Alan M. Fisch (pro hac vice)
`alan.fisch@fischllp.com
`R. William Sigler (pro hac vice)
`bill.sigler@fischllp.com
`Jeffrey M. Saltman (pro hac vice)
`jeffrey.saltman@fischllp.com
`Lisa Phillips (pro hac vice)
`lisa.phillips@fischllp.com
`Adam A. Allgood (SBN:295016)
`adam.allgood@fischllp.com
`Matthew R. Benner (pro hac vice)
`matthew.benner@fischllp.com
`FISCH SIGLER LLP
`5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
`Fourth Floor
`Washington, DC 20015
`Tel: 202.362.3500
`Fax: 202.362.3501
`
`Ken K. Fung (SBN: 283854)
`ken.fung@fischllp.com
`FISCH SIGLER LLP
`400 Concar Drive
`San Mateo, CA 94402
`Tel: 650.362.8200
`Fax: 202.362.3501
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff,
`Largan Precision Co., Ltd.
`
`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
`27
`28
`
`Keith B. Davis
`kbdavis@jonesday.com
`JONES DAY
`2727 North Harwood Street
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 220-3939
`Facsimile: (214) 969-5100
`
`William E. Devitt
`wdevitt@jonesday.com
`JONES DAY
`77 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 3500
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`Telephone: (312) 269-4240
`Facsimile: (312) 782-8585
`
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`Ability Opto-Electronics
`Technology Co., Ltd.
`
`Melissa R. Smith
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: 903.934.8450
`Facsimile: 903.934.9257
`
`Sasha G. Rao
`srao@maynardcooper.com
`Brandon H. Stroy
`bstroy@maynardcooper.com
`MAYNARD COOPER & GALE, LLP
`600 Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: 415.646.4702
`Fax: 205.254.1999
`
`Attorneys for Defendant, HP Inc.
`
`AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`
`AOET, Ex. 1019
`
`

`

`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
`27
`28
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`LARGAN PRECISION CO., LTD.,
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-06607-JD
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`ABILITY OPTO-ELECTRONICS
`TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
`AND HP INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`AMENDED JOINT CASE
`MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
`STATEMENT
`
`Date: January 7, 2021
`Time: 10:00am
`Place: Courtroom 11, 19th Floor
`Judge: Honorable James Donato
`
`Pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-9, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), Patent Local Rule 2-
`1(b), the Standing Order for Civil Cases Before Judge James Donato, the Standing Order for All
`Judges of the Northern District of California – Contents of Joint Case Management Statement,
`the Court’s Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines (Dkt. No.
`148), and the January 7, 2021 case management conference and subsequent minute entry (Dkt.
`No. 170), Plaintiff Largan Precision Co., Ltd. (“Largan”) and Defendants, Ability Opto-
`Electronics Technology Co., Ltd. (“Ability”) and HP Inc. (“HP”) (Ability and HP together,
`“Defendants”) (Largan and Defendants collectively, the “Parties”), having met and conferred,
`submit this Amended Joint Case Management Conference Statement.
`1.
`Jurisdiction, Venue, and Service
`Jurisdiction, venue and service information are included in the joint pre-case
`management conference filing.1 See Dkt. No. 165, at 2-3.
`
`1 The Parties have included each of the sections required under the Standing Order for all
`Judges of the Northern District of California - Contents of Joint Case Management Statement.
`The Parties have provided a cross-reference to the information in their pre-case management
`conference filing where necessary for brevity.
`-2-
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`AOET, Ex. 1019
`
`

`

`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
`27
`28
`
`2.
`
`Facts and Principal Factual Issues in Dispute
`A.
`Brief Chronology of the Facts
`A brief chronology of the facts, and the Parties’ positions relating to them, are included
`in the joint pre-case management conference filing. See Dkt. No. 165, at 3-4.
`1. Claim Construction
`The Parties have proposed dates addressing the Patent Local Rule’s claim construction
`process and the Court’s Standing Order for Claim Construction in Patent Cases in Section 18
`(“Scheduling”). The proposed dates follow the Court’s direction during the January 7, 2021 case
`management conference that the claim construction hearing be scheduled after the completion of
`fact discovery.
`2. Discovery
`The Parties have included a date for the completion of fact discovery in Section 18
`(“Scheduling”). The proposed date follows the Court’s direction that fact discovery should be
`completed six-to-eight months after the January 7, 2021 case management conference.
`3. Inter Partes Review
`Ability has filed petitions for inter parties review (“IPRs”) seeking review of all of the
`asserted claims of the ’796 and ’691 patents. Ability has also filed an IPR seeking review of all
`but one of the asserted claims of the ’378 patent (claim 9). The Board is expected to decide
`whether to institute the IPRs on the ’796 and ’691 patents on or before February 23, 2021, and
`on the ’378 patent on or before March 18, 2021. The one-year statutory deadline for filing an IPR
`against the ’518 patent has passed, with neither Ability nor HP challenging that patent. The
`Parties will promptly advise the Court of any developments at the PTAB. Dkt. No. 170.
`B.
`Principal Factual Issues in Dispute
`The Parties’ positions on the principal factual issues in dispute are included in the joint
`pre-case management conference filing. See Dkt. No. 165, at 13-14.
`4.
`Legal Issues
`The Parties’ positions on the legal issues presented are included in the joint pre-case
`management conference filing. See Dkt. No. 165, at 14-15.
`
`-3-
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`AOET, Ex. 1019
`
`

