Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 70 Filed 11/30/20 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:1949
`
`John P. Schnurer (SBN 185725)
`JSchnurer@perkinscoie.com
`Yun (Louise) Lu (SBN 253114)
`LLu@perkinscoie.com
`Kyle R. Canavera (SBN 314664)
`KCanavera@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300
`San Diego, California 92130-2080
`Phone: (858) 720-5700
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`TCT Mobile (US) Inc., Huizhou TCL
`Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., and
`Shenzhen TCL Creative Cloud
`Technology Co., Ltd.
`
`William E. Thomson, Jr. (SBN 47195)
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2080
`Los Angeles, California 90017-5780
`Phone: (213) 622-3003
`wthomson@brookskushman.com
`
`Marc Lorelli (Admitted pro hac vice)
`mlorelli@brookskushman.com
`John P. Rondini (Admitted pro hac vice)
`jrondini@brookskushman.com
`Mark A. Cantor (Admitted pro hac vice)
`mcantor@brookskushman.com
`John S. LeRoy (Admitted pro hac vice)
`jleroy@brookskushman.com
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Phone: (248) 358-4400
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Ancora Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES,
`INC.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`Consolidated Case No.:
`Case No. 2:20-cv-01252-GW-ASx
`
`[Hon. George H. Wu]
`
`
`UPDATED JOINT CASE
`MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE
`
`Conference Date: December 3, 2020
`Conference time: 8:30 am
`Before Hon. George H. Wu
`United States Courthouse
`Courtroom: 9D, 9th Floor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`v.
`
`TCT MOBILE (US) INC.,
`HUIZHOU TCL MOBILE
`COMMUNICATION CO.,
`LTD., and SHENZHEN TCL
`CREATIVE CLOUD
`TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Updated Joint Case Management Schedule
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 70 Filed 11/30/20 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:1950
`
`
`
`1
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s order (Dkt. # 69) Plaintiff Ancora Technologies, Inc.
`
`2
`
`(hereafter “Plaintiff”), and Defendants TCT Mobile (US) Inc., Huizhou TCL Mobile
`
`3
`
`Communication Co., Ltd., and Shenzhen TCL Creative Cloud Technology Co., Ltd.,
`
`4
`
`(hereafter “Defendants” or “TCL”) submit the following Updated Joint Case
`
`5
`
`Management schedule:
`
`6
`
`
`
`Event
`
`Ancora’s
`
`TCL’s
`
`Proposed Date
`
`Proposed Date
`
`Amendments to Contentions (N.D. Cal.
`
`February 8, 2021
`
`
`
`LPR 3-6).
`
`Final Amendments to Infringement
`
`
`
`April 1, 2021
`
`Contentions
`
`Status Conference Regarding Inter Partes
`
`
`
`April 6, 2021
`
`Review
`
`Final Amendments to Invalidity
`
`
`
`May 13, 2021
`
`Contentions
`
`Advice of Counsel information (N.D.
`
`February 8, 2021 May 13, 2021
`
`Cal. LPR 3-7).
`
`Fact discovery cutoff.
`
`May 4, 2021
`
`August 2, 2021
`
`Opening expert witness disclosure (Fed.
`
`June 16, 2021
`
`None Proposed
`
`R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)) for party bearing the
`
`burden of proof.
`
`Rebuttal expert witness disclosure for
`
`July 16, 2021
`
`None Proposed
`
`party not bearing the burden of proof.
`
`Expert discovery cutoff.
`
`August 17, 2021
`
`None Proposed
`
`Updated Joint Case Management Schedule
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`1
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 70 Filed 11/30/20 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:1951
`
`
`
`Event
`
`Ancora’s
`
`TCL’s
`
`Proposed Date
`
`Proposed Date
`
`Last date to hear motions. Rule 56
`
`October 12, 2021 None Proposed
`
`motions must be filed at least 5 weeks
`
`before.
`
`Deadline to complete settlement
`
`October 12, 2021 None Proposed
`
`conference
`
`Opening trial filings: motions in limine,
`
`December 14,
`
`None Proposed
`
`witness and exhibit lists, jury
`
`2021
`
`instructions, etc.
`
`Responsive trial filings: oppositions/
`
`January 4, 2022
`
`None Proposed
`
`objections to Motions in limine, witness
`
`and exhibit lists, jury instructions, etc.
`
`Final Pretrial Conference.
`
`January 11, 2022 None Proposed
`
`Trial
`
`
`
`TCL’s Position
`
`January 24, 2022 None Proposed
`
`TCL respectfully requests that the Court enter dates only through the end of
`
`fact discovery, because setting a trial date at this time will increase the risk that the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) will issue a discretionary denial of TCL’s
`
`pending petition for inter partes review. As TCL explained in its Motion to Stay,
`
`the PTAB considers a trial date scheduled before the likely end of the inter partes
`
`review to weigh heavily in favor of denying a petition. (See Dkt. 59-1 at 18–22.)
`
`The PTAB generally does not take into account the fact that trial dates are often
`
`modified due to the need for more time during discovery or due to late-stage
`
`Updated Joint Case Management Schedule
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 70 Filed 11/30/20 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:1952
`
`
`
`1
`
`settlement discussions. (Id. at 15 (citing research finding that 70% or more of trial
`
`2
`
`dates used as the basis of a discretionary denial by the PTAB were eventually
`
`3
`
`extended).) In denying TCL’s Motion to Stay, the Court explained that such was not
`
`4
`
`a risk here because “the Court has not set a trial date in this case.” (Dkt. 65 at 6–7.)
