WHEREAS on December 21, 2022, the Preliminary Conference Order was filed (NYSCEF No. 53) (“PCO”); WHEREAS, Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC (“TWCE”) and Nokia of America Corporation (“Nokia”) have been negotiating in good faith regarding the scheduling of a final deposition of a Nokia employee covering a limited number of topics; WHEREAS, due to the parties’ continued discussions regarding the scope of the topics for examination, TWCE and Nokia have agreed that the deposition may take place outside of the fact discovery and fact deposition periods; WHEREAS, the Court has ordered that the end date for all disclosure is June 25, 2024 (NYSCEF No. 144) but the deadline to file a note of issue remains June 17, 2024 (NYSCEF No. 140);

The remaining deposition may be taken outside of the fact discovery and fact deposition periods;

The deadline to file a note of issue will be extended to June 28, 2024; and

All other deadlines set forth in the PCO as amended by the Court’s subsequent orders will remain the same.

Attorneys for Plaintiff Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC

WHEREAS on December 21, 2022, the Preliminary Conference Order was filed (NYSCEF No. 53) (PCO); WHEREAS, on November 30, 2023, Defendant Nokia of America Corporation (Nokia) served third party subpoenas on Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP (APKS) and Latham & Watkins LLP (Latham); WHEREAS, at APKSs request, Nokia agreed to meet and confer regarding the APKS subpoena after party depositions and party depositions concluded in March 2024; WHEREAS, Nokia and Latham have been negotiating in good faith regarding the Latham subpoena, and Latham has agreed to be deposed through a retired corporate representative who is available on May 15, 2024; WHEREAS, APKS, Latham, Nokia, and Plaintiff Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC have agreed that the APKS and Latham depositions may take place outside of the fact discovery and fact deposition periods;

The depositions of APKS and Latham may be taken outside of the fact discovery and fact deposition periods; and

All deadlines set forth in the PCO as amended by the Courts subsequent orders will remain the same.

Attorneys for Plaintiff Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC

Attorneys for Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

The claims of the Asserted Patents allegedly “require various components to send or receive signals (or messages) to control the playback of videos from various media players over a network, with precise requirements varying by claim.” (Id. ¶ 18.)

A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads enough facts to allow the Court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

As this Court has repeatedly recognized, “allegations that a defendant continues its allegedly infringing conduct even after receiving notice of a complaint are sufficient to at least state a claim for post-suit willful infringement.” Argina Tech. Ltd. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, 2:21-CV-00172-JRG, 2022 WL 610796, at *6 (E.D.

)5 Additionally, this Court has routinely rejected Comcast’s argument that “[a] plaintiff must allege ‘facts raising a plausible inference of the egregious behavior required under Halo.’” (Dkt. No. 65 at 9 (quoting Meetrix IP, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 1-18-CV-309-LY, 2018 WL 8261315, at *3 (W.D.

Neither Mentor Graphics nor In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) limit a plaintiff’s ability to state a claim for post-suit willfulness based on notice supplied by a complaint, as this Court and others have recognized.

The Court issues this Order sua sponte.

The Court recently granted a Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. No. 17) in the above-captioned Lead Case No. 2:23-cv-00060-JRG.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Lead Case is hereby DECONSOLIDATED from Member Case Nos. 2:23-cv-00059-JRG and 2:23-cv-00062-JRG.

It is further ORDERED that Member Case Nos. 2:23-cv-00059-JRG and 2:23-cv-00062-JRG remain CONSOLIDATED for pretrial purposes, with Case No. 2:23-cv-00059-JRG being designated as the new lead case.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of March, 2024.

Before the Court is the Joint Stipulation to Stay Deadlines Pending Transfer (“the Motion”)1 filed by Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and defendants Altice

1 Dkt. No. 153 is styled as a “Joint Stipulation,” but the filing is more accurately titled a “Motion,” given that Plaintiff and Altice “jointly move for a stay of all deadlines.” (Dkt. No. 153 at 1 (emphasis added).)

USA, Inc.; Cequel Communications, LLC; CSC Holdings, LLC; and Friendship Cable of Texas, Inc. (“Altice”).

In the Motion, Plaintiff and Altice “jointly request an order staying the deadlines in the Docket Control Order and any deadlines under the Local Rules, including the deadlines for ESI, any further briefing concerning Touchstream’s Motion for Leave to Amend, and Altice’s responses to Touchstream’s First Set of Individual Interrogatories, pending the [Eastern District of New York’s] entry of a Scheduling Order for this Case.” (Id. at 3.)

It is therefore ORDERED that this case is hereby STAYED pending the Eastern District of New York’s entry of a Scheduling Order for this case.

The Court issues this Order sua sponte.

