SignalQuest, Inc. v. Chou et al

Filing 43

ORDER approving as outlined 42 Discovery Plan. Length of Trial 5 days. Case Track: Complex. So Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante. Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline 5/6/2013. Joint claim construction & prehearing statement 7/26/13. Claim Construction briefs set for 9/6/2013; responsive briefs 9/20/13. Claim construction hearing (est.) 11/22/13. Fact Discovery deadline 4/21/2014. (dae)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SignalQuest, Inc.
v.

Civil No. 11-cv-00392-JL

Tien-Ming Chou

ORDER AFTER PRELIMINARY
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on
February 19, 2013.
The Discovery Plan (document no. 42) is approved as
submitted, with the following changes:
5/5/13

•

Motions to dismiss -

•

LPR 5.1(c) - Preliminary invalidity contentions -

5/31/13

•

LPR 6.1(a) - Exchange of proposed terms for
construction -

6/14/13

LPR 6.1(b)(1) - Exchange of preliminary claim
constructions -

6/28/13

LPR 6.1(b)(2) - Identification of references in
support of proposed construction & designation of
extrinsic evidence -

6/28/13

LPR 6.1(b)(3) - Meet & confer to limit terms in
dispute -

7/12/13

LPR 6.1(c) - Joint claim construction & prehearing
statement -

7/26/13

•

•

•

•

•

Amendment of pleadings -

8/9/13

•

Disclosure of claims against unnamed parties -

8/9/13

•

Joinder of additional parties/third party actions -

•

LPR 6.1(d) - Completion of claim construction
discovery -

•

LPR 6.1(e)(1) - Claim construction briefs -

•

LPR 6.1(e)(2) - Responsive claim construction
briefs -

8/9/13

8/16/13
9/6/13
9/20/13

•

LPR 6.1(f) - Claim construction hearing (est.) -

11/22/13

•

LPR 7.1(a)(1) - Final infringement contentions -

2/14/131

•

LPR 7.1(a)(2) - Motions to exclude amendments to
infringement contentions -

2/28/141

•

LPR 7.1(b)(1) - Final invalidity contentions -

3/21/141

•

LPR 7.1(b)(2) - Motions to exclude amendments to
invalidity contentions -

4/4/141

•

Close of fact discovery -

4/21/14

•

LPR 8.1(a)(1) - Non-claim construction opening
expert reports -

5/5/141

LPR 8.1(a)(2) - Non-claim construction rebuttal
expert reports -

6/19/141

•

LPR 8.1(b) - Completion of expert depositions -

8/4/141

•

Challenges to expert testimony -

•

Summary judgment deadline - 120 days prior to final pretrial
conference

•

1

9/3/14

While the parties’ joint discovery plan provides estimates
for these case events based upon the timelines set forth in the
Local Patent Rules, these are not estimates, but hard deadlines
that supersede the Local Patent Rules. The court anticipates
issuing a claim construction order no later than January 24, 2014
(assuming the parties adhere to their agreed-upon deadlines).
2

•

February 2015

Jury trial -

The discovery completion deadlines are the deadlines by which
discovery shall be completed–-not the deadlines by which
discovery shall be served.

Propounding parties shall ensure that

enough time remains in the discovery period for the recipients to
provide their responses by those deadlines.

Where Federal Rule

33(b)(2), 34(b)(2), or 36(a)(3) would call for a response after a
discovery completion deadline, the recipient need not provide a
response.
Plaintiff may propound a maximum of forty interrogatories,
while defendants may collectively propound forty interrogatories.
Plaintiff may take a maximum of fifteen depositions, while
defendants may collectively take a maximum of fifteen
depositions.

Absent an agreement to the contrary, each

deposition shall be limited to a maximum of seven hours, unless
the services of an interpreter are required.

Where an

interpreter is required, the deposition shall be limited to a
maximum of ten hours.
Summary Judgment.

The parties and counsel are advised that

compliance with Rule 56(e) and Local Rule 7.2(b), regarding
evidentiary support for factual assertions, and specification and
delineation of material issues of disputed fact, will be
required.
3

Oral argument on dispositive motions.

Counsel and the

parties should anticipate that oral argument will be held on all
dispositive motions.

Any party preferring that such a motion be

decided on the written filings alone should so notify the clerk.
Discovery disputes.

Discovery disputes will be handled by

the undersigned judge, as opposed to the Magistrate Judge, in the
normal course.

No motion to compel is necessary.

The party or

counsel seeking discovery-related relief should confer with
adverse counsel to choose mutually available dates, and then
contact the Deputy Clerk to schedule a conference call with the
court.

The court will inform counsel and parties what written

materials, if any, should be submitted in advance of the
conference call.
Customary motions to compel discovery, while disfavored by
the undersigned judge, are nonetheless permissible.

If counsel

prefer traditional discovery litigation to the conference call
procedure set forth above, any such motion to compel should
expressly request, in the title of the motion, a referral to the
United States Magistrate Judge.
normally be granted.

Such referral requests will

If the Magistrate Judge is recused,

alternate arrangements will be made.

4

SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Joseph N. Laplante
United States District Judge
Dated:
cc:

February 19, 2013

Brian David Thomas, Esq.
Peter Anthony Nieves, Esq.
Robert R. Lucic, Esq.
Mark C. Rouvalis, Esq.
Nicholas F. Casolaro, Esq.
Timothy N. Trop, Esq.

5