Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Modify Case Schedule.

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

Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint by March 31, 2025.

It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall move, answer, or otherwise respond to the amended complaint by April 14, 2025.

SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.

VIDEOLABS, INC. and VL

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Move, Answer, or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint and Waiver of Foreign Service Requirement.

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

Therefore it is ORDERED that the deadline for Defendants Hisense Co. Ltd., Hisense Visual Technology Co. Ltd. F/K/A Qingdao Hisense Electric Co. Ltd.; Hisense International Co. Ltd.; Hisense International (Hong Kong) America Investments Co. Ltd., Guiyang Hisense Electronics Co., Ltd., Hisense Electronica Mexico S.A. De C.V. and Hisense International (HK) Co. Ltd. to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is hereby extended until April 2, 2025.

Case 2:24-cv-00904-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: It is further ORDERED that service of process for Defendants Hisense Co. Ltd., Hisense Visual Technology Co. Ltd. F/K/A Qingdao Hisense Electric Co. Ltd.; Hisense International Co. Ltd.; Hisense International (Hong Kong) America Investments Co. Ltd., Guiyang Hisense Electronics Co., Ltd., Hisense Electronica Mexico S.A. De C.V. and Hisense International (HK) Co. Ltd. has been waived.

Deadline for the second of two meet and confers to discuss narrowing the number of claims asserted and prior art references at issue to triable limits.

The parties are ordered to retain the written offers of settlement and response as the Court will use these in assessing attorneys’ fees and costs at the conclusion of the proceedings.

Parties to jointly email the Court’s law clerk (See OGP at 1) to confirm their pretrial conference and trial dates.

File Joint Pretrial Order and Pretrial Submissions (jury instructions, exhibits lists, witness lists, deposition designations); file oppositions to motions in limine From this date onwards, the parties are obligated to notify the Court of any changes to the asserted patents or claims.

Such notification shall be filed on the docket within seven (7) days of the change and shall include a complete listing of all asserted patents and claims.

The Court issues this Order to memorialize the Court’s final claim construction rulings for the parties, and to inform the parties that the Court will issue a more-detailed Order explaining its analysis in due course.

¶ 6. security the processing Function: security the “processing security the “processing Function: messages on the conditional access server Function: messages on the conditional access messages on the conditional access server” Structure: conditional access server server” having a processor to process the security servers, Structure: Secondary CA messages and generate access controlled Structure: Structure: hardware and including hardware and software of data; satellite TV bridges (207, 209), software of digital data processing digital data processing system (e.g., cable TV bridges (217, 219); set top system, e.g., microprocessor (103), of computer system), media player, boxes (257); cable and satellite servers FIG. 1, and their description in the personal computer, or PDA, cable TV (227, 225).

interface (289) in FIG. 2B, and their description in the specification, e.g., at 8:46-49; network (201), satellite TV bridges (207, 209), cable TV bridges (217, 219), cable TV secondary CA server (225), satellite TV secondary CA server (227), or wireless connection (245) in FIG. 3, and their description in the specification; transmitted access controlled data, and their descriptions in the specification, e.g., 3:55-58, 8:6-16, 15:13-17; network interface within secondary CA servers in FIG. 5 (431,

conditional access server through a network connection, access controlled data that is in an access controlled format and that is at least partially derived from a security message of the primary security system in a first security domain, the secondary conditional access client being in a second security domain” clients, Structure: Secondary CA including storage, media player, personal computer, TV, display device, PDA, renderer or devices of the user as illustrated in Figs. 2A (271, 273, or 279), 3 (221, 223, 229, 235, 231, 233, 237, 247,

conditional access server through a network connection, access controlled data that is in an access controlled format and that is at least partially derived from a security message of the primary security system in a first security domain, the secondary conditional access client being in a second security domain” Structure: I/O Device(s) (110) (e.g., modem, or network interface) in FIG. 1, and their description in the specification; secondary CA clients (271, 273, or 279) in FIG. 2A, and their description in the specification; network (201), storage (221, 223, 229, 235), media player (231), personal computer (233), TV (237, 247), display device (239), or PDA (243) in FIG. 3, and their description in the specification; secondary CA clients of FIGS. 5-9, or 10A, and their description in the specification; media player (775) in FIG. 10C, and its description in the Access point and network as illustrated in Fig. 3 (201, 241) and their description in the specification; or Equivalents thereof.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is reset for Reset MARKMAN HEARING VIA ZOOM (changing from in person to zoom only) on Thursday, August 15, 2024 at 02:00 PM (2 hour time block) before the Honorable Derek T. Gilliland.

The Zoom hearing link will be provided to counsel of record.

1st day of August, 2024.

Derek T. Gilliland

VIDEOLABS, INC. and VL COLLECTIVE

AND NOW, this 26th day of July 2024, upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 36) and the statements of the parties made at the July 25, 2024 telephone conference, it is ORDERED that: 1.