The Court recently granted a Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. No. 17) in the above-captioned Lead Case No. 2:23-cv-00060-JRG.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Lead Case is hereby DECONSOLIDATED from Member Case Nos. 2:23-cv-00059-JRG and 2:23-cv-00062-JRG.

It is further ORDERED that Member Case Nos. 2:23-cv-00059-JRG and 2:23-cv-00062-JRG remain CONSOLIDATED for pretrial purposes, with Case No. 2:23-cv-00059-JRG being designated as the new lead case.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of March, 2024.

The Court issues this Order sua sponte.

It is ORDERED that Jane Du be appointed as the Court’s technical advisor in the above-captioned matter, with her fees and expenses to be assessed equally between the parties as the Court may direct, and timely paid as billed.

If the document was filed with the Court, the copy must include the CM/ECF header.

For claim construction materials that have already been filed, the filing party is ORDERED to provide copies to Ms. Du within two business days.

Otherwise, the filing party is ORDERED to provide copies to Ms. Du no later than one business day after filing future claim construction material.

WHEREAS Paragraph 2 of the First Order provides that the Parties must complete fact discovery by March 8, 2024; WHEREAS Paragraph 1 of the Second Order provides that the Parties must complete all (both party and non-party) deposition(s) noticed or agreed to by stipulation by March 8, 2024;WHEREAS, the Parties request an additional two-week extension of the fact discovery period to complete depositions, document production and other discovery, as set forth below:

The deadline to serve responses and objections to supplemental contention interrogatories shall be extended to March 25, 2024.

The deadline to exchange initial expert witness reports by either party will be April 19, 2024;

The deadline to exchange rebuttal expert witness reports by either party will be May 17, 2024;

Attorneys for Plaintiff Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC

Before the Court is the Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Counsel (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc. (“Plaintiff”).

In the Motion, Plaintiff requests that Michael W. Gray be permitted to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff because he is changing law firms and will no longer be employed by Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. (Id. at 1.)

Having considered the Motion, and noting its unopposed nature, the Court is of the opinion that it should be and hereby is GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Michael W. Gray be permitted to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff in the above-captioned case.

It is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall terminate Michael W. Gray as counsel of record and all electronic notifications to the same.

WHEREAS on December 21, 2022, the Preliminary Conference Order was filed (NYSCEF No. 53) (“PCO”); WHEREAES, on January 23, 2024, the Court entered an Order to, among other things, extend the fact and expert discovery periods in the above-captioned case (NYSCEF No. 140) (the “Order”).

WHEREAS Paragraph 1 of the Order provides that the Parties must complete all (both party and non-party) deposition(s) noticed or agreed to by stipulation by March 1, 2024; WHEREAS Paragraph 2 of the Order provides that the Parties must complete fact discovery by March 8, 2024; WHEREAS the Parties have taken twelve (12) depositions between December 18, 2023 and February 22, 2024 and have been negotiating over several remaining noticed depositions; the parties have met and conferred over their disagreements and require one (1) additional week beyond the current deposition deadline to allow for scheduling to complete the remaining deposition(s); WHEREAS in view of the foregoing, the Parties request a brief one-week extension to complete fact depositions on the same date as the completion of fact discovery, as set forth below:

The deadline to complete all depositions (both party and non-party) noticed or agreed to by stipulation or email shall be extended to March 8, 2024;

All other deadlines set forth in the PCO as amended by the Court’s subsequent orders, including the Order, will remain the same.

Attorneys for Plaintiff Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC Dated: New York, New York February 29, 2024

Before the Court is the Motion to Change Designation of Lead Attorney and Attorney to Be Noticed (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc. (“Plaintiff”).

In the Motion, Plaintiff requests that Ryan D. Dykal replace Michael W. Gray as lead attorney in the above-captioned cases.

Having considered the Motion, the Court is of the opinion that it should be and hereby is GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court designate Ryan D. Dykal as the lead counsel and attorney to be noticed for Plaintiff in place of Michael W. Gray.

So Ordered this Feb 21, 2024

AMGEN INC. v. SANOFI A group of intellectual property professors and Glax- oSmithKline plc.

separately move unopposed for leave to file briefs as amici curiae in support of rehearing en banc.

Biogen Inc., Corning Incorporated, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. also move unopposed for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in support of rehearing en banc and for leave to file an entry of appearance for new counsel.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. further move to withdraw their current counsel.

(1) The motions for leave to file briefs as amici curiae are granted.

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in Nos. 1:14-cv-01317-RGA, 1:14-cv-

AMGEN INC. v. SANOFI Aventisub LLC, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC move for a 29-day ex- tension of time, until May 28, 2021, to file a response to the petition for rehearing en banc.

The motion is granted.