IGT v. Aristocrat Technologies Inc.

Filing 109

ORDER Granting 108 Stipulated Case Management Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 3/2/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PS)

Case 2:15-cv-00473-GMN-GWF Document 108 Filed 03/01/16 Page 1 of 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

2300 WEST SAHARA AVENUE• SUITE 1200 • LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]

McDONALD • CARANO • WILSON LLP

8
9
10
11
12
13

JEFF SILVESTRI, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 5779
McDONALD CARANO WILSON LLP
2300 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 1200
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 702.873.9966
E-mail: [e-mail]
ADAM K. MORTARA, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
BRIAN C. SWANSON, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
JASON L. PELTZ, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
REID M. BOLTON, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
BARTLIT BECK HERMAN
PALENCHAR & SCOTT LLP
54 West Hubbard Street, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 312.494.4440
E-mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

DANIEL C. TAYLOR, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
BARTLIT BECK HERMAN
PALENCHAR & SCOTT LLP
1899 Wynkoop Street, 8th Floor
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 303.591.3140
E-mail: [e-mail]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant IGT

14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

16

IGT,

CASE NO. 2:15-cv-00473-GMN-GWF

17

Plaintiff,

18

v.

19

ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

20
21
22
23

Defendant.
ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES
AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD., and
ARISTOCRAT INTERNATIONAL PTY. LTD.,

24

Counterclaim Plaintiffs,

25
26
27
28

v.
IGT,
Counterclaim Defendant.

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED CASE
MANAGEMENT ORDER

Case 2:15-cv-00473-GMN-GWF Document 108 Filed 03/01/16 Page 2 of 7

1

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant IGT (“IGT”), Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Aristocrat

2

Technologies, Inc. (“ATI”), and Counterclaim Plaintiffs Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd.

3

and Aristocrat International Pty Ltd. (together with ATI, “Aristocrat”) submit this proposed case

4

management order pursuant to the Court’s Order of February 9, 2016, Dkt. No. 98.

5

I.

6

NUMBER OF PATENTS PER SIDE
The parties agree that IGT may assert five patents and Aristocrat may assert four patents in

2300 WEST SAHARA AVENUE• SUITE 1200 • LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]

the first phase.

8

McDONALD • CARANO • WILSON LLP

7

II.

IGT’S COUNTERCLAIMS

9

The parties agree that IGT may pursue its counterclaims for breach of contract and

10

conversion as part of the first phase (subject to Aristocrat’s pending motion to dismiss (Dkt. No.

11

101)).

12

III.

13

STAY PENDING IPR
The parties agree that, in the event IGT chooses to include one or more of the four

14

Kaminkow patents in the first phase, Aristocrat may move to stay IGT’s claims concerning

15

infringement of those patents pending the outcome of IPR proceedings. IGT can oppose the motion

16

in due course. In the event that the Court grants Aristocrat’s motion to stay and the PTO institutes

17

IPR on the Kaminkow patent(s) that IGT selects for the first phase,1 IGT will be permitted to

18

substitute up to two of those Kaminkow patents with either (i) Kaminkow patents for which the PTO

19

does not institute IPR (and which IGT does not initially select for the first phase), or (ii) non-

20

Kaminkow patents. If IGT wishes to substitute different Kaminkow patents, IGT will wait until

21

after the PTO issues its institution decision on those patents before making the substitution.

22

The parties further agree that, with the exception of the motion to stay the Kaminkow patents

23

noted above, neither party will move to stay any other patent chosen for the first phase pending the

24

outcome of IPR proceedings.

25
26
27
28

1

If the Court grants Aristocrat’s motion to stay before the PTO issues its decision on whether to
institute IPR on the Kaminkow patent(s) included in the first phase and the PTO subsequently denies
institution, the parties agree that the stay will automatically dissolve.
2

Case 2:15-cv-00473-GMN-GWF Document 108 Filed 03/01/16 Page 3 of 7

1

IV.

SUBSTITUTION OF PATENTS

2

The parties agree that, aside from the substitution mechanism for the Kaminkow patents

3

outlined above, either party may move to substitute a first-phase patent upon a showing of good

4

cause.

5

V.

The parties propose the following schedule for the first phase of the case:

6
7

PROPOSED SCHEDULE

2300 WEST SAHARA AVENUE• SUITE 1200 • LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]

Proposed Deadline

8

McDONALD • CARANO • WILSON LLP

Event
Court enters this case management Order

3/1/16

9

Parties identify the patents they will assert in first
phase

7 days after filing of case
management order:
3/4/16

Initial infringement contentions pursuant to L.R. 16.16 for any patent included in the first wave for which
initial infringement contentions have not yet been
completed (not including the items required by L.R.
16.1-6(g))
(This date will not be included in the schedule if
neither party selects for the first phase a patent for
which initial infringement contentions have not yet
been completed.)

7 days after identification of firstphase patents:
3/11/16

Initial non-infringement and invalidity contentions
pursuant to L.R. 16.1-8 for any patent included in the
first wave for which initial non-infringement and
invalidity contentions have not yet been completed
(This date will not be included in the schedule if
neither party selects for the first phase a patent for
which initial non-infringement and invalidity
contentions have not yet been completed.)

