional hours for fact depositions.
`
`5. Expert Depositions: 7 hours per report up to a maximum of 12 hours total deposition
`time. Upon a showing of good cause, a party may request additional hours for a specific
`expert’s deposition.
`
`Electronically Stored Information. As a preliminary matter, the Court will not require general
`search and production of email or other electronically stored information (ESI), absent a showing
`of good cause. If a party believes targeted email/ESI discovery is necessary, it shall propose a
`procedure identifying custodians and search terms it believes the opposing party should search.
`The opposing party can oppose, or propose an alternate plan. If the parties cannot agree, they
`shall contact chambers to schedule a call with the Court to discuss their respective positions.
`
`DISCOVERY DISPUTES
`
`A party may not file a Motion to Compel discovery unless: (1) lead counsel have met and
`conferred in good faith to try to resolve the dispute, and (2) the party has contacted the Court’s
`law clerk (with opposing counsel) to arrange a telephone conference with the Court to
`summarize the dispute and the parties respective positions. Summaries shall be neutral and non-
`argumentative. After hearing from the parties, the Court will determine if further briefing is
`required.
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Pending entry of the final Protective Order, the Court issues the following interim Protective
`Order to govern the disclosure of confidential information in this matter:
`
`If any document or information produced in this matter is deemed confidential by the
`producing party and if the Court has not entered a protective order, until a protective
`order is issued by the Court, the document shall be marked “confidential” or with some
`other confidential designation (such as “Confidential – Outside Attorneys Eyes Only”) by
`the disclosing party and disclosure of the confidential document or information shall be
`
`
`1 A “side” shall mean the plaintiff (or related plaintiffs suing together) on the one hand, and the
`defendant (or related defendants sued together) on the other hand. In the event that the Court
`consolidates related cases for pretrial purposes, with regard to calculating limits imposed by this
`Order, a “side” shall be interpreted as if the cases were proceeding individually. For example, in
`consolidated cases the plaintiff may serve up to 30 interrogatories on each defendant, and each
`defendant may serve up to 30 interrogatories on the plaintiff.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00692-ADA Document 65 Filed 03/17/21 Page 3 of 6
`
`limited to each party’s outside attorney(s) of record and the employees of such outside
`attorney(s).
`
`If a party is not represented by an outside attorney, disclosure of the confidential
`document or information shall be limited to one designated “in house” attorney, whose
`identity and job functions shall be disclosed to the producing party 5 days prior to any
`such disclosure, in order to permit any motion for protective order or other relief
`regarding such disclosure. The person(s) to whom disclosure of a confidential document
`or information is made under this local rule shall keep it confidential and use it only for
`purposes of litigating the case.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ISSUES
`
`Terms for Construction. Based on the Court’s experience, the Court believes that it should
`have presumed limits on the number of claim terms to be construed. The “presumed limit” is the
`maximum number of terms that each side may request the Court to construe without further
`leave of Court. If the Court grants leave for the additional terms to be construed, depending on
`the complexity and number of terms, the Court may split the Markman hearing into multiple
`hearings.
`
`The presumed limits based on the number of patents-in-suit are as follows:
`
`Limits for Number of Claim Terms to be Construed
`
`1-2 Patents
`8 terms
`
`3-5 Patents
`10 terms
`
`More than 5 Patents
`12 terms
`
`When the parties submit their joint claim construction statement, in addition to the term and the
`parties’ proposed constructions, the parties should indicate which party or side proposed that
`term, or if that was a joint proposal.
`
`Claim Construction Briefing. The Court will require non-simultaneous claim construction
`briefing with the following default page limits; however, where exceptional circumstances
`warrant, the Court will consider reasonable requests to adjust these limits. These page limits
`shall also apply collectively for consolidated cases; however, the Court will consider reasonable
`requests to adjust page limits in consolidated cases where circumstances warrant. In addition,
`the Court is very familiar with the law of claim construction and encourages the parties to forego
`lengthy recitations of the underlying legal authorities and instead focus on the substantive issues
`unique to each case.
`
`Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, all filings will take place at 5:00 p.m. CT.
`
`Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, the default order of terms in the parties’ briefs shall be
`based on 1) the patent number (lowest to highest), the claim number (lowest to highest), and
`order of appearance within the lowest number patent and claim. An example order may be as
`follows:
`
`1. 10,000,000 Patent, Claim 1, Term 1
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00692-ADA Document 65 Filed 03/17/21 Page 4 of 6
`
`2. 10,000,000 Patent, Claim 1, Term 2 (where Term 2 appears later in the claim than does
`Term 1)
`3. 10,000,000 Patent, Claim 2, Term 3 (where Term 3 appears later in the claim than does
`Terms 2 and 3)
`4. 10,000,001 Patent, Claim 1, Term 4
`5. 10,000,001 Patent, Claim 3, Term 5
`6. 10,000,002 Patent, Claim 2, Term 6
`
`To the extent that the same or similar terms appear in multiple claims, those same or similar
`terms should be ordered according to the lowest patent number, lowest claim number, and order
`of appearance within the patent and claim.
