Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc

Filing 116

RESPONSE in Opposition re 105 Opposed MOTION for the Court to Enter its [Model] Order Focusing Patent Claims and Prior Art to Reduce Costs, to Limit the Number of Asserted Claims, and to Extend the Deadline for the Parties to Comply with P.R. 4-2 filed by NetStar Technologies LLC, Rockstar Consortium US LP. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of John P. Lahad, # 2 Exhibit 1 Exhibit B to Google's Invalidity Contentions, # 3 Exhibit 2 6-23-2014 Letter from Google's counsel to Plaintiffs' counsel, # 4 Exhibit 3 7-2-2014 and 7-3-2014 Email exchanges between counsel, # 5 Exhibit 4 7-18-2014 Email from Google's counsel to Plaintiffs' counsel, # 6 Exhibit 5 7-21-2014 Email from Plaintiffs' counsel to Google's counsel, # 7 Exhibit 6 General Order 13-20, # 8 Text of Proposed Order)(Lahad, John)

Exhibit 6

GENERAL ORDER NO. 13-20
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GENERAL ORDER ADOPTING MODEL ORDER FOCUSING PATENT
CLAIMS AND PRIOR ART TO REDUCE COSTS
The attached Model Order Focusing Patent Claims and Prior Art to Reduce Costs is
ADOPTED effective immediately. A redline/strikeout version of the Federal Circuit’s model
order and the Local Rules Committee’s commentary regarding the Eastern District’s model order
have been included to provide background information.
Signed this 29th day of October, 2013.

FOR THE COURT:

__________________________________________
LEONARD DAVIS
Chief Judge

Case No.: ____
Plaintiff,
v.

Defendant.

[MODEL] ORDER FOCUSING
PATENT CLAIMS AND PRIOR ART
TO REDUCE COSTS

The Court ORDERS1 as follows:
1.

This Order supplements all other discovery rules and orders. It

streamlines the issues in this case to promote a “just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination” of this action, as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1.
Phased Limits on Asserted Claims and Prior Art References
2.

By the date set for completion of claim construction discovery

pursuant to P.R. 4-4, the patent claimant shall serve a Preliminary Election of
Asserted Claims, which shall assert no more than ten claims from each patent and
not more than a total of 32 claims. Not later than 14 days after service of the
Preliminary Election of Asserted Claims, the patent defendant shall serve a
Preliminary Election of Asserted Prior Art, which shall assert no more than twelve
prior art references against each patent and not more than a total of 40 references.2

1

The parties are encouraged to discuss limits lower than those set forth in this Model Order
based on case-specific factors such as commonality among asserted patents, the number and
diversity of accused products, the complexity of the technology, the complexity of the patent
claims, and the complexity and number of other issues in the case that will be presented to the
judge and/or jury. In general, the more patents that are in the case, the lower the per-patent
limits should be. In cases involving several patent families, diverse technologies, disparate
claims within a patent, or other unique circumstances, absent agreement of the parties, the court
will consider flexibly whether circumstances warrant expanding the limits on asserted claims or
prior art references. The parties shall jointly submit any proposed modifications by the deadline
for submission of proposed docket control or discovery orders, but in no event later than the
deadline for service of initial disclosures.
2

For purposes of this Order, a prior art instrumentality (such as a device or process) and
associated references that describe that instrumentality shall count as one reference, as shall the
closely related work of a single prior artist.

3.

No later than 28 days before the service of expert reports by the

party with the burden of proof on an issue, the patent claimant shall serve a Final
Election of Asserted Claims, which shall identify no more than five asserted claims
per patent from among the ten previously identified claims and no more than a
total of 16 claims. By the date set for the service of expert reports by the party
with the burden of proof on an issue, the patent defendant shall serve a Final
Election of Asserted Prior Art, which shall identify no more than six asserted prior
art references per patent from among the twelve prior art references previously
identified for that particular patent and no more than a total of 20 references. For
purposes of this Final Election of Asserted Prior Art, each obviousness
combination counts as a separate prior art reference.
4.

