Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 50 Filed 03/22/23 Page 1 of 18 PageID# 565
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD
`
`Defendant.
`
`JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN
`
`GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the March 2, 2023 initial Order (Doc. 49), Plaintiff Geoscope Technologies Pte
`
`Ltd. (“Geoscope” or “Plaintiff”), and Defendant Google LLC (“Google” or “Defendant”) (together
`
`with Plaintiff, the “Parties”), submit this proposed Joint Discovery Plan. This is an action for
`
`patent infringement. There is pending before the Court a separate patent infringement action in
`
`which Plaintiff has asserted the same patents against another party. Geoscope Technologies Pte
`
`Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 1:22-cv-1373-MSN-JFA (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 1, 2022) (“Apple Action”). In
`
`addition to the specific provisions herein requiring coordination with the parties in the Apple
`
`Action, the Parties will reasonably cooperate and coordinate with the parties in the Apple Action
`
`when conducting all other pretrial events involving issues common to both cases.
`
`I.
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER.
`
`The Parties will submit a proposed stipulated protective order to the Court on or before
`
`March 29, 2023 or, should the Parties fail to agree by that date, they shall file any motion for entry
`
`of such orders for this Court’s consideration. Prior to entry of a protective order, documents and
`
`information produced will be treated as highly confidential, outside attorneys’ eyes only. In no
`
`event shall any party withhold producing its documents that it would otherwise produce based on
`
`the fact that the protective order has not yet been entered.
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 50 Filed 03/22/23 Page 2 of 18 PageID# 566
`
`II.
`
`INITIAL DISCLOSURES
`
`The Parties will exchange initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) on or before April
`
`5, 2023.
`
`III.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S DISCLOSURES OF ASSERTED CLAIMS AND
`INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS.
`
`The following additional disclosures will be provided by Plaintiff under Rule 26(a)(1)
`
`based on information and discovery timely and reasonably available to Plaintiff:
`
`A.
`
`Preliminary Identification of Asserted Claims. Plaintiff will serve a preliminary
`
`list identifying the asserted claims on or before March 27, 2023. Plaintiff will also
`
`identify the priority date to which Plaintiff asserts that each asserted claim is
`
`entitled. Absent a showing of good cause (e.g., newly learned facts), Plaintiff shall
`
`not be permitted to identify in its Preliminary and Final Infringement Disclosures
`
`any additional asserted claims beyond this preliminary identification of asserted
`
`claims.
`
`B.
`
`Preliminary Infringement Disclosures. On or before April 7, 2023, Plaintiff will
`
`serve the following disclosures:
`
`1.
`
`A claim chart identifying specifically:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`the products or services that Plaintiff contends infringe the asserted
`claims;
`
`where each limitation of each asserted claim is found within each of
`the accused products or services, including for each limitation that
`Plaintiff contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) (means-plus-
`function); and
`
`the identity of the structure(s), act(s), element(s), step(s), or
`material(s) in the accused product(s) or device(s) that corresponds
`to the structure identified in the patent specification that performs
`the claimed function.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 50 Filed 03/22/23 Page 3 of 18 PageID# 567
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff will also disclose whether it is asserting direct infringement or
`indirect infringement or both and for each theory of infringement, the facts
`supporting that theory. Plaintiff will also disclose whether each limitation
`of each asserted claim is claimed to be literally present or present under the
`doctrine of equivalents in the accused products or services. If Plaintiff
`contends that a limitation is present under the doctrine of equivalents,
`Plaintiff shall identify both the limitation and the allegedly infringing
`element in the accused products or services.
`
`Together with the “Preliminary Infringement Disclosures,” Geoscope shall
`produce, or make available for inspection and copying, the following, to the
`extent these items are in Geoscope’s possession, custody, or control and to
`the extent they have not already been produced by Geoscope:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`A copy of the file history for each asserted patent.
`
`All documents evidencing ownership of the patent rights including
`by Geoscope, and all entities and individuals with any prior
`ownership interest in the asserted patents.
`
`All documents that relate to, refer to, or contemplate any
`cooperation or assistance by a named inventor with respect to any
`litigation involving any of the asserted patents.
`
`All rulings in any other cases in which the patents have been
`asserted, regarding claim construction, validity, infringement,
`license defense, enforceability, and any other defenses.
`
`C.
