BE IT REMEMBERED on this day, there was presented to the Court the Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice filed by Bart A. Starr (“Applicant”), counsel for Advanced Silicon Technologies LLC, and the Court, having reviewed the motion, enters the following order: IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED, and Applicant may appear on behalf of Advanced Silicon Technologies LLC in the above case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Applicant, if he/she has not already done so, shall immediately tender the amount of $100.00, made payable to: Clerk, U.S. District Court, in compliance with Local Court Rule AT-1(f)(2).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the corresponding Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice was e-filed, the attorney who filed the Motion on behalf of the Applicant is directed to notify the Applicant of this order.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Applicant, pursuant to the Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing in Civil and Criminal cases in the Western District of Texas, shall register, via your individual PACER account, as a pro hac vice user within 10 days of the date of this Order, if he/she has not previously done so on a prior case in this District.

SIGNED this the 30th day of August, 2023.

From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: PTAB Hearings PTAB Hearings Cannon, Kulunie; Swift, Erica; Gerukos, Sylvia; Easton, Gregory; Cunningham, Larena; Bobo, Pat FW: IPR2022-01067: Petitioner"s LEAP Request Wednesday, August 23, 2023 8:11:36 AM IPR2022-01067 - Petitioner LEAP Practitioner Request and Verification Form.pdf

Petitioner is granted an additional fifteen minutes of argument time during the oral hearing, and reminded that the LEAP practitioner is required to have a meaningful and substantive opportunity to argue.

Hearing Information Requesting Party: Appeal/Case/Control Number: Hearing Date (mm/dd/yyyy): LEAP Practitioner Contact Information LEAP Practitioner Name: Firm Name: Street Address 1: Street Address 2: City: State/Province: Country: Email: Date: Zip/Postal Code: Phone Number: (Signature)

However, routine uses of this information may include disclosure to the following: to non-Federal personnel under contract to the Agency; to a court for adjudication and litigation; to the Department of Justice for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) assistance; to members of Congress; and to National Archives and Records Administration.

The applicable Privacy Act System of Records Notice for this information request is PAT-TM- 19, Dissemination Events and Registrations: Federal Register vol.

In instances where an advocate does not meet the LEAP eligibility requirements due to the number of “substantive” oral hearing arguments, but nonetheless has a basis for considering themselves to be in the category of advocates that ...

Advanced Silicon Technologies LLC,

NXP Semiconductors N.V., NXP B.V., and NXP USA, Inc.,

The Court, having considered the Parties' Joint Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 45), GRANTS the motion, and modifies the schedule as follows.

Event Deadline First case narrowing meet and confer deadline September 29, 2023 Close of fact discovery October 27, 2023 Opening expert reports November 9, 2023 Rebuttal expert reports December 8, 2023 Close of expert discovery December 22, 2023 Second case narrowing meet and confer deadline December 29, 2023 Dispositive and Daubert motion deadline January 12, 2024 Oppositions to dispositive and Daubert motions January 26, 2024 Serve pretrial disclosures January 26, 2024 Event Deadline File replies in support of dispositive and Daubert motions Serve objections to pretrial disclosures and rebuttal disclosures Parties jointly email law clerks to confirm pretrial conference and trial dates February 2, 2024 February 9, 2024 February 9, 2024 Serve objections to rebuttal disclosures; file motions in limine February 16, 2024 File joint pretrial order, pretrial submissions, and oppositions to motions in limine February 23, 2024 File notice of request for daily transcript or real time reporting March 8, 2024 File joint notice identifying remaining objections to pretrial disclosures and motions in limine March 15, 2024 Deadline to file Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge (AO85 form) March 28, 2024 Final pretrial conference March 28, 2024 Jury selection/trial April 22, 2024

SIGNED this 2nd day of Augst, 2023.

In instances where an advocate does not meet the LEAP eligibility requirements, due to the number of “substantive” oral hearing arguments, but nonetheless has a basis for considering themselves to be in the category of advocates that ...

In instances where an advocate does not meet the LEAP eligibility requirements, due to the number of “substantive” oral hearing arguments, but nonetheless has a basis for considering themselves to be in the category of advocates that ...

For the reasons explained below, we find the present circumstances are distinguishable from Uniloc, and we do not deny the Petition based on the General Plastic factors.

Unlike the timeline in Uniloc, this sequence does not present the same concerns about unfair advantage and using our decisions as a roadmap, as were expressed in General Plastic.

Uniloc, 11 (concluding that the fourth and fifth General Plastic factors favor denial where petitioner failed to explain when it learned of the asserted prior art).

Factors 6 and 7: The Finite Resources of the Board; and the Requirement Under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to Issue a Final Determination Not Later Than 1 Year After the Date on Which the Director Notices Institution of Review Patent Owner argues that these factors favor denial because, if Western Digital settles, “the Petition would continue to utilize the Board’s resources,” and the Board would need to “preside over multiple instituted petitions brought against the same claims by the same petitioner.” PO Opp.

According to Petitioner, the Petition “challenges the same claims of the same patent, relies on the same expert declaration, and is based on the same grounds and combinations of prior art submitted in the [Western Digital] Petition” in the 1126 IPR.

For the reasons explained below, we find the present circumstances are distinguishable from Uniloc, and we do not deny the Petition based on the General Plastic factors.

Unlike the timeline in Uniloc, this sequence does not present the same concerns about unfair advantage and using our decisions as a roadmap, as were expressed in General Plastic.

Uniloc, 11 (concluding that the fourth and fifth General Plastic factors favor denial where petitioner failed to explain when it learned of the asserted prior art).

Factors 6 and 7: The Finite Resources of the Board; and the Requirement Under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to Issue a Final Determination Not Later Than 1 Year After the Date on Which the Director Notices Institution of Review Patent Owner argues that these factors favor denial because, if Western Digital settles, “the Petition would continue to utilize the Board’s resources,” and the Board would need to “preside over multiple instituted petitions brought against the same claims by the same petitioner.” PO Opp.

According to Petitioner, the Petition “challenges the same claims of the same patent, relies on the same expert declaration, and is based on the same grounds and combinations of prior art submitted in the [Western Digital] Petition” in the 1126 IPR.

June 06, 2023 Suzanne Miles equity which properly has jurisdiction over this proceeding and has the power to compel the production of documents.

The documentary evidence is intended for use in the above-captioned civil lawsuit and in the view ofthis Court will be highly relevant to the patent infringementclaims asserted therein.

In conformity with Article 3 of the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in1 Civil or Commercial Matters, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(b), and 28 U.S.C.A.§ —j3— a. Requesting judicial authority é U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright (Article 3(a)) United States District Court for the Western

Case 6:22-cv-00466-ADA-DTG Document 77 Filed 06/06/23 Page 4of5 ¢ In the event the evidence cannot betaken in the mannerrequested, it is to be taken in such a manneras provided by local law; and

Theprivilege or duty of the witness(es) to refuse to give evidenceshall be the sameas if they were testifying under the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including if giving such evidence would (1) subject them toa real and appreciable dangerof criminalliability in the United States, or (2) disclose a confidential and privileged communication between them andtheir respective attorneys.