Case 3:20-cv-06607-JD Document 177 Filed 01/22/21 Page 1 of 15
`
`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
`
`
`EX 2026 Page 1
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06607-JD Document 177 Filed 01/22/21 Page 2 of 15
`
`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.
`
`The claims and defenses, discovery, and other issues are discussed in the parties’ earlier-
`
`filed joint pre-case management conference filing. See generally Dkt. No. 165. This Amended
`
`Joint Case Management Conference statement is intended to address the case schedule based on
`
`the Court’s statements at the January 7, 2021 case management conference and order that the
`
`parties submit a proposed scheduling order, but also includes the sections required by this Court’s
`
`Local Rules and Standing Orders.
`
`-2-
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`EX 2026 Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06607-JD Document 177 Filed 01/22/21 Page 3 of 15
`
`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
`
`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.
`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.
`
`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.
`
`-3-
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`EX 2026 Page 3
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06607-JD Document 177 Filed 01/22/21 Page 4 of 15
`
`
`
`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.
`5.
`
`Motions
`A.
`The prior motions, and the Parties’ positions relating to them, are included in the joint pre-
`
`Prior Motions
`
`case management conference filing. See Dkt. No. 165, at 15-17.
`B.
`No motions by any party were pending at the time the Federal Circuit granted HP’s Petition
`
`Pending Motions
`
`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.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`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.
`-4-
`
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`EX 2026 Page 4
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06607-JD Document 177 Filed 01/22/21 Page 5 of 15
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Discovery
`A.
`The discovery taken to date, and the Parties’ positions relating to it, are included in the
`
`Discovery taken to date
`
`joint pre-case management conference filing. See Dkt. No. 165, at 19-24.
`B.
`The Parties agreed before transfer to a Protective Order, a Discovery Order and an Order
`
`Discovery Orders
`
`Regarding E-Discovery. See Dkt. Nos. 75, 76 and 77. Additional information on the Parties’
`
`positions on discovery orders is included in the joint pre-case management conference filing. See
`
`Dkt. No. 165, at 8-12, 24, and 26-27. As the Court directed during the January 7, 2021 case
`
`management conference, 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 Parties’ positions regarding the scope of anticipated discovery are included in the
`
`The scope of anticipated discovery
`
`joint pre-case management conference filing. See Dkt. No. 165, at 24-25.
`D.
`Proposed limitations or modifications of the discovery rules are included in the joint pre-
`
`Any proposed limitations or modifications of the discovery rules
`
`case management conference filing. See Dkt. No. 165, at 26-27. The Parties will also include these
`
`Proposed discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)
`
`proposals in the revised discovery orders.
`E.
`The Parties’ proposed schedule for completing discovery is set forth in Section 18 below.
`F.
`The Parties’ positions relating to identified and anticipated discovery disputes are included
`
`Any identified discovery disputes
`
`in the joint pre-case management conference filing. See Dkt. No. 165, at 27-28.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`EX 2026 Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06607-JD Document 177 Filed 01/22/21 Page 6 of 15
`
`
`
`G.
`1.
`
`Topics Required Under Patent Local Rule 2-1 (b)
`
`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 Parties have included alternative proposed schedules in Section 18 below.
`
`Plaintiff’s Position: Plaintiff’s 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. Largan’s proposed schedule also follows the Patent Local
`
`Rules, which don’t provide for a reduction of asserted claims and prior art. Defendants have gone
`
`outside of the Local Rules and proposed such reductions. To the extent the Court agrees to
`
`Defendants’ request to add these elements to the case schedule, Largan proposes a reduction
`consistent with the Federal Circuit’s Model Order Limiting Excess Claims and Prior Art.2 The
`Model Order includes proportional reductions for both sides: a reduction of asserted claims to no
`
`more than ten claims per patent and no more than 32 total claims after the accused infringer
`produces documents sufficient to show the operation of the accused instrumentalities.3 The Model
`Order includes a reciprocal reduction in the prior art two weeks later to no more than 12 references
`per patent and no more than 40 total references.4 The Model Order provides for a post-claim
`construction reduction in asserted claims to no more than five claims per patent and no more than
`16 total claims.5 The Model Order includes a reciprocal reduction in the prior art to no more than
`six references per patent and no more than 20 total references.6
`
`
`2 Available at https://ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Final-Model-Order-Limiting-Excess-
`Patent-Claims-And-Prior-Art.pdf.
`
`3 Federal Circuit’s Model Order Limiting Excess Claims and Prior Art at 1.
`
`4 Id.
`
` 5
`
` Id. at 2.
`
`6 Id.
`
`
`-6-
`
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`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
`
`EX 2026 Page 6
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06607-JD Document 177 Filed 01/22/21 Page 7 of 15
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Position: During the January 7 Case Management Conference, the Court
`
`indicated that the parties should follow the California rules and procedures and that the Court was
`
`not going to have its hands tied by what took place in Texas.