`
`5
`
`TCL asks that the Court maintain that status quo for the time being, at least until the
`
`6
`
`PTAB determines whether it will grant TCL’s petition, which will occur no later
`
`7
`
`than March 30, 2021. TCL submits that, if the petition is not granted, then the Court
`
`8
`
`could set the remaining dates for the case at that time. If the petition is granted, TCL
`
`9
`
`expects to renew its motion to stay as indicated by the Court. (Dkt. 65 at 1, 7.)
`
`10
`
`As for the proposed dates that TCL does provide above, TCL provides the
`
`11
`
`following comments.
`
`12
`
`First, TCL believes that deadlines should be set for final amendments to
`
`13
`
`infringement and invalidity contentions, and that those deadlines should be
`
`14
`
`staggered. The Northern District of California Patent Local Rule 3-6 referenced by
`
`15
`
`Ancora is an event-triggered provision, not a deadline to be set by the Court. Rule
`
`16
`
`3-6 describes the circumstances in which a court is likely to grant a motion to amend
`
`17
`
`contentions, such as after the discovery of new prior art or new information on the
`
`18
`
`accused products. Thus, Rule 3-6 should not be the basis for a deadline set by the
`
`19
`
`Court. Rather, TCL submits that it would be appropriate for a final deadline by
`
`20
`
`which Ancora can amend its infringement contentions as of right, and a subsequent
`
`21
`
`deadline for TCL to do the same for its invalidity contentions. The latter may be
`
`22
`
`impacted by the manner in which Ancora ultimately maps the claim features to
`
`23
`
`TCL’s accused smartphones.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`Updated Joint Case Management Schedule
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 70 Filed 11/30/20 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:1953
`
`
`
`1
`
`Second, TCL believes that its proposed deadlines are more realistic and fairer.
`
`2
`
`Ancora served its first discovery requests the same week as the Markman hearing.
`
`3
`
`As such, fact discovery is in its early stages. With the upcoming holiday season in
`
`4
`
`the United States, as well as the Chinese New Year holidays impacting TCL’s
`
`5
`
`personnel in February, TCL believes that the early-February cutoff for amendments
`
`6
`
`to infringement contentions will put unnecessary pressure on the parties and their
`
`7
`
`counsel, especially in light of Ancora’s lack of urgency in bringing this suit in the
`
`8
`
`first place. (See Dkt. 59-1 at 16–17 (explaining that Ancora waited three years after
`
`9
`
`accusing similar functionality in HTC smartphones prior to bringing the present
`
`10
`
`action).)
`
`11
`
`In addition, there are impediments to conducting depositions of any of TCL’s
`
`12
`
`personnel resident in mainland China. As the Court is likely aware, it is illegal for
`
`13
`
`anyone to participate in a deposition in mainland China without the permission of
`
`14
`
`the Chinese government. See United States Department of State, China Judicial
`
`15
`
`Assistance Information (2019),
`
`16
`
`https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/Judicial-Assistance-Country-
`
`17
`
`Information/China.html (“China does not permit attorneys to take depositions in
`
`18
`
`China for use in foreign courts. . . . Participation in such activity could result in the
`
`19
`
`arrest, detention or deportation of the American attorneys and other participants.”
`
`20
`
`(emphasis in original)); see also Swimways Corp. v. Zuru, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-334,
`
`21
`
`2014 WL 12603190, at *2 (E.D. Va. June 6, 2014) (observing the same). The
`
`22
`
`typical solution is to have a witness travel to Hong Kong or another locale to sit for
`
`23
`
`the deposition. At present, any such traveler would be subject to a multi-week
`
`24
`
`quarantine on travel in each direction. TCL submits that it is appropriate to leave
`
`Updated Joint Case Management Schedule
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`4
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 70 Filed 11/30/20 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:1954
`
`
`
`1
`
`more time for the later stages of fact discovery in order to account for these COVID-
`
`2
`
`related complications, or to allow them to subside.
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`
`
`By: /s/ Kyle R. Canavera*
`John P. Schnurer (SBN 185725)
`JSchnurer@perkinscoie.com
`Yun (Louise) Lu (SBN 253114)
`LLu@perkinscoie.com
`Kyle R. Canavera (SBN 314664)
`KCanavera@perkinscoie.com
`11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300
`San Diego, California 92130-2080
`Phone: (858) 720-5700
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`TCT Mobile (US) Inc., Huizhou TCL
`Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., and
`Shenzhen TCL Creative Cloud
`Technology Co., Ltd.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`
`
`
` /s/ John P. Rondini
`Marc Lorelli (Admitted pro hac vice)
`mlorelli@brookskushman.com
`John P. Rondini (Admitted pro hac
`vice)
`jrondini@brookskushman.com
`Mark A. Cantor (Admitted pro hac vice)
`mcantor@brookskushman.com
`John S. LeRoy (Admitted pro hac vice)
`jleroy@brookskushman.com
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Phone: (248) 358-4400
`
`William E. Thomson, Jr. (SBN 47195)
`445 S. Figueroa St., Suite 3100
`Los Angeles, California 90071-1635
`Phone: (213) 622-3003
`wthomson@brookskushman.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Ancora Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`Date: November 30, 2020
`
`
`
` *
`
` Pursuant to Local Rule 5-4.3.4(a)(2), the filing party attests that Defendants’
`counsel concurs in the content of this Updated Joint Case Management Schedule and
`has authorized its filing with his electronic signature.
`
`
`Updated Joint Case Management Schedule
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`5
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`