If the patent claimant asserts infringement of only one patent,

all per-patent limits in this order are increased by 50%, rounding up.
Modification of this Order
5.

Subject to Court approval, the parties may modify this Order

by agreement, but should endeavor to limit the asserted claims and prior art
references to the greatest extent possible. Absent agreement, post-entry motions to
modify this Order’s numerical limits on asserted claims and prior art references

2

must demonstrate good cause warranting the modification. Motions to modify
other portions of this Order are committed to the sound discretion of the Court.3

3

This Order contemplates that the parties and the Court may further narrow the issues during
pretrial proceedings in order to present a manageable case at trial.

3

Case No.: ____
Plaintiff,
v.

Defendant.

[MODEL] ORDER LIMITING EXCESS FOCUSING
PATENT CLAIMS AND PRIOR ART
TO REDUCE COSTS

The Court ORDERS1 as follows:
1.

This Order supplements all other discovery rules and orders. It

streamlines the issues in this case to promote a “just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination” of this action, as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1.
Phased Limits on Asserted Claims and Prior Art References
2.

Not later than 40 days after the accused infringer is required to

produce documents sufficient to show the operation of

the accused

instrumentalities By the date set for completion of claim construction discovery
pursuant to P.R. 4-4, the patent claimant shall serve a Preliminary Election of
Asserted Claims, which shall assert no more than ten claims from each patent and
not more than a total of 32 claims. Not later than 14 days after service of the
Preliminary Election of Asserted Claims, the patent defendant shall serve a

1

The parties are encouraged to discuss limits lower than those set forth in this Model Order
based on case-specific factors such as commonality among asserted patents, the number and
diversity of accused products, the complexity of the technology, the complexity of the patent
claims, and the complexity and number of other issues in the case that will be presented to the
judge and/or jury. In general, the more patents that are in the case, the lower the per-patent
limits should be. In cases involving several patent families or, diverse technologies, or disparate
claims within a patent, or other unique circumstances, absent agreement of the parties, the court
shouldwill consider flexibly whether circumstances warrant expanding the limits on asserted
claims or prior art references. The parties shall jointly submit any proposed modifications in their
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) Discovery Plan by the deadline for submission of proposed
docket control or discovery orders, but in no event later than the deadline for service of initial
disclosures.

Preliminary Election of Asserted Prior Art, which shall assert no more than twelve
prior art references against each patent and not more than a total of 40 references.2
3.

Not later than 28 days after the Court issues its Claim

Construction OrderNo later than 28 days before the service of expert reports by the
party with the burden of proof on an issue, the patent claimant shall serve a Final
Election of Asserted Claims, which shall identify no more than five asserted claims
per patent from among the ten previously identified claims and no more than a
total of 16 claims. Not later than 14 days after service of a Final Election of
Asserted ClaimsBy the date set for the service of expert reports by the party with
the burden of proof on an issue, the patent defendant shall serve a Final Election of
Asserted Prior Art, which shall identify no more than six asserted prior art
references per patent from among the twelve prior art references previously
identified for that particular patent and no more than a total of 20 references. For
purposes of this Final Election of Asserted Prior Art, each obviousness
combination counts as a separate prior art reference.
4.

If the patent claimant asserts infringement of only one patent,

all per-patent limits in this order are increased by 50%, rounding up.
2

For purposes of this Order, a prior art instrumentality (such as a device or process) and
associated references that describe that instrumentality shall count as one reference, as shall the
closely related work of a single prior artist. In cases involving several patent families or diverse
technologies, or disparate claims within a patent, the court should consider flexibly whether
circumstances warrant expanding the limits on prior art.

2

Modification of this Order
5.