`
`Defendants have included proposed deadlines to narrow the number of asserted claims and
`
`prior art references, which is related to the Patent L.R. disclosures. As Defendants explained in
`
`their joint pre-case management conference filing, see Dkt. No. 165, at 40, the parties have agreed
`
`that there should be a reduction of asserted claims and prior art. Defendants’ proposed limits are
`
`consistent with the prior guidance from this Court regarding narrowing of asserted claims and prior
`
`art. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-00154-JD, Dkt.
`
`No. 66, May 1, 2015. Defendants’ proposed limits are also appropriate because Plaintiff has
`
`asserted four distinct patents, none sharing a common application or priority, and has asserted
`
`many different dependent claims from each patent, therefore requiring distinct prior art and
`
`invalidity grounds for each asserted patent.
`
`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.
`
`4.
`
`How the Parties intend to educate the Court on the technology at issue.
`
`The Parties have included proposed dates for a written technology synopsis and a live
`
`technology tutorial in Section 18.
`
`-7-
`
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`EX 2026 Page 7
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06607-JD Document 177 Filed 01/22/21 Page 8 of 15
`
`
`
`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.
`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. Following the
`
`Court’s instructions at the January 7, 2021 case management conference, counsel for the parties
`
`have extensively conferred on options for potential mediators through multiple emails and phone
`
`calls but have not yet reached agreement. With the Court’s approval, the parties respectfully
`
`request to continue such discussions, and will file an update by February 5, 2021 naming their
`
`choice or otherwise seeking the Court’s assistance with finalizing the process. The parties have
`
`jointly proposed a November 19, 2021 mediation deadline, so this additional time won’t cause any
`
`undue delay or prejudice.
`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.
`
`-8-
`
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`EX 2026 Page 8
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06607-JD Document 177 Filed 01/22/21 Page 9 of 15
`
`
`
`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.
`Narrowing of Issues
`16.
`Plaintiff’s Position: As discussed in Section 9.G.1., Plaintiff proposes a schedule that is
`
`consistent with the Patent Local Rules and thus doesn’t include reductions of the asserted claims
`
`and prior art. To the extent the Court includes such reductions in the schedule, Plaintiff proposes
`
`reductions consistent with the Federal Circuit’s Model Order Limiting Excess Claims and Prior
`
`Art. These reductions are included in Plaintiff’s proposed schedule.
`
`Defendant’s Position: Defendants’ propose that the Court adopt a schedule for the parties
`
`to limit their respective asserted claims and prior art references or obviousness combinations.
`
`Defendants’ proposed schedule and limitation numbers are included in Section 18 below.
`
`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.
`Scheduling
`18.
`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, the Patent Local Rules, and this Court’s
`
`Standing Orders, except as modified by the Court’s direction during the January 7, 2021 case
`
`management conference.
`Item
`EVENT
`
`1
`
`Case Management Conference
`January 7, 2021 at 10:00 am (Dkt.
`No. 152)
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed Dates
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed Dates
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`EX 2026 Page 9
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06607-JD Document 177 Filed 01/22/21 Page 10 of 15
`
`
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`Exchange of Proposed Terms for
`Construction (Patent L.R. 4-1)
`Exchange of Preliminary
`Constructions (Patent L.R. 4-2)
`Largan: Largan to limit the
`number of asserted claims to no
`more than 10 per patent and 32
`total.7
`
`Defendants: Largan to limit
`number of asserted claims (10 per
`patent; 20 total)
`Preliminary Damages Contentions
`(Patent L.R. 3-8)
`Largan: Defendants to limit the
`number of prior art references to
`no more than 12 per patent and 40
`total.
`
`Defendants: Defendants to limit
`number of asserted prior art
`references and obviousness
`combinations (25 per patent; 70
`total)
`Joint Claim Construction and
`Prehearing Statement (Patent L.R.
`4-3)
`Service of Expert Reports in
`Support of Claim Construction
`(Patent L.R. 4-3)
`Responsive Damages Contentions
`(Patent L.R. 3-9)
`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))
`
`February 10, 2021
`
`April 5, 2021
`
`March 3, 2021
`
`April 26, 2021
`
`March 10, 2021
`
`April 30, 2021
`
`April 2, 2021
`
`May 11, 2021
`
`March 24, 2021
`
`May 14, 2021
`
`March 22, 2021
`
`May 21, 2021
`
`March 22, 2021
`
`May 21, 2021
`
`May 3, 2021
`
`June 10, 2021
`
`April 21, 2021
`
`June 18, 2021
`
`June 11, 2021
`
`July 5, 2021
`
`June 25, 2021
`
`July 19, 2021
`
`July 2, 2021
`
`July 26, 2021
`
`
`7 Again, Largan has provided its reduction proposal if the Court determines such reductions are
`warranted.
`
`-10-
`
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`EX 2026 Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06607-JD Document 177 Filed 01/22/21 Page 11 of 15
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`25
`
`26
`27
`28
`
`Submission of Written
`Technology Synopsis
`Technology Tutorial
`
`Parties to Exchange Copies of
`Demonstratives and Visual Aids
`to be Used at the Claim
`Construction Hearing
`Claim Construction Hearing
`(Patent L.R. 4-6)
`Claim Construction Ruling
`Deadline to Exchange Privilege
`Logs
`Largan: Largan to limit the
`number of asserted claims to no
`more than 5 per patent and 16
`total.