Defendant’s Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 36) is GRANTED.

All proceedings in this case are stayed until January 12, 2025.

The parties shall provide a joint status report to the Court within seven (7) business days of when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issues final written decisions in the following inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings: IPR2023-00628,

The defendant shall also produce (1) all prior art referenced in the invalidity contentions, and (2) technical OGP Version 4.4 documents, including software where applicable, sufficient to show the operation of the accused product(s).2

Written Order.7 Within 7 days of the discovery hearing, the parties shall email a joint proposed order to the Court’s law clerk that includes the parties’ positions from their dispute chart, the parties’ requested relief, and the parties’ understanding of the Court’s ruling so that the arguments and outcome can be docketed.

Any party who intends to present confidential information in a remote hearing shall email and notify the Court’s law clerk to request a private Zoom setup that will not be publicly broadcasted.

A pleading, motion, or other submission shall be typed or printed in 12-point or larger font (including footnotes), double-spaced, on paper sized 8½” x 11” with one-inch margins on all sides and shall be endorsed with the style of the case and the descriptive name of the document.

Court MIL No. 7: race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, or health (including but not limited to vaccination status) of a party, witness, attorney, or law firm.

The defendant shall also produce (1) all prior art referenced in the invalidity contentions, and (2) technical OGP Version 4.4 documents, including software where applicable, sufficient to show the operation of the accused product(s).2

Written Order.7 Within 7 days of the discovery hearing, the parties shall email a joint proposed order to the Court’s law clerk that includes the parties’ positions from their dispute chart, the parties’ requested relief, and the parties’ understanding of the Court’s ruling so that the arguments and outcome can be docketed.

Any party who intends to present confidential information in a remote hearing shall email and notify the Court’s law clerk to request a private Zoom setup that will not be publicly broadcasted.

A pleading, motion, or other submission shall be typed or printed in 12-point or larger font (including footnotes), double-spaced, on paper sized 8½” x 11” with one-inch margins on all sides and shall be endorsed with the style of the case and the descriptive name of the document.

Court MIL No. 7: race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, or health (including but not limited to vaccination status) of a party, witness, attorney, or law firm.

Scheduling Conference IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is set for Set SCHEDULING CONFERENCE on Thursday, May 30, 2024 at 03:30 PM (30 minute time block) before the Honorable Derek T. Gilliland.

The Zoom hearing link will be provided to Zoom counsel of record via email.

22nd day of May, 2024.

Derek T. Gilliland

On this day the Court considered the status of this case.

This case is set for an in-person status conference and hearing on all pending motions, if any, on Thursday, March 21, 2024 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom H, United States Courthouse, 262 West Nueva, San Antonio, Texas 78207.

If the parties wish to proceed via Zoom, they must notify the Courtroom Deputy, Sylvia Fernandez, at least 48 hours in advance.

The parties should be prepared to discuss all pending motions.

SIGNED February 20, 2024.

On November 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint alleging patent infringement against Defendants.

On December 23, 2024, the Court entered an order extending the time for all Defendants to move, answer or otherwise respond to April 2, 2025.

On March 24, 2025, Defendants replaced their counsel with the attorneys of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

On March 25, 2025, to facilitate an orderly and efficient process, the parties agreed that Plaintiffs would file an amended complaint by March 31, 2025, and Defendants would answer that amended complaint by April 14, 2025.

WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request the Court to modify the case schedule such that Plaintiffs are required to file an amended complaint by March 31, 2025, and Defendants are required to move, answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint by April 14, 2025.

P 26(f) to submit (1) a proposed scheduling order and (2) a Rule 26(f) Report in the formats shown in the attached documents for the Court’s consideration by February 16, 2024.

Plaintiff in the above-captioned case elects as follows (please select only one of the following options): I consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with provisions of Title 28 U.S.C.

Defendant in the above-captioned case elects as follows (please select only one of the following options): □ I consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with provisions of Title 28 U.S.C.

The parties are ordered to retain the written offers of settlement and response as the Court will use these in assessing attorneys' fees and costs at the conclusion of the proceedings.

Are there any reasons this case requires provisions that are not typical of the form protective order set forth in Appendix H to the Local Rules?

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, STACEY G. WHITE, and BRIAN P. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

Petitioner ASUSTek Computer Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 requesting institution of inter partes review of claims 48–50, 57, 82–84, 91, 116–118, 125, and 140–142 of U.S. Patent No. 8,291,236 B2 (Ex. 1001, “’236 patent”).

On February 27, 2025, pursuant to our authorization, Petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw the Petition “through dismissal.” Paper 9 (“Motion to Dismiss”), 1.

Joinder of a party to an instituted inter partes review is also within the Director’s sound discretion, which has been delegated to the Board.

35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (“[T]he Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person who properly files a petition.