Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 202 Filed 11/18/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 8977
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC., PANASONIC
`LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO.
`LTD.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00283-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00284-JRG
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00285-JRG
`(MEMBER CASES)
`
`ORDER
`
`The Court held a hearing in the above-captioned matter on Tuesday, October 26, 2021
`
`regarding Plaintiffs Japan Display Inc. (“JDI”) and Panasonic Liquid Crystal Display Co., Ltd.’s
`
`(“Panasonic”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Motion to Compel Production by Defendant of
`
`Information from Tianma Japan and Certain Customer Information (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 137).
`
`Additionally, the Court conducted a Status Conference to address issues related to case
`
`management, deadlines in the Docket Control Order, and narrowing of asserted claims and prior
`
`art references. (Dkt. No. 166 at 3–4; Dkt. No. 176 at 8:1–17).
`
`This Order memorializes the Court’s rulings at the October 26th hearing and provides
`
`additional instructions to the parties in light of the parties’ Joint Notice (Dkt. No. 189) filed after
`
`the hearing. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production by Defendant of Information from
`Tianma Japan and Certain Customer Information (Dkt. No. 137).
`
`After meet-and-confer efforts, the parties reached an agreement resolving this Motion. In
`
`light of the parties’ agreement, which was noted in the record (Dkt. No. 176 at 5:2–19, 6:10–7:20)
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`Tianma Exhibit 1022
`Tianma v. JDI, et al.
`Trial IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC., PANASONIC
`LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO.
`LTD.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00283-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00284-JRG
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00285-JRG
`(MEMBER CASES)
`
`ORDER
`
`The Court held a hearing in the above-captioned matter on Tuesday, October 26, 2021
`
`regarding Plaintiffs Japan Display Inc. (“JDI”) and Panasonic Liquid Crystal Display Co., Ltd.’s
`
`(“Panasonic”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Motion to Compel Production by Defendant of
`
`Information from Tianma Japan and Certain Customer Information (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 137).
`
`Additionally, the Court conducted a Status Conference to address issues related to case
`
`management, deadlines in the Docket Control Order, and narrowing of asserted claims and prior
`
`art references. (Dkt. No. 166 at 3–4; Dkt. No. 176 at 8:1–17).
`
`This Order memorializes the Court’s rulings at the October 26th hearing and provides
`
`additional instructions to the parties in light of the parties’ Joint Notice (Dkt. No. 189) filed after
`
`the hearing. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production by Defendant of Information from
`Tianma Japan and Certain Customer Information (Dkt. No. 137).
`
`After meet-and-confer efforts, the parties reached an agreement resolving this Motion. In
`
`light of the parties’ agreement, which was noted in the record (Dkt. No. 176 at 5:2–19, 6:10–7:20)
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`Tianma Exhibit 1022
`Tianma v. JDI, et al.
`Trial IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 202 Filed 11/18/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 8978
`
`and confirmed in the stipulation (Dkt. No. 174) subsequently filed on this Court’s docket, the
`
`Motion is DENIED AS MOOT.
`
`II.
`
`Deadline to Complete Expert Discovery as to Defendant’s Technical Expert,
`Mr. Fred Schubert.
`
`At the October 26th hearing, the Court noted that it had previously extended the deadline
`
`to complete expert discovery from October 25, 2021 to November 8, 2021. (Dkt. No. 176 at
`
`8:10–17; see also Dkt. No. 166 at 3–4). However, the parties informed the Court that November
`
`16, 2021 and November 17, 2021 were the only dates available for the deposition of Defendant’s
`
`technical expert, Mr. Fred Schubert. (Dkt. No. 176 at 9:24–11:4). After considering the parties’
`
`joint request, the Court ORDERED that the parties were permitted to take the single deposition
`
`of Mr. Fred Schubert on November 16, 2021 and November 17, 2021, notwithstanding the
`
`November 8th deadline for all other expert discovery. (Id. at 11:5–10).
`
`III.
`
`Narrowing of Asserted Claims and Prior Art References Following the
`Parties’ Joint Notice (Dkt. No. 189).
`
`During the Status Conference portion of the October 26th hearing, the Court instructed the
`
`parties to meet-and-confer regarding a path towards further narrowing of the case and instructed
`
`the parties to file a Joint Notice by Wednesday, November 10, 2021, informing the Court of their
`
`positions on such narrowing. (Dkt. No. 176 at 20:15–22). In their subsequent Joint Notice, the
`
`parties “agree that the case would benefit from further narrowing but disagree regarding the scope
`
`of that narrowing and whether multiple rounds of narrowing are necessary.” (Dkt. No. 189 at 1).
`
`Accordingly, the parties offer competing propositions for further narrowing of asserted claims and
`
`prior art references.
`
`Having considered the parties’ positions in the Joint Notice, the Court ORDERS the
`
`following schedule related to the narrowing of asserted claims and prior art references:
`
`Page 2 of 3
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 202 Filed 11/18/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 8979
`
`By Monday, November 22, 2021, Plaintiffs narrow to no more than seven patents and no
`
`more than twenty asserted claims, selected from the asserted claims which Plaintiffs elected on
`
`October 25, 2021.
`
`By Friday, November 29, 2021, Defendant narrows to no more than twenty prior art
`
`references, selected from the refences which Defendant elected on November 1, 2021. Each
`
`anticipation challenge and each obviousness combination or assertion counts as a separate prior
`
`art reference.1
`
`By Monday, December 20, 2021, Plaintiffs narrow to no more than four patents and no
`
`more than twelve asserted claims, selected from those asserted claims which Plaintiffs elected on
`
`November 22, 2021.
`
`By Wednesday, December 22, 2021, Defendant narrows to no more than twelve prior art
`
`references, selected from the references which Defendant elected on November 29, 2021. Each
`
`anticipation challenge and each obviousness combination or assertion counts as a separate prior
`
`art reference.
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 18th day of November, 2021.
`
`
`________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`RODNEY GILSTRAPDNEY GILSSSSTTTTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`ITED STATEEEESSSS DISTRICT JUD
`
`1 For example, an assertion that prior art A invalidates counts as one prior art reference. Likewise, an assertion that
`prior art B invalidates counts as a second prior art reference. Also, an assertion that the combination of prior art A and
`prior art B invalidates counts as a separate reference. Further, the assertion that a combination of prior art B and prior
`art C invalidates would count as a separate prior art reference. Such an assertion would not allow argument that prior
`art C alone invalidates, unless prior art C is elected as a separate reference. In short, each unique prior art reference or
`combination of prior art references counts as a separate reference for these purposes.
`3
`
`Page 3 of 3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