`
`Disclosure of Final Infringement Contentions. Plaintiff may timely supplement
`
`its preliminary disclosures of asserted claims and infringement contentions at any
`
`time before the due date for Plaintiff’s opening expert report on infringement, at
`
`which time Plaintiff will serve its final infringement contentions. After service of
`
`the final infringement contentions, supplementation will only be permitted as
`
`justified based on (a) new information received in discovery that could not have
`
`been reasonably available to Plaintiff before service of its final infringement
`
`contentions or (b) based on the Court’s claim construction order (if issued after the
`
`due date for Plaintiff’s opening expert report on infringement). No other
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 50 Filed 03/22/23 Page 4 of 18 PageID# 568
`
`supplementation will be permitted without leave of Court or agreement of the
`
`Parties.
`
`IV.
`
`INVALIDITY DISCLOSURES
`
`The following disclosures will be provided by Defendant under Rule 26(a)(1) based on
`
`information and discovery timely and reasonably available to Defendant:
`
`A.
`
`Preliminary Disclosure and Production of Asserted Prior Art. On or before
`
`April 24, 2023, Defendant will disclose a preliminary list of asserted prior art
`
`references and systems together with a copy of each item (or, for prior art systems,
`
`make available for examination if feasible) that does not appear in the file history
`
`of the patent(s) at issue, including any English translations of such documents
`
`completed prior to the date of such disclosures and as to systems, documentation
`
`regarding such systems. Absent a showing of good cause (e.g., newly learned
`
`facts), Defendant shall not be permitted to identify in its Preliminary and Final
`
`Invalidity Disclosures any additional asserted prior art beyond this preliminary
`
`identification of asserted prior art.
`
`B.
`
`Preliminary Invalidity Disclosures. Defendant will serve the following
`
`preliminary disclosures on or before May 1, 2023:
`
`1.
`
`Each item that Defendant contends anticipates each specified claim. Each
`prior art patent shall be identified by its number, country of origin, and date
`of issuance. Each prior art publication must be identified by its title, date
`of publication, and where feasible, author and publisher. Prior use under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(a) (pre-AIA) or (b) (pre-AIA) and/or 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
`(AIA), or on sale activity under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA) and/or 35
`U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (AIA), shall be identified, if feasible, by specifying the
`item offered for sale or publicly used or known, the date the offer or use
`took place or the information became known, and the identity of the person
`or entity which made the use or which made and received the offer, or the
`person or entity which made the information known or to whom it was made
`known.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 50 Filed 03/22/23 Page 5 of 18 PageID# 569
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Each item or combination of prior art that Defendant contends renders each
`specified claim obvious and the basis therefore, including the motivation
`to combine or modify such items and any supporting documents or
`evidence.
`
`A chart identifying specifically in each alleged item of prior art where each
`limitation of each asserted claim is found, including for each limitation that
`Defendants contend is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the identity of the
`structure(s), act(s), element(s), step(s), or material(s) in each item of prior
`art that corresponds to the structure identified in the patent that performs the
`claimed function.
`
`Any grounds of invalidity for any of the asserted claims based on
`indefiniteness or lack of enablement or written description under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112 or patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`If not already produced, a copy of each item of prior art identified by
`Defendant that does not appear in the file history of the patent(s) at issue
`(together with any English translations of such documents completed prior
`to the date of such disclosures). As discussed above, if the prior art is a
`prior art system, Defendant will make it available for examination if
`feasible.
`
`C.
`
`Disclosure of Final Invalidity Contentions. Defendant may timely supplement
`
`its preliminary disclosures of invalidity contentions at any time before the due date
`
`for Defendant’s opening expert report on invalidity, at which time Defendant will
`
`serve its final invalidity contentions. After service of the final invalidity
`
`contentions, supplementation will only be permitted as justified based on (a) new
`
`information received in discovery that could not have been reasonably available to
`
`Defendant before service of its final invalidity contentions or (b) based on the
`
`Court’s claim construction order (if issued after the due date for Defendant’s
`
`opening expert report on invalidity). No other supplementation will be permitted
`
`without leave of Court or agreement of the Parties.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 50 Filed 03/22/23 Page 6 of 18 PageID# 570
`
`V.
`
`DISCOVERY TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
`
`A.
`
`Case Schedule. The Parties jointly propose to the Court the pretrial schedule
`
`attached hereto for incorporation into an agreed scheduling order if the Court so
`
`approves. Any party that makes source code available for inspection in this action
`
`will make the source code available until the completion of discovery on August
`
`11, 2023.