`

`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
`27
`28
`
`5. Motions
`A.
`Prior Motions
`The prior motions, and the Parties’ positions relating to them, are included in the joint
`pre-case management conference filing. See Dkt. No. 165, at 15-17.
`B.
`Pending Motions
`No motions by any party were pending at the time the Federal Circuit granted HP’s
`Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.
`C.
`Anticipated Motions
`
`The Parties’ positions relating to anticipated motions are included in the joint pre-case
`
`management conference filing. See Dkt. No. 165, at 17-19.
`
`7.
`
`6.
`
`Amendment of Pleadings
`The Parties don’t expect to add or dismiss parties, claims, or defenses.
`Evidence Preservation
`The Parties met and conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) regarding reasonable and
`proportionate steps to preserve evidence relevant to the issues in this action on February 18, 2020
`and again on December 3, 2020 after transfer. The Parties certify that they have reviewed the
`Standing Order for E-Discovery and Email Discovery in Patent Cases Before Judge James
`Donato, the Guidelines Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (“ESI
`Guidelines”), and the Court’s Checklist for ESI Meet and Confer.
`8.
`Disclosures
`The Parties made their Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures on May 18, 2020. Each party
`reserves its right to amend such disclosures as discovery progresses.
`9.
`Discovery
`A.
`Discovery taken to date
`The discovery taken to date, and the Parties’ positions relating to it, are included in the
`joint pre-case management conference filing. See Dkt. No. 165, at 19-24.
`
`-4-
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`AOET, Ex. 1019
`
`

`

`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
`27
`28
`
`
`
`B. Discovery Orders
`
`The Parties agreed before transfer to a Protective Order, a Discovery Order and an Order
`Regarding E-Discovery. See Dkt. Nos. 75, 76 and 77. The Parties are working together to jointly
`prepare updated versions of these orders that track the Parties’ previously agreed terms and to
`conform to this Court’s Standing Orders. The Parties expect to file these revised versions for
`the Court’s approval within 30 days of filing this statement.
`C. The scope of anticipated discovery
`The Parties’ positions regarding the scope of anticipated discovery are included in the
`joint pre-case management conference filing. See Dkt. No. 165, at 24-25.
`D. Any proposed limitations or modifications of the discovery rules
`Proposed limitations or modifications of the discovery rules are included in the joint pre-
`case management conference filing. See Dkt. No. 165, at 26-27. The Parties will also include
`these proposals in the revised discovery orders.
`Proposed discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)
`E.
`The Parties’ proposed schedule for completing discovery is set forth in Section 18 below.
`F. Any identified discovery disputes
`The Parties’ positions relating to identified and anticipated discovery disputes are
`included in the joint pre-case management conference filing. See Dkt. No. 165, at 27-28.
`G. Topics Required Under Patent Local Rule 2-1 (b)
`1.
`Proposed modification of the obligations or deadlines set forth in these Patent
`
`Local Rules to ensure that they are suitable for the circumstances of the
`
`particular case (see Patent L.R. 1-3).
`The proposed dates in Section 18 below follow the Court’s direction during the January
`7, 2021 case management conference that the claim construction hearing be scheduled after the
`completion of fact discovery. And these proposed dates follow the Court’s direction that, aside
`from the claim construction process, obligations and deadlines set forth in the Patent Local Rules
`which have already been met need not be repeated. Those include the service of infringement and
`
`-5-
`
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`AOET, Ex. 1019
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`27
`28
`
`invalidity contentions and the documents accompanying those disclosures. See Patent L.R. 3-1,
`3-2, 3-3 and 3-4.
`2.
`The scope and timing of any claim construction discovery including disclosure of
`
`and discovery from any expert witness permitted by the Court.
`The Parties have included dates for the service of expert reports in support of claim
`construction and for the conclusion of claim construction discovery in Section 18.
`3.
`The format of the Claim Construction Hearing, including whether the Court will
`
`hear live testimony, the order of presentation, and the estimated length of the
`
`hearing.
`The Parties do not believe that live testimony would be useful or necessary for the claim
`construction hearing. The Parties defer to the Court’s preference on the order in which claim
`terms will be argued.
`The Parties agree that the claim construction hearing will last no longer than 3 hours. The
`Parties may adjust this estimate depending on the number of disputed claim terms.
`How the Parties intend to educate the Court on the technology at issue.
`4.
`The Parties have included proposed dates for a written technology synopsis and a live
`technology tutorial in Section 18.
`5.
`Non-binding, good faith estimate of the damages range expected for the case
`
`along with an explanation for the estimates.
`The Parties’ positions regarding the good faith estimate of the damages range and
`discovery issues relating to their ability to provide it are included in the joint pre-case
`management conference filing. See Dkt. No. 165, at 33-35.
`10. Class Actions
`This case is not a class action.
`11. Related Cases
`The information on the related IPR petitions and on a completed case previously litigated
`in this Court that asserted one of the Patents-in-Suit is included in the joint pre-case management
`conference filing. See Dkt. No. 165, at 36.
`
`-6-
`
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`AOET, Ex. 1019
`
`

