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
§
§
§
§
§
§ 

[DRAFT] AMENDED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER1

December 2, 2013

Jury Selection - 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas (date originally set
for 2:10-cv-364 action)

November 25, 2013

Pretrial Conference2 -9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas

November 1, 2013

Joint Pretrial Order, Joint Proposed Jury Instructions and Form of
the Verdict

1  Based on the commonality between this case (2:10-cv-364) with the other three related case (2:10-cv365, 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. However, since this case has already progressed
ahead of the other three cases, the parties propose to slightly modify the schedule previously agreed-upon
for this case in order to allow the Court to conduct a single Markman hearing for the two related patentsin-suit rather than a separate proceeding for each patent. In particular, the parties propose that for judicial
economy, the Court continue the Markman hearing presently set for August 22, 2012, which is directed at
only the ‘287 patent, by approximately 3-4 months in order to provide the parties more time to develop
the issues for the ‘474 patent and hold a single Markman hearing on both patents in early December 2012.
This proposed modification to the schedule will not jeopardize the trial settings already set for December
2013 and depending on how the Court decides to structure these cases, the time already allocated for each
of the four cases may be utilized for separate trials, to the extent necessary. 
2 Depending on the number of Defendants that remain at the time of trial in these matters, the number of
days these trials will be scheduled for and the allocated time for parties to present their cases, as well as
the number of trials (if more than one), will be determined at a time closer to trial, no later than at the pretrial conference, if not earlier resolved by the pending motions before the Court for consolidation through
trial for all cases (2:10-cv-364, 2:10-cv-365, 2:10-cv-577 and 2:10-cv-578)..

November 1, 2013

Motions in Limine due
The parties are ordered to meet and confer on their respective
motions in limine and advise the court of any agreements in this
regard by 1:00 p.m. three business days before the pretrial
conference. The parties shall limit their motions in limine to those
issues which, if improperly introduced into the trial of the case
would be so prejudicial that the court could not alleviate the
prejudice with appropriate instruction(s).

October 28, 2013

Notice of Request for Daily Transcript or Real Time
Reporting of Court Proceedings If a daily transcript or real time
reporting of court proceedings is requested for trial, the party or
parties making said request shall file a notice with the Court and
e-mail the Court Reporter, Susan Simmons, at
[e-mail].

August 23, 2013

Response to Dispositive Motions (including Daubert Motions)3
Responses to dispositive motions filed prior to the dispositive
motion deadline, including Daubert Motions, shall be due in
accordance with Local Rule CV-7(e). Motions for Summary
Judgment shall comply with Local Rule CV-56.

July 26, 2013

Deadline for Filing Dispositive Motions and any other motions
that may require a hearing (including Daubert motions)

July 3, 2013

Defendants to Identify Trial Witnesses

June 19, 2013

Plaintiff to Identify Trial Witnesses

June 7, 2013

Discovery Deadline

May 9, 2013

Rebuttal Expert Witness Reports

April 11, 2013

Expert Witness Reports for Parties with Burden of Proof on an
Issue

3  The parties are directed to Local Rule CV-7(d), which provides in part that “[i]n the event a party fails
to oppose a motion in the manner prescribed herein the court will assume that the party has no
opposition.” Local Rule CV-7(e) provides that a party opposing a motion has 14 days, in addition to any
added time permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e), in which to serve and file a response and any
supporting documents, after which the court will consider the submitted motion for decision. 

2

December 5, 2012

Claim Construction Hearing4 9:00 am, Marshall, Texas

November 21, 2012

Comply with P.R. 4-5(d)

November 21, 2012

Comply with P.R. 4-5(c)

November 7, 2012

Comply with P.R. 4-5(b)

October 10, 2012

Comply with P.R. 4-5(a)

August 29, 2012

Discovery Deadline – Claim Construction Issues

August 15, 2012

Comply with P.R. 4-3

July 11, 2012

Comply with P.R. 4-2

June 13, 2012

Comply with P.R. 4-1

January 13, 2012

Respond to Amended Pleadings

December 2, 2011

Amend Pleadings
(It is not necessary to file a Motion for Leave to Amend before
the deadline to amend pleadings. It is necessary to file a Motion
for Leave to Amend after the amended pleadings date set forth
herein.)