45 days after service of initial
infringement contentions for any new
patents:
4/25/16

Responses to non-infringement and invalidity
contentions for all patents in first phase (L.R. 16.1-10)

14 days after initial non-infringement
and invalidity contentions for any
new patents:
5/9/16
(In the event that neither party selects
for the first phase a patent for which
initial contentions have not yet been
completed, this deadline will be 14
days after identification of the firstphase patents: 3/18/16)

Pre-claim construction settlement conference (L.R.
16.1-19)

Within 30 days after completion of
all Contentions (or at the Court’s
convenience)

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

Case 2:15-cv-00473-GMN-GWF Document 108 Filed 03/01/16 Page 4 of 7

1
2

Exchange of proposed terms for claim construction
for patents in first phase (L.R. 16.1-13)

3
4
5
6
7

2300 WEST SAHARA AVENUE• SUITE 1200 • LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]

McDONALD • CARANO • WILSON LLP

8
9

Exchange of preliminary claim constructions and
35 days after exchange of proposed
extrinsic evidence for patents in first phase (L.R. 16.1- terms for claim construction:
14)
6/27/16
Or 5/6/16 if neither party selects for
the first phase a patent for which
initial contentions have not yet been
completed.
Joint claim construction and pre-hearing statement for
patents in first phase (L.R. 16.1-15)

28 days after exchange of
preliminary claim constructions and
extrinsic evidence:
7/25/16
Or 6/3/16 if neither party selects for
the first phase a patent for which
initial contentions have not yet been
completed.

Opening claim construction briefs for patents in first
phase (L.R. 16.1-16)

30 days after joint claim construction
and pre-hearing statement:
8/24/16
Or 7/5/16 if neither party selects for
the first phase a patent for which
initial contentions have not yet been
completed.

Claim construction response briefs for patents in first
phase (L.R. 16.1-16)

30 days after opening claim
construction briefs:
9/23/16
Or 8/4/16 if neither party selects for
the first phase a patent for which
initial contentions have not yet been
completed.

Claim construction reply briefs for patents in first
phase (L.R. 16.1-16)

21 days after claim construction
response briefs:
10/14/16
Or 8/25/16 if neither party selects for
the first phase a patent for which
initial contentions have not yet been
completed.

Post-claim construction settlement conference (L.R.
16.1-19)

Within 30 days after claim
construction ruling (or at the Court’s
convenience)

Identification of products that practice the patents and
accompanying document production for patents in
first phase (L.R. 16.1-6(g) and 7(e))

30 days after Markman ruling

Interim status report (L.R. 26-3)

60 days after Markman ruling

Close of fact discovery for patents in first phase (L.R.
26-1(e)(1))

120 days after Markman ruling

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

14 days after response contentions:
5/23/16
Or 4/1/16 if neither party selects for
the first phase a patent for which
initial contentions have not yet been
completed.

4

Case 2:15-cv-00473-GMN-GWF Document 108 Filed 03/01/16 Page 5 of 7

1

Opening expert reports for patents in first phase (L.R.
26-1(e)(3))

30 days after close of fact discovery

Rebuttal expert reports for patents in first phase

30 days after opening expert reports

3

Reply expert reports for patents in first phase

15 days after rebuttal expert reports

4

Close of expert discovery for patents in first phase

100 days after close of fact discovery

5

Filing of dispositive motions for patents in first phase
(L.R. 26-1(e)(4))

30 days after close of expert
discovery

6

Pretrial Order for first phase (L.R. 26-1(e)(5))

60 days after ruling on dispositive
motions (or 60 days after close of
expert discovery if no dispositive
motions are filed)

Pretrial Settlement Conference (L.R. 16.1-19)

Within 30 days of filing of pretrial
order

2

7

2300 WEST SAHARA AVENUE• SUITE 1200 • LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]

McDONALD • CARANO • WILSON LLP

8
9
10

In the event that either party is permitted to substitute patents for the first phase, the parties

11

will meet and confer in a good-faith effort to agree on a schedule for the substituted patents. The

12

foregoing does not preclude a party from opposing substitution based on lack of good cause,

13

including that the proposed substitution would delay the existing schedule.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

Case 2:15-cv-00473-GMN-GWF Document 108 Filed 03/01/16 Page 6 of 7

1

Respectfully submitted this 26th day of February, 2016.

2
3
4
5
6
7

2300 WEST SAHARA AVENUE• SUITE 1200 • LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]

McDONALD • CARANO • WILSON LLP

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

/s/ Adam K. Mortara
JEFF SILVESTRI, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 5779
McDONALD CARANO WILSON LLP
2300 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 1200
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 702.873.9966
E-mail: [e-mail]

/s/ Peter A. Swanson
NICHOLAS J. SANTORO
SANTORO WHITMIRE, LTD.
10100 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 250
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

ADAM K. MORTARA, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
BRIAN C. SWANSON, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
JASON L. PELTZ, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
REID M. BOLTON, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
BARTLIT BECK HERMAN
PALENCHAR & SCOTT LLP
54 West Hubbard Street, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 312.494.4440
E-mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

ROBERT T. HASLAM (pro hac vice)
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
GARY M. RUBMAN (pro hac vice)
PETER A. SWANSON (pro hac vice)
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail],
[e-mail]

DANIEL C. TAYLOR, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
BARTLIT BECK HERMAN
PALENCHAR & SCOTT LLP
1899 Wynkoop Street, 8th Floor
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 303.591.3140
E-mail: [e-mail]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff
Aristocrat Technologies Inc., and Counterclaim
Plaintiffs Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty
Ltd. and Aristocrat International Pty Ltd.

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant
IGT

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25

___________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27

March 2, 2016
DATED: ____________________________

28
6

Case 2:15-cv-00473-GMN-GWF Document 108 Filed 03/01/16 Page 7 of 7

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 1st day of March, 2016, a true and correct copy of the

3

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER was electronically filed with the

4

Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF service which will provide copies to all counsel of record

5

registered to receive CM/ECF notifications in this case.

6
7

2300 WEST SAHARA AVENUE• SUITE 1200 • LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]

McDONALD • CARANO • WILSON LLP

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

/s/ Adam K. Mortara
Adam K. Mortara