`
`B. Claim Narrowing. Not later than June 12, 2023 Plaintiff will identify no more than 16
`
`asserted patent claims on which it intends to proceed. Plaintiff’s election of asserted claims
`
`is without prejudice to Plaintiff requesting, by an appropriate motion, to assert additional
`
`claims upon a showing of good cause. If Plaintiff wishes to assert any claims in addition
`
`to the 16 claims that it selects, Plaintiff must show that any unselected claim presents a
`
`unique issue with respect to liability or damages.
`
`C.
`
`Prior-Art Narrowing. Not later than June 16, 2023, Defendant will identify no
`
`more than 22 prior-art references on which it intends to proceed. To the extent
`
`Defendant relies on prior art systems, each system shall count as a single reference.
`
`Defendant’s election of prior-art references is without prejudice to Defendant
`
`requesting, by an appropriate motion, to assert additional prior art references upon
`
`a showing of good cause.
`
`D.
`
`Expert Disclosures. The Parties will serve expert disclosures by Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) on all issues on which they bear the initial burden of proof
`
`by June 26, 2023. Responsive expert disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 26(a)(2) will be served by July 21, 2023. An expert report must identify
`
`all information and materials on which the expert relied, and the producing Party
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 50 Filed 03/22/23 Page 7 of 18 PageID# 571
`
`must timely provide or give access to those materials. Nothing in this provision
`
`modifies an expert’s obligation pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(B) to disclose all
`
`information considered by the expert in forming his or her opinions. To the extent
`
`fact discovery relevant to an expert’s opinions has not been produced by an
`
`opponent sufficiently in advance to enable the expert to incorporate such discovery
`
`in a disclosure, the expert will be permitted to serve supplemental disclosures
`
`addressing such discovery within 7 days after it is received. If the Court’s claim
`
`construction order issues after an expert has delivered an opening or responsive
`
`expert report and the claim construction order has a material effect on the expert’s
`
`opinion such that it could not have been anticipated when the parties exchanged an
`
`opening or responsive expert report, the expert may provide a supplemental report
`
`addressing only the matters materially affected by the claim construction order
`
`within 7 days of the order’s issuance. Any responding expert may file a responsive
`
`expert report within 5 days of service of the supplemental report.
`
`E.
`
`Expert Discovery. All expert discovery will be completed by August 11, 2023.
`
`1.
`
`Depositions of Experts. Each Party may depose all testifying experts
`
`disclosed by the other side. Expert depositions will not count against the
`
`number-of-hours-limitation that apply to fact witness depositions.
`
`2.
`
`Coordination of Expert Depositions. If there is material overlap with
`
`expert issues in the Apple Action, the Parties will coordinate with the parties
`
`in the Apple Action in scheduling and taking expert depositions to limit
`
`duplication and undue burden.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 50 Filed 03/22/23 Page 8 of 18 PageID# 572
`
`3.
`
`Exemptions from Expert Disclosures. In addition to the exemptions from
`
`discovery provided by Rule 26(b)(4), the following provisions will apply:
`
`A Party need not produce, nor may a requesting Party inquire regarding, a
`
`testifying expert’s draft reports, outlines and notes (including preliminary
`
`diagrams, highlighting, and marginalia) which are not relied upon by the
`
`expert in forming his or her opinions.
`
`4.
`
`A party must timely provide the information required under Rule
`
`26(a)(2)(C) for any witness who will offer expert opinions but who is not
`
`required to provide a written report either in response to an interrogatory
`
`answer or no later that the date on which opening expert disclosures are due.
`
`5.
`
`The parties will work in good faith to complete all discovery, including
`
`expert discovery, within the deadlines set by the Court. All parties reserve
`
`the right to move the Court for appropriate relief in that regard should the
`
`need arise.
`
`F.
`
`Service of Pleadings, Motions, Other Papers, and Discovery Requests and
`Responses.
`
`1.
`
`All pleadings, motions, and other papers that are filed through the Court’s
`
`ECF system will be deemed served on the other Party electronically as
`
`provided by the Federal Rules and Local Rules.
`
`2.
`
`The Parties agree to service by email of discovery requests and written
`
`responses, and other papers that are not filed. The serving Party will attach
`
`the pleading or paper in “Portable Document Format” (.pdf) or other form
`
`of electronic file; if transmission of voluminous materials (such as a
`
`compendium of attachments or transcripts) as an email attachment or
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 50 Filed 03/22/23 Page 9 of 18 PageID# 573
`
`through other electronic means (e.g., transmission by File Transfer
`
`Protocol) is impractical, then those materials will be served by overnight
`
`delivery via service with the ability to track deliveries and verify receipt.
`
`3.