September 14, 2012

Mediation to be completed
If the parties agree that mediation is an option, the Court will
appoint a mediator or the parties will mutually agree upon a
mediator. If the parties choose the mediator, they are to inform
the Court by letter of the name and address of the mediator. The
courtroom deputy will immediately mail out a “mediation packet”
to the mediator for the case. The mediator shall be deemed to
have agreed to the terms of Court Ordered Mediation Plan of the
United States District Court of the Eastern District of Texas by
going forth with the mediation. General Order 99-2.

April 20, 2012

Privilege Logs to be exchanged by Parties (or a letter to the Court
stating that there are no disputes as to claims of privileged
documents)

4

Parties agree that for judicial economy and the convenience of the Court and parties, a single Markman
hearing should be conducted for the two related U.S. patents (i.e., USP 7,392,287 and USP 7,856,474),
which collectively are involved this case (2:10-cv-364) and the three related cases (2:10-cv-365, 2:10-cv577, and 2:10-cv-578). Accordingly, the provisions outlined in P.R. 4 (Claim Construction Proceedings)
apply to both patents-in-suit and all submissions made in accordance with these patent rules shall be
consolidated for all four cases.

3

May 19, 2011

Join Additional Parties

September 23, 2011

Defendants to comply with P.R. 3-3 and 3-4

May 5, 2011

Plaintiff to comply with P.R. 3-1 and 3-2
LIMITATIONS ON MOTIONS PRACTICE

Summary Judgment Motions: Prior to filing any summary judgment motion, the parties
must submit letter briefs seeking permission to file the motion. The opening letter brief in each
of those matters shall be no longer than five (5) pages and shall be filed with the Court no later
than sixty (60) days before the deadline for filing summary judgment motions. Answering letter
briefs in each of those matters shall be no longer than five (5) pages and filed with the Court no
later than fourteen (14) days thereafter. Reply briefs in each of those matters shall be no longer
than three (3) pages and filed with the Court no later than five (5) days thereafter. The Court may
decide the question on the submissions or hold a hearing or telephone conference to hear
arguments and to determine whether the filing of any motion will be permitted.
Motions to Strike Expert Testimony/Daubert Motions: Prior to filing any Motions to
Strike or Daubert Motions, the parties must submit letter briefs seeking permission to file the
motion. The opening letter brief in each of those matters shall be no longer than three (3) pages
and shall be filed with the Court no later than sixty (60) days before the deadline for filing
Motions to Strike or Daubert Motions. Answering letter briefs in each of those matters shall be
no longer than three (3) pages and filed with the Court no later than fourteen (14) days thereafter.
Reply briefs in each of those matters shall be no longer than two (2) pages and filed with the
Court no later than five (5) days thereafter. The Court may hold a hearing or telephone
conference to hear arguments and to determine whether the filing of any motion will be
permitted.
For all of the above mentioned motions, the letter briefs shall be filed without exhibits.
Any requests to submit letter briefs after the deadlines outlined above must show good cause.

OTHER LIMITATIONS
1.

All depositions to be read into evidence as part of the parties’ case-in-chief shall be
EDITED so as to exclude all unnecessary, repetitious, and irrelevant testimony; ONLY
those portions that are relevant to the issues in controversy shall be read into evidence.

2.

The Court will refuse to entertain any motion to compel discovery filed after the date of
this Order unless the movant advises the Court within the body of the motion that counsel
for the parties have first conferred in a good faith attempt to resolve the matter. See
Eastern District of Texas Local Rule CV-7(h).

3.

The following excuses will not warrant a continuance nor justify a failure to comply with
the discovery deadline:

4

(a)
(b)

The fact that one or more of the attorneys is set for trial in another court on the
same day, unless the other setting was made prior to the date of this order or
was made as a special provision for the parties in the other case;

(c)

The fact that there are motions for summary judgment or motions to dismiss
pending;

The failure to complete discovery prior to trial, unless the parties can
demonstrate that it was impossible to complete discovery despite their good
faith effort to do so.

5