`

`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
`27
`28
`
`
`
`12. Relief
`The Parties’ positions on the relief requested are included in the joint pre-case
`management conference filing. See Dkt. No. 165, at 36-37.
`13. Settlement and ADR
`Pursuant to ADR L.R. 3-5, the Parties have reviewed the Court’s ADR handbook,
`discussed the available ADR procedures, and considered whether this case would benefit from
`an ADR procedure. The Parties stipulated to private mediation. Dkt. Nos. 149-151. The Parties
`further agree to ______________ as their selected mediator.
`14. Consent to Magistrate Judge for All Purposes
`The Parties do not consent to have a magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings
`including trial and entry of judgment.
`15. Other References
`The Parties do not believe that this case is suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a
`special master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
`16. Narrowing of Issues
`At this time, the Parties aren’t aware of any issues that can be narrowed by agreement or
`motion and don’t foresee bifurcation of any issues, claims, or defenses. Subject to the further
`progression of discovery, the Parties might be able to narrow certain issues via stipulated facts.
`17. Expedited Trial Procedure
`The Parties are not amenable to an Expedited Trial Procedure pursuant to General Order
`No. 64.
`18. Scheduling
`The following schedule includes the Parties’ proposed dates for the remainder of the case
`until the start of jury selection. The proposals generally follow the limits as set out in the Federal
`Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and the Patent Local Rules, except as
`modified by the Court’s direction during the January 7, 2021 case management conference.
`
`-7-
`
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`AOET, Ex. 1019
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`27
`28
`
`Item
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`
`Preliminary Damages Contentions (Patent L.R. 3-8)
`15
`16 Responsive Damages Contentions (Patent L.R. 3-9)
`17 Deadline to Complete Mediation
`18 Disclosure of Advice of Counsel and accompanying
`document production (Pat. L.R. 3-7)
`
`21
`
`19 Deadline to Exchange Privilege Logs
`20 Close of Fact Discovery and Deadline to File Motions to
`Compel Discovery
`Serve Disclosures for Expert Witnesses by Party With the
`Burden of Proof
`Serve Disclosures for Rebuttal Expert Witnesses
`22
`23 Close of Expert Discovery
`File Dispositive Motions or Motions to Strike Expert
`24
`Testimony (including Daubert Motions)
`
`EVENT
`Case Management Conference
`January 7, 2021 at 10:00 am (Dkt. No. 152)
`Exchange of Proposed Terms for Construction (Patent
`L.R. 4-1)
`Exchange of Preliminary Constructions (Patent L.R. 4-2) March 3, 2021
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`March 22, 2021
`(Patent L.R. 4-3)
`Service of Expert Reports in Support of Claim
`Construction (Patent L.R. 4-3)
`Completion of Claim Construction Discovery (Patent L.R.
`4-4)
`Claim Construction Opening Brief (Patent L.R. 4-5(a))
`Claim Construction Responsive Brief (Patent L.R. 4-5(b))
`Claim Construction Reply Brief (Patent L.R. 4-5(c))
`Submission of Written Technology Synopsis
`Technology Tutorial
`Parties to Exchange Copies of Demonstratives and Visual
`Aids to be Used at the Claim Construction Hearing
`13 Claim Construction Hearing (Patent L.R. 4-6)
`14 Claim Construction Ruling
`
`Proposed Dates
`
`
`
`February 10, 2021
`
`March 22, 2021
`
`April 21, 2021
`
`June 11, 2021
`June 25, 2021
`July 2, 2021
`August 10, 2021
`August 26, 2021
`August 31, 2021
`
`September 2, 2021
`To Be Determined by
`the Court
`April 2, 2021
`May 3, 2021
`May 14, 2021
`30 days following
`Claim Construction
`Ruling
`July 12, 2021
`August 12, 2021
`
`November 8, 2021
`
`December 8, 2021
`January 10, 2022
`February 9, 2022
`
`-8-
`
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`AOET, Ex. 1019
`
`

