`
`In the United States Court of Federal Claims
`No. 19-859
`(Filed: 29 March 2024)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`***************************************
`E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS, INC., and
`*
`E-NUMERATE, LLC,
`*
`
`
`*
`
`Plaintiffs,
`*
`
`
`*
`v.
`
`*
`
`
`*
`THE UNITED STATES,
`*
`
`
`*
`
`Defendant.
`*
`
`
`*
`***************************************
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`HOLTE, Judge.
`
`On 14 March 2024, the parties filed a joint status report (JSR). JSR, ECF No. 117.
`Plaintiffs requested a status conference to address the following disputes: (1) whether the Court
`will set a trial date; (2) limits on number of claims/patents; (3) page limits on motion for
`summary judgment briefing; (4) limits on discovery; and (5) e-Numerate’s contention the
`government has failed to produce documents. JSR at 7. The Court accordingly sets the
`following limits on discovery and schedules an in-person status conference on 8 July 2024 at
`2:30 p.m. (ET) at the National Courts Building in Washington, DC, to discuss any remaining
`disputes or necessary adjustments to the schedule or discovery limits:
`
`(1) the Court will defer setting a trial date until a later time;
`(2) the Court will not limit the number of asserted claims, prior art references, or
`invalidity contentions at this time;
`(3) the Court will follow Rule 5.4 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal
`Claims (“RCFC”) for briefing limits;
`(4) the Court limits depositions to 140 hours per party (i.e., 140 collective hours for
`plaintiffs, and 140 collective hours for the government), all experts may be deposed by
`the opposing party for up to seven hours per report, and expert depositions will not count
`toward the total hours limit on depositions1;
`
`
`1 Under Judge Albright’s standing order governing patent proceedings, the presumptive limit for fact depositions is
`70 hours per side and seven hours per expert report. See Standing Order Governing Proceedings (OGP) 4.4—
`Patent Cases, at 3 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2024). The Court notes the large number of asserted claims in this case and
`the Court’s construction of 35 terms—almost three times the standing order’s presumed limit for seven patents. See
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 118 Filed 03/29/24 Page 2 of 4
`
`(5) the Court limits the requests for production to 75 per side2;
`(6) the Court will discuss plaintiffs’ scope of production contentions at the in-person
`status conference on 8 July 2024.
`
`The Parties SHALL FILE a joint status report on or before 1 July 2024 outlining:
`
`(1) plaintiff’s asserted claims as reduced 17 June 2024;
`(2) the government’s anticipated number of prior art references for deadline 15 July
`2024;
`(3) the government’s anticipated amendments to its infringement and invalidity
`contentions for deadline 5 August 2024;
`(4) the total count of documents and document images produced to date from each party;
`(5) a general summary of the collection, review, and production efforts since the start of
`fact discovery;
`(6) the volume of documents remaining to be reviewed, including an explanation of any
`extent to which the total volume remains unknown; and
`(7) a list of discussion items for each party in preparation for the 8 July 2024 status
`conference with the Court.
`
`
`The Court accordingly SETS the following schedule for further proceedings:
`
`EVENT
`Fact Discovery Opens & Initial Disclosures
`Served
`
`DEADLINE
`1 April 2024
`
`Deadline to Add Parties
`
`Deadline for Plaintiffs to reduce the number of
`asserted claims
`
`6 May 2024
`
`17 June 2024
`
`The parties shall file a JSR including the items
`outlined supra
`
`1 July 2024
`
`
`id. at 7. The Court accordingly finds 140 hours—twice the presumed limit—is an appropriate limit for depositions
`in this case. The Court will discuss these limits and any necessary scheduling adjustments at the in-person status
`conference on 8 July 2024 and anticipates plaintiffs reducing the number of asserted claims over the course of
`discovery.
`2 Judge Albright’s standing order similarly limits parties to 75 requests for production each. See id. at 3.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 118 Filed 03/29/24 Page 3 of 4
`
`In-person status conference at the National
`Courts Building in Washington, DC
`
`8 July 2024 at 2:30 pm (ET)
`
`Deadline for Defendant to reduce the number
`of prior art references
`
`15 July 2024
`
`Final Infringement and Invalidity Contentions 5 August 2024
`
`Deadline to Amend Pleadings
`
`Meet and Confer on Claims
`Asserted/Invalidity Theories
`
`Close of Fact Discovery
`
`Opening Expert Reports
`
`12 August 2024
`
`19 August 2024
`
`1 October 2025
`
`8 January 2026
`
`Rebuttal Expert Reports
`
`9 February 2026
`
`Reply Expert Reports
`
`12 March 2026
`
`Close of Expert Discovery
`
`Second Meet and Confer
`
`3 April 2026
`
`1 May 2026
`
`Deadline to file Dispositive Motions
`
`15 May 2026
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 118 Filed 03/29/24 Page 4 of 4
`
`Deadline to respond to any dispositive motions 12 June 2026
`
`Deadline to reply to any dispositive motions
`
`26 June 2026
`
`On 18 October 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice with
`respect to Count VIII of plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 53. Joint Stipulation
`of Dismissal, ECF No. 101. In the Joint Stipulation, the parties indicated “on September 22,
`2022, the [U.S. Patent and Trademark Office] issued an ex parte reexamination certificate for
`[U.S. Patent No. 10,423,708] cancelling claims 1, 10, and 17, the only claims of the ’708 Patent
`asserted in this action.” Id. at 1. The parties stipulated and agreed to dismissal with prejudice of
`Count VIII of the Second Amended Complaint in which infringement of the ’708 Patent was
`alleged. Id. at 2. The Court accordingly GRANTS the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal, ECF No.
`101, with prejudice as to Count VIII of the Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 53, with each
`party to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs as stipulated.
`
`As discussed supra, the Court schedules an in-person status conference on 8 July 2024 at
`2:30 p.m. (ET) at the National Courts Building in Washington, DC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Ryan T. Holte
`RYAN T. HOLTE
`Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`