`
`The Parties agree that service by email or ECF will be deemed equivalent
`
`to service by hand as of the date and time sent, except that any email service
`
`of discovery requests after 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time will extend the time for
`
`response by one day. The Parties further agree that all documents filed
`
`under seal will be served by email promptly after filing. This provision does
`
`not alter any ECF deadlines or other filing deadlines set by Court rule or
`
`order.
`
`G.
`
`Changes in Limitations on Discovery.
`
`1.
`
`Number of Fact Witness Depositions. Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure limits each Party to ten (10) depositions. Due to
`
`the complex factual issues presented in this case, this limit will not apply;
`
`instead, as explained below, the Parties will be allowed to depose all
`
`reasonably necessary fact witnesses within the total-hours limitations
`
`specified herein.
`
`2.
`
`Number of Non-Party Fact Witness Depositions. Ordinarily under local
`
`practice, parties are limited to five (5) non-party depositions. The Parties
`
`jointly recognize that fact discovery in this action will include information
`
`in the possession of non-party witnesses who may be considered non-party
`
`witnesses (e.g., inventors and certain employees). Due to the complex
`
`factual issues presented in this case, this limit will not apply; instead, as
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 50 Filed 03/22/23 Page 10 of 18 PageID# 574
`
`explained below, the Parties will be allowed to depose all reasonably
`
`necessary fact witnesses within the total-hours limitations specified herein.
`
`As outlined below, the Parties propose a total-hours limitation for all fact
`
`witness depositions, irrespective of whether the deponent is a party or non-
`
`party. The Parties believe that the total-hours limitation will focus the
`
`Parties on conducting only the most necessary depositions, while permitting
`
`both Parties the ability to conduct the third-party discovery necessary in this
`
`action.
`
`3.
`
`Total-Hours Limitation on Depositions Under Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 30(b)(1) and 30(b)(6).
`
`a.
`
`Fact and 30(b)(6) Depositions. Each Party may question witnesses
`
`for no more than 70 hours of depositions from fact witnesses,
`
`including designee witnesses and third party witnesses. For
`
`purposes of counting hours, each deposition shall count the greater
`
`of the amount of deposition time conducted by that party or 3.5
`
`hours, whichever is greater. The duration of each deposition,
`
`however, will be limited pursuant to Rule 30(d)(1) of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure. For purposes of calculating deposition
`
`time, only time spent on the record will be counted. For purposes
`
`of calculating deposition time, depositions conducted with the
`
`assistance of a translator will count at 60% of the elapsed time.
`
`b.
`
`Designee Witnesses. The Parties will identify all designees under
`
`Rule 30(b)(6) at least five business days before their deposition.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 50 Filed 03/22/23 Page 11 of 18 PageID# 575
`
`c.
`
`Coordinated Designee and Personal Depositions. If a personal
`
`deposition notice has been served upon an individual who also is
`
`testifying as a designee, the Parties will meet and confer in an effort
`
`to coordinate the individual and designee depositions.
`
`d.
`
`Inventor Depositions. The Parties will coordinate with the Parties
`
`in the Apple Action when scheduling and taking inventor depositions
`
`to limit duplication and undue burden.
`
`4. Written Discovery.
`
`a. Interrogatory answers and responses to document requests will be
`
`served as provided in the Federal and Local Rules.
`
`b.
`
`Each party may serve on any other party no more than thirty (30)
`
`interrogatories, including parts and subparts, without leave of court.
`
`c.
`
`Each party may serve on any other party no more than fifty (50) non-
`
`authenticating requests for admission, without leave of court. The
`
`Parties will be permitted an unlimited number of requests for
`
`admission for the purpose of authenticating documents.
`
`d.
`
`The Parties may make rolling productions of responsive documents,
`
`provided that, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties, an initial
`
`production is made by April 11, 2023 and provided that each wave
`
`of production is produced within a reasonable time for use in the
`
`case, including for use in an opposing Party’s expert disclosures.
`
`The Parties will meet and confer to discuss and set priorities and
`
`schedules for their respective productions. The Parties will use best
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 50 Filed 03/22/23 Page 12 of 18 PageID# 576
`
`efforts to substantially complete document production, with the
`
`exception of third-party document discovery, by May 19, 2023.
`
`5.
`
`Privilege Logs.
`
`a.
`
`A Party is not required to serve a privilege log with each installment
`
`of its rolling document production but will serve one privilege log
`
`promptly after it has substantially completed its entire document
`
`production.
`
`b.
