Search court records - party Christopher Bovenkamp, page 6

No. 569 ORDER Setting Discovery for 4/5/2024 03:00 PM in Waco before Judge Derek T. Gilliland

Document Webroot, Inc. et al v. AO Kaspersky Lab, 6:22-cv-00243, No. 569 (W.D.Tex. Mar. 22, 2024)

Discovery Set IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is SET for DISCOVERY HEARING HELD IN PERSON (re Discovery Dispute charts emailed on ), in U.S. Magistrate Court, Courtroom No. 2, Third Floor, 800 Waco Franklin Avenue, Waco, Texas, on Friday, April 05, 2024 at 03:00 PM (1 hour time block).

All related motions requesting relief shall be filed by 5:00 PM CST on Wednesday, March 27, 2024.

All responses to such motions shall be filed by 5:00 PM CST on Wednesday, April 3, 2024.

22nd day of March, 2024.

Derek T. Gilliland

Cite Document

Analyze

No. 568 Sealed ORDER REGARDING MARCH 11, 2024, DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Document Webroot, Inc. et al v. AO Kaspersky Lab, 6:22-cv-00243, No. 568 (W.D.Tex. Mar. 22, 2024)

... is not required to Case 6:22-cv-00243-ADA-DTG Document 568 Filed 03/22/24 Page 2 of 54 create documents in response to the request and is ORDERED to produce responsive documents within its custody or control or state that none ...

Exs. F, G. None of this information is sufficient to understand the Defendants’ corporate structure or determine whether the Defendant non- U.S. Kaspersky entities direct or control infringing activities committed in the United States.

Cite Document

Analyze

10 Institution Decision Deny: Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review

Document IPR2023-01425, No. 10 Institution Decision Deny - Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2024)

Petition Institution - Denied

Oxylabs, UAB (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1, 8, 16, 17, 22, 29, and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’317 patent”), along with the supporting Declaration of Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D. Paper 1 (“Pet.”); Ex. 1003.

Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 15–16 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (designated precedential as to Section II.B.4.i) (“General Plastic”); see also CTPG at 55–58 (stating that the Board will consider the General Plastic factors when determining whether to institute a trial).

Petitioner argues that “Goodell is relatively difficult to find,” and although the reference is accessible on Google Scholar, Goodell was not cited in many papers and was not published in an academic journal.

Patent Owner responds that the district court litigation trial will finish 3.5 months before a final written decision would be expected in this review, if instituted.

Considering these factors as a whole, and on this record, we determine that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’317 patent.

Cite Document

Analyze