`

`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
`27
`28
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`28
`
`29
`30
`31
`32
`
`33
`
`Serve Pretrial Disclosures (Jury Instructions, Witness
`Lists, Discovery and Deposition Designations, and Exhibit
`Lists) by the Party with the Burden of Proof
`Lead Trial Counsel Must Meet and Confer Regarding Pre-
`trial Filings
`Last Day to Serve Motions in Limine
`Serve Objections to Pretrial Disclosures; and Serve
`Rebuttal Pretrial Disclosures
`Last Day to Serve Oppositions to Motions in Limine
`Serve Objections to Rebuttal Pretrial Disclosures
`Pretrial Filings Due Date
`Final Pretrial Conference
`
`Jury Selection
`
`March 9, 2022
`
`March 14, 2022
`
`March 30, 2022
`March 23, 2022
`
`April 8, 2022
`April 6, 2022
`April 13, 2022
`April 27, 2022, or as
`set by the Court
`May 16, 2022, or as
`set by the Court
`
`
`19. Trial
`
`The Parties propose that the trial can be completed in two weeks under this Court’s
`
`usual trial schedule, consisting of four trial days per week from 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
`20. Disclosure of Non-Party Interested Entities or Persons
`
`This information relating to the disclosure of non-party interested entities or persons is
`
`included in the joint pre-case management conference filing. See Dkt. No. 165, at 43.
`
`21. Professional Conduct
`
`All attorneys of record for the Parties have reviewed the Guidelines for Professional
`Conduct for the Northern District of California.
`
`22. Other Matters
`
`At this time, there are no other matters that the Parties anticipate that will facilitate a
`
`just, speedy, or inexpensive disposition of this matter.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`AOET, Ex. 1019
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 12, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 12, 2021
`
`
`
`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
`27
`28
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` By: /s/ DRAFT
`Alan M. Fisch (pro hac vice)
`alan.fisch@fischllp.com
`R. William Sigler (pro hac vice)
`bill.sigler@fischllp.com
`Jeffrey M. Saltman (pro hac vice)
`jeffrey.saltman@fischllp.com
`Lisa Phillips (pro hac vice)
`lisa.phillips@fischllp.com
`Adam A. Allgood (SBN:295016)
`adam.allgood@fischllp.com
`Matthew R. Benner (pro hac vice)
`matthew.benner@fischllp.com
`FISCH SIGLER LLP
`5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
`Fourth Floor
`Washington, DC 20015
`Tel: 202.362.3500
`Fax: 202.362.3501
`
`Ken K. Fung (SBN: 283854)
`ken.fung@fischllp.com
`FISCH SIGLER LLP
`400 Concar Drive
`San Mateo, CA 94402
`Tel: 650.362.8200
`Fax: 202.362.3501
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff,
`Largan Precision Co., Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` By: /s/ DRAFT
`Keith B. Davis
`kbdavis@jonesday.com
`JONES DAY

`2727 North Harwood Street
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 220-3939
`Facsimile: (214) 969-5100
`
`William E. Devitt

`wdevitt@jonesday.com

`JONES DAY

`-10-
`
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`AOET, Ex. 1019
`
`

`

`
`
`Dated: January 12, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`77 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 3500
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`Telephone: (312) 269-4240
`Facsimile: (312) 782-8585
`
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`Ability Opto-Electronics
`Technology Co., Ltd.
`
` By: /s/ DRAFT ____
`Melissa R. Smith

`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP

`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, TX 75670

`Telephone: 903.934.8450

`Facsimile: 903.934.9257

`
`Sasha G. Rao

`srao@maynardcooper.com
`Brandon H. Stroy

`bstroy@maynardcooper.com
`MAYNARD COOPER & GALE, LLP
`600 Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: 415.646.4702
`Fax: 205.254.1999

`
`Attorneys for Defendant, HP Inc.
`
`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
`27
`28
`
`-11-
`
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`AOET, Ex. 1019
`
`