`
`Nothing in this provision affects or changes a Party’s ability to
`
`challenge any Party’s rights to withhold any document based on the
`
`attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other legal
`
`privileges or immunities. The inadvertent disclosure of privileged
`
`material will be governed by the protective order to be entered in
`
`this action.
`
`c.
`
`The Parties need not identify any work product or privileged
`
`documents and things created on or after the filing of the original
`
`Complaint in this action on any privilege log.
`
`d.
`
`For each withheld item, the privilege log will include the following
`
`information (to the extent applicable): a unique identifier for the
`
`withheld item; production number(s) (e.g., for redacted documents);
`
`date; author; recipient(s); carbon copy recipient(s); a description
`
`sufficient to identify the subject matter of the withheld or redacted
`
`item; and the basis or bases for withholding.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 50 Filed 03/22/23 Page 13 of 18 PageID# 577
`
`6.
`
`Production of Documents and Things
`
`Except for documents and things: (1) related to damages, including
`
`without limitation, sales and licensing information; (2) related to a
`
`Party’s ability to maintain any claim or defense for reasons unrelated
`
`to the merits (e.g., standing); (3) related to Plaintiff’s allegations of
`
`indirect infringement; (4) that a Party may use to support its claims
`
`or defenses; or (5) related to material changes in the functionality of
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities to the extent such changes are
`
`relevant to infringement; the Parties need not produce any
`
`documents and things created after the filing of the original
`
`Complaint in this action.
`
`7.
`
`Electronic Discovery.
`
`a.
`
`ESI Order. The Parties will submit a proposed ESI protocol to the
`
`Court on or before March 29, 2023 or, should the Parties fail to agree
`
`by that date, they shall file any motion for entry of such orders for
`
`this Court’s consideration.
`
`b.
`
`Preservation of Electronically Stored Information. The Parties,
`
`their counsel, and retained experts will retain, and preserve
`
`documents and things in their possession in compliance with all
`
`governing Federal rules, local rules, and governing case law.
`
`c.
`
`Non-Party Documents. Within four business days of receipt of
`
`documents subpoenaed from a non-party pursuant to Rule 45, the
`
`receiving Party will provide copies of those documents to the other
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 50 Filed 03/22/23 Page 14 of 18 PageID# 578
`
`Party or make the documents available for inspection and copying
`
`by the other Party.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION.
`
`Claim construction proceedings will be coordinated with the parties in the Apple Action,
`
`who are “Parties” for the purposes of this provision.
`
`A.
`
`Pre-Markman Claim Election.
`
`On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff will identify no more than 40 asserted patent claims on which it
`
`intends to proceed. Plaintiff’s election of asserted claims is without prejudice to Plaintiff
`
`requesting, by an appropriate motion, to assert additional claims upon a showing of good cause.
`
`If Plaintiff wishes to assert any claims in addition to the 40 claims that it selects, Plaintiff must
`
`show that any unselected claim presents a unique issue with respect to liability or damages.
`
`A.
`
`Exchange of Terms for Construction.
`
`On May 12, 2023, the Parties will serve lists of claim terms that each Party believes should
`
`be construed by the Court. Google may submit terms that differ from the terms submitted by
`
`Apple and vice versa. On May 17, 2023, the Parties will serve proposed constructions for each
`
`listed claim term, and the Parties will also identify the intrinsic and documentary extrinsic support
`
`for each proposed construction and serve any extrinsic materials that are not already in the record.
`
`The Parties will meet-and-confer by May 19, 2023, in a good faith effort to narrow claim
`
`construction disputes and discuss logistics for claim construction briefing to limit duplication and
`
`undue burden. The Parties will jointly file a stipulation setting forth agreed upon constructions on
`
`or before May 23, 2023. If the Parties fail to agree on the construction of any claim term, that term
`
`may be submitted to the Court for construction.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction Briefing.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 50 Filed 03/22/23 Page 15 of 18 PageID# 579
`
`On May 26, 2023, both Parties will file their opening claim construction briefs, together
`
`with any additional extrinsic evidence (e.g., expert testimony) in support thereof. On June 9, 2023,
`
`the Parties will file their responsive claim construction briefs in opposition together with any
`
`supporting extrinsic evidence. The Court will then set a claim construction hearing date
`
`convenient to the Court and all Parties. The Defendants in the separate Google and Apple matters
`
`each may submit separate briefing on all terms but will coordinate to limit duplication and undue
`
`burden.