`
`Page Limits for Markman Briefs
`
`Brief
`Opening (Plaintiff)
`
`1-2 Patents
`20 pages
`
`3-5 Patents
`30 pages
`
`Response
`(Defendant)
`
`20 pages
`
`30 pages
`
`Reply (Plaintiff)
`
`10 pages
`
`15 pages
`
`Sur-Reply
`(Defendant)
`
`10 pages
`
`15 pages
`
`More than 5 Patents
`30 pages, plus 5
`additional pages for
`each patent over 5 up
`to a maximum of 45
`pages
`30 pages, plus 5
`additional pages for
`each patent over 5 up
`to a maximum of 45
`pages
`15 pages, plus 2
`additional pages for
`each patent over 5 up
`to a maximum of 21
`pages
`15 pages, plus 2
`additional pages for
`each patent over 5 up
`to a maximum of 21
`pages
`
`Technology Tutorials and Conduct of the Markman Hearing
`
`Technology tutorials are optional. If the parties would like to submit one, the tutorial should be
`in electronic form, with voiceovers, and submitted at least one week before the Markman
`hearing. If a party believes a live tutorial would be of particular benefit to the Court, the parties
`should contact the Court to request a Zoom or telephonic tutorial so that the tutorial can be
`scheduled to occur at least a week before the Markman hearing. In general, tutorials should be:
`(1) directed to the underlying technology (rather than argument related to infringement or
`validity), and (2) limited to 15 minutes per side. For the Court’s convenience, the tutorial may
`be recorded, but will not be part of the record. Parties may not rely on or cite to the tutorial in
`other aspects of the litigation.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00692-ADA Document 65 Filed 03/17/21 Page 5 of 6
`
`The Court generally sets aside one half day for the Markman hearing; however, the Court is open
`to reserving more or less time, depending on the complexity of the case and input from the
`parties. As a general rule, the party opposing the Court’s preliminary construction shall go first.
`If both parties are unwilling to accept the Court’s preliminary construction, the Plaintiff shall
`typically go first.
`
`GENERAL ISSUES
`
`1. The Court will entertain reasonable requests to streamline the case schedule and discovery
`and encourages the parties to contact the Court’s law clerk (with opposing counsel) to
`arrange a call with the Court when such interaction might help streamline the case.
`
`2. To the extent the parties need to email the Court, the parties should use the following email
`address: TXWDml_LawClerks_JudgeAlbright@txwd.uscourts.gov.
`
`3. The Court is generally willing to extend the response to the Complaint up to 45 days if
`agreed by the parties. However, longer extensions are disfavored and will require good
`cause.
`
`4. Plaintiff must file a notice informing the Court when an IPR is filed, the expected time for an
`institution decision, and the expected time for a final written decision, within two weeks of
`the filing of the IPR.
`
`5. After the trial date is set, the Court will not move the trial date except in extreme situations.
`To the extent a party believes that the circumstances warrant continuing the trial date, the
`parties are directed to contact the Court to request a telephonic hearing.
`
`6. The Court does not have a limit on the number of motions for summary judgment (MSJs);
`however, absent leave of Court, the cumulative page limit for Opening Briefs for all MSJs is
`40 pages per side.
`
`7. There may be instances where the submission of substantive briefs via audio file will be of
`help to the Court. If a party is contemplating submitting a brief via audio file it should
`contact the Court for guidance on whether it would be helpful to the Court. However, the
`Court has determined that audio recordings of Markman briefs are of limited value and those
`need not be submitted. The recordings shall be made in a neutral fashion, shall be verbatim
`transcriptions without additional colloquy (except that citations and legal authority sections
`need not be included), and each such file shall be served on opposing counsel. The Court
`does not have a preference for the manner of recording and has found automated software
`recordings, as well as attorney recordings, to be more than satisfactory. Audio files shall be
`submitted via USB drive, Box (not another cloud storage)2, or email to the law clerk (with a
`cc to opposing counsel) and should be submitted in mp3 format.
`
`8. For Markman briefs, summary judgment motions, and Daubert motions, each party shall
`deliver to Chambers one (1) paper copy of its Opening, Response, and Reply briefs, omitting
`
`2 The parties should contact the law clerk to request a Box link so that the party can directly upload the files to the
`Court’s Box account.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00692-ADA Document 65 Filed 03/17/21 Page 6 of 6
`
`attachments, at least a week before the hearing. Each party shall also provide an electronic
`copy of the briefs and exhibits via cloud storage3 or USB drive. For Markman briefs, the
`parties should also include a (1) paper copy of all patents-in-suit and the Joint Claim
`Construction Statement. To the extent the Court appoints a technical adviser, each party shall
`deliver the same to the technical adviser.
`
`17th
`
`March
` ORDERED this _____ day of ________, 2021.
`
`
`
`______________________________
`ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`3 The parties should contact the law clerk to request a Box link so that the party can directly
`upload the files to the Court’s Box account. The filenames for any exhibits should be a
`description of the exhibit, e.g., “U.S. Patent No. 10,000,000” or “Prosecution history for
`10,000,000 (January 20, 2020, Office Action).”
`
`6
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket