Wireless Recognition Technologies LLC v. A9.com, Inc. et al

Filing 116

Joint MOTION for Entry of Amended Discovery and Docket Control Orders by A9.com, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., Google, Inc.,, Nokia, Inc., Ricoh Innovations, Inc., Wireless Recognition Technologies LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Amended Discovery Order, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Amended Docket Control Order (consolidated versions), # 3 Text of Proposed Order Amended Docket Control Order (Defendants' Version), # 4 Text of Proposed Order Amended Docket Control Order (Plaintiff's Version))(Smith, Michael)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION

WIRELESS RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
A9.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM, INC.,
GOOGLE INC., NOKIA, INC., and
RICOH INNOVATIONS, INC.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§ Civil No. 2:10-CV-00364-DF
§
§
§
§
§
§

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AMENDED
DISCOVERY AND DOCKET CONTROL ORDERS
Based on the commonality between this case (2:10-cv-364) and the other three related
cases (2:10-cv-365, 2:10-cv-577, and 2:10-cv-578), the parties agree that the schedule for all four
cases should be consolidated through discovery and claim construction and hereby submit their
proposed Amended Discovery and Docket Control Orders.
In particular, the parties propose that for judicial economy, the Court should conduct a
single Markman hearing in early December 2012 for the two related patents-in-suit rather than
separate proceedings for each patent. In addition, while the parties have no disagreement with
the respect to the Amended Discovery Order, the parties submit that the trial dates within the
Amended Docket Control Order may depend on the Court’s ruling regarding Plaintiff Wireless
Recognition Technologies LLC’s Motion to Consolidate Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 42(a) and Local Rule CV-42(b) (Dkt. 94) and/or Defendants’ Cross-Motion to Sever
Pursuant to Rules 20 and 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Dkt. 104). Accordingly,
Plaintiff proposes a single consolidate trial for all four cases while the Defendants propose that

the time already allocated for each of the four cases may be utilized for separate trials, to the
extent necessary. Other than the trial structure, the parties have no disagreements with respect to
the proposed Amended Docket Control Order.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a copy of the proposed Amended Discovery Order. In
addition, attached for the Court’s consideration are the parties’ proposed Amended Docket
Control Orders. Specifically, attached as “Exhibit 2” is a consolidated version of the proposed
Amended Docket Control Oder, wherein the Defendants’ trial proposal is highlighted in yellow
and the Plaintiff’s trial proposal is highlighted in blue. The parties have also attached a copy of
the Amended Docket Control Order that contains only the Defendants’ trial proposal as “Exhibit
3” and a copy of the Amended Docket Control Order that contains only the Plaintiff’s trial
proposal as “Exhibit 4.”

2

Dated: November 28, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ William E. Davis, III
William E. Davis, III
Texas State Bar No. 24047416
The Davis Firm, P.C.
111 W. Tyler St.
Longview, Texas 75601
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

/s/ Michael C. Smith
Michael C. Smith
[e-mail]
Texas State Bar No. 18650410
SIEBMAN, BURG, PHILLIPS & SMITH,
LLP
P.O. Box 1556
Marshall, TX 75671-1556
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 972.767.4620

Cameron H. Tousi (admitted pro hac vice)
Virginia State Bar No.: 43668
David M. Farnum (admitted pro hac vice)
Ralph P. Albrecht (admitted pro hac vice)
ALBRECHT TOUSI & FARNUM, PLLC
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 202.318.8788
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

Robert F. Perry (admitted pro hac vice)
Allison H. Altersohn (admitted pro hac vice)
KING & SPALDING LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212.556.2222
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
NOKIA INC.

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant
WIRELESS RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGIES LLC

3

/s/ Michael C. Smith
Michael C. Smith
[e-mail]
Texas State Bar No. 18650410
SIEBMAN, BURG, PHILLIPS & SMITH, LLP
P.O. Box 1556
Marshall, TX 75671-1556
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 972.767.4620
James F. Valentine (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
California State Bar No. 149269
Daniel T. Shvodian (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
California State Bar No. 184576
Perkins Coie LLP
3150 Porter Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 650.838.4350
Attorneys for Defendants and
Counterclaimants
A9.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM, INC., and
GOOGLE INC.

4

/s/ Michael E. Jones
Michael E. Jones
Texas State Bar No. 18650410
Allen Franklin Gardner
POTTER MINTON P.C.
110 N. College, Suite 500
P.O. Box 359
Tyler, TX 75710-0359
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 903.593.0846
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Mark D. Rowland (admitted pro hac vice)
ROPES & GRAY LLP
1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 650.566.4144
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant
RICOH INNOVATIONS, INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in
compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this document was served on all counsel who are
deemed to have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 5(d) and Local Rule CV-5(d) and (e), all other counsel of record not deemed to have
consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by
email, on this 28th day of November, 2011.
/s/ Michael C. Smith
Michael C. Smith

5