`
`VIII. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
`
`A settlement conference is not requested at this time but may be requested by any Party at
`
`any time in this case. The Court may refer the Parties to consult with a Magistrate Judge or a third-
`
`party mediator regarding settlement.
`
`IX. MODIFICATION OF THIS PLAN
`
`Once adopted by the Court in the Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order, the terms of this Joint
`
`Discovery Plan may be modified by Order of the Court, which may be sought on a consent or
`
`contested motion. Nothing in this Joint Discovery Plan will be construed as precluding any Party
`
`from seeking a modification of any term in this Joint Discovery Plan.
`
`X.
`
`
`
`TRIAL.
`
`This case is set for trial by jury on all issues so triable. The parties do not consent to trial
`
`before the United States Magistrate Judge.
`
`XI. RULE 16(B) PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
`
`Given the Parties’ agreement on the terms of this Joint Discovery Plan, the Parties waive
`
`their appearances at the Rule 16(b) Conference and request that the Court enter a Rule 16(b)
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 50 Filed 03/22/23 Page 16 of 18 PageID# 580
`
`Scheduling Order adopting the terms of this Joint Discovery Plan. However, the Parties will
`
`appear if so directed by the Court.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 50 Filed 03/22/23 Page 17 of 18 PageID# 581
`
`JOINTLY SUBMITTED this 22nd day of March 2023.
`
`
`SPOTTS FAIN, P.C.
`
`
`
`/s/ Christopher W. Bascom
`Christopher W. Bascom (VSB No. 87302)
`John M. Erbach (VSB No. 76695)
`SPOTTS FAIN, P.C.
`Renaissance Centre
`411 East Franklin Street, Suite 600
`Richmond, Virginia 23219
`Tel: (302) 984-6300
`Fax: (804) 697-2144
`jerbach@spottsfain.com
`cbascom@spottsfain.com
`
`Timothy K. Gilman (pro hac vice)
`Saunak K. Desai (pro hac vice)
`Gregory Springsted (pro hac vice)
`Alexandra Judy Cho (pro hac vice)
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`180 Maiden Lane
`New York, NY 10038
`Tel: (212) 806-5400
`Fax: (212) 806-6006
`tgilman@stroock.com
`sdesai@stroock.com
`gspringsted@stroock.com
`ajcho@stroock.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Geoscope Technologies
`Pte. Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/
`Stephen E. Noona (VSB No. 25367)
`KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
`150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
`Norfolk, VA 23510-1665
`Telephone: (757) 624-3239
`Facsimile: (888) 360-9092
`senoona@kaufcan.com
`
`Edward J. Bennett (VSB No. 40118)
`Benjamin N. Hazelwood (VSB No.96058)
`Adam D. Harber (pro hac vice)
`Andrew V. Trask (pro hac vice)
`Michael Xun Liu (pro hac vice)
`Adam Pan (pro hac vice)
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`680 Maine Avenue SW
`Washington, DC 20024
`Telephone: (202) 434-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
`ebennett@wc.com
`bhazelwood@wc.com
`aharber@wc.com
`atrask@wc.com
`mliu@wc.com
`apan@wc.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Google LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-IDD Document 50 Filed 03/22/23 Page 18 of 18 PageID# 582
`
`PROPOSED CASE SCHEDULE (Sorted by Date)
`
`Event
`Preliminary Identification of Asserted Claims and Priority
`Dates
`Submission of Protective Order and ESI Protocol
`Initial Disclosures
`Preliminary Infringement Disclosures
`Parties to Make Initial Production
`Preliminary Disclosure and Production of Asserted Prior
`Art
`Preliminary Invalidity Disclosures
`Pre-Markman Claim Election
`
`Exchange of Claim Terms for Construction
`Exchange of Claim Constructions
`
`Substantial Completion of Document Production
`(excluding Third Party Discovery)
`Exchange of Privilege Logs
`
`Meet & Confer re Claim Construction
`Deadline to file Stipulation of Claim Constructions
`Opening Claim Construction Briefs
`Responsive Claim Construction Briefs
`Final Claim Narrowing
`Final Prior-Art Narrowing
`Opening Expert Reports;
`Final Contentions
`Responsive Expert Reports
`Close of Discovery
`
`Date
`
`March 27
`
`March 29
`April 5
`April 7
`April 11
`April 24
`
`May 1
`May 5
`
`May 12
`May 17
`
`May 19
`
`“promptly after substantial
`completion”
`May 19
`May 23
`May 26
`June 9
`June 12
`June 16
`June 26
`
`July 21
`August 11
`
`
`
`18
`
`