`
`Defendants: Largan to limit
`number of asserted claims (5 per
`patent; 10 total)
`Largan: Defendants to limit the
`number of prior art references to
`no more than 6 per patent and 20
`total.
`
`Defendants: Defendants to limit
`number of asserted prior art
`references and obviousness
`combinations (15 per patent; 35
`total)
`Disclosure of Advice of Counsel
`and accompanying document
`production (Pat. L.R. 3-7)
`Close of Fact Discovery and
`Deadline to File Motions to
`Compel Discovery
`Deadline to Complete Mediation
`Serve Expert Reports (by Party
`With the Burden of Proof)
`Serve Rebuttal Expert Reports
`Close of Expert Discovery
`File Dispositive Motions or
`Motions to Strike Expert
`
`August 10, 2021
`
`August 17, 2021
`
`August 26, 2021
`
`August 31, 2021
`
`September 2, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`To Be Determined by the Court
`July 12, 2021
`September 24, 2021
`
`28 Days following
`Claim Construction Ruling
`
`42 Days following
`Claim Construction Ruling
`
`30 days following
`Claim Construction Ruling
`
`August 12, 2021
`
`October 29, 2021
`
`November 19, 2021
`November 8, 2021 December 17, 2021
`
`December 8, 2021
`January 10, 2022
`February 9, 2022
`
`February 11, 2022
`March 25, 2022
`April 29, 2022
`
`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
`
`EX 2026 Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06607-JD Document 177 Filed 01/22/21 Page 12 of 15
`
`Testimony (including
`Daubert Motions)
`Serve Pretrial Disclosures
`(Discovery and Deposition
`Designations) by the Party with
`the Burden of Proof
`Lead Trial Counsel Must Meet
`and Confer Regarding the
`Preparation of the Pre-trial Filings
`(Jury Instructions, Witness Lists,
`Exhibits Lists, Verdict Form, Voir
`Dire, Joint Pre-trial Statement)
`Serve Objections to Pretrial
`Disclosures; and Serve Rebuttal
`Pretrial Disclosures
`
`March 9, 2022
`
`March 14, 2022
`
`March 23, 2022
`
`Last Day to Serve Motions in
`Limine
`
`March 30, 2022
`
`Last Day to Serve Oppositions to
`Motions in Limine
`
`April 8, 2022
`
`Serve Objections to Rebuttal
`Pretrial Disclosures
`
`April 6, 2022
`
`29
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`33
`
`34
`
`35
`
`Pretrial Filings Due Date
`
`April 13, 2022
`
`April 25, 2022
`
`April 27, 2022, or as
`set by the Court
`May 11, 2022
`
`36
`
`37
`
`38
`
`39
`
`Counsel Must Meet and Confer
`Regarding Discovery and
`Depositions Designations
`Final Pretrial Conference
`
`File Joint Discovery and
`Deposition Designations, Counter-
`designations and Objections to
`Discovery and Depositions
`Designations.
`Jury Selection
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`May 31, 2022 (14
`days before service
`of objections to
`disclosures)
`June 7, 2022 (30
`days before pretrial
`filing deadline)
`
`June 21, 2022 (14
`days before
`objections to
`rebuttal
`designations)
`June 23, 2022 (14
`days before pretrial
`filing deadline)
`July 3, 2022 (4
`days before pretrial
`filing deadline)
`July 5, 2022 (14
`days before meet
`and confer
`deaadlie)
`July 7, 2022 (14
`days before pretrial
`conference)
`July 19, 2022 (21
`days before trial)
`
`July 21, 2022 (19
`days before trial)
`August 4, 2022 (5
`days before trial)
`
`May 16, 2022, or as
`set by the Court
`
`August 9, 2022 (or
`as set by the Court)
`
`-12-
`
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`EX 2026 Page 12
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06607-JD Document 177 Filed 01/22/21 Page 13 of 15
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`EX 2026 Page 13
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06607-JD Document 177 Filed 01/22/21 Page 14 of 15
`
`
`
`Dated: January 22, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
` By: /s/ R. William Sigler
`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.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 22, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` By: /s/ Keith B. Davis
`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
`-14-
`
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`EX 2026 Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06607-JD Document 177 Filed 01/22/21 Page 15 of 15
`
`
`
`Telephone: (312) 269-4240
`Facsimile: (312) 782-8585
`
`T. Gregory Lanier
`tglanier@jonesday.com
`JONES DAY
`1755 Embarcadero Rd.
`Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Telephone: (650) 739-3939
`Facsimile: (650) 739-3900
`
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`Ability Opto-Electronics
`Technology Co., Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
` By: /s/ Brandon H. Stroy
`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
`
`Dated: January 22, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
` AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:20-CV-006607-JD
`
`EX 2026 Page 15
`
`