Upon a showing of diligence, and with due consideration for

prejudice, a party may seek to modify this order for good cause shown. Any
request to increase the limits contained in this order must specifically show why
the inclusion of additional asserted claims or prior art references is warranted. See
In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1202, 1312–13 (Fed.
Cir. 2011). A failure to seek such a modification will constitute acquiescence to
the limits contained in this Order Subject to Court approval, the parties may
modify this Order by agreement, but should endeavor to limit the asserted claims
and prior art references to the greatest extent possible. Absent agreement, postentry motions to modify this Order’s numerical limits on asserted claims and prior
art references must demonstrate good cause warranting the modification. Motions
to modify other portions of this Order are committed to the sound discretion of the
Court.3

3

This Model Order contemplates that the parties and the Court may further narrow the issues
during pretrial proceedings in order to present a manageable case at trial.

3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LOCAL RULES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
COMMENTARY REGARDING MODEL ORDER FOCUSING PATENT
CLAIMS AND PRIOR ART TO REDUCE COSTS
Based on a request from the court, a working group of the Local Rules
Advisory Committee undertook a review of the Model Order Limiting Excess
Patent Claims and Prior Art prepared by the Federal Circuit Advisory Council’s
Model Order Committee (the “Model Order”). The working group’s goal was to
determine whether the Model Order, or some portion or variation of it, should be
recommended for inclusion in the Local Rules or practice of the Eastern District.
In this regard, the working group’s task was similar to that of the working group
formed to undertake a review of the Federal Circuit Advisory Council’s Model
Order Regarding E-Discovery in Patent Cases.
After consideration, the working group determined that a revised version of
the Model Order could be helpful to practice in the Eastern District. However,
rather than incorporating the revised version in the Local Rules, the working group
recommended including it as an appendix to the Local Rules, much like the version
of the Model Order Regarding E-Discovery which was adopted by the court. This
approach allows flexibility for both litigants and the court to tailor limits on
asserted claims and prior art references based on differing facts, case to case. This
approach also allows the court to decide questions that may arise regarding the

interpretation or application of the recommended limits in a particular case without
having to generally construe or interpret a local rule.
Recognizing the substantial work that went into the Model Order, as well as
the policy considerations that motivated it, the working group began its effort with
the Model Order as the baseline. The working group then made the following
changes to the Model Order based on its members’ experience with practice in the
Eastern District representing both plaintiffs and defendants in patent cases:
1.

Revising the title to emphasize the goal of reducing the burden on the court
and lowering the expense of the parties by focusing patent cases to the issues
at the core of the dispute.

2.

Revising footnote 1 to reflect that the initial consideration of the limitations
for a given case should be flexible, taking account of all relevant and
foreseeable case specific issues. This is achieved by: 1) relocating and
amending language from footnote 2 to demonstrate that all pertinent issues
presented by the parties should be considered before imposing case specific
limitations, and 2) changes to paragraph 5 requiring that “post-entry”
motions to modify the order’s numerical limits require a showing of good
cause, while committing all other modifications to the court’s discretion.
The last sentence of footnote 1 is revised to reflect the fact that many judges

2

require the parties to submit joint proposed docket control and discovery
orders rather than a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) discovery plan.
3.

Extending paragraph 2’s deadline to serve a Preliminary Election of
Asserted Claims to the date set for the completion of claim construction
discovery pursuant to P.R. 4-4. In the experience of the members of the
working group, the costs associated with invalidity contentions and claim
construction are two of the most significant costs incurred in the pretrial
phase of patent cases. However, reducing the cost of invalidity contentions
through an early election has proved elusive considering the early stage at
which invalidity contentions are served and the overriding need to give both
plaintiffs and defendants sufficient information to make a meaningful
election. Targeting the cost of claim construction therefore seems to be a
more feasible object of the initial narrowing. The working group extended
the Model Order’s deadline for the preliminary election to the date for the
completion of claim construction discovery. The working group made this
extension for two reasons. First, the later preliminary election reflects the
fact that the completeness of an accused infringer’s initial production of
documents sufficient to show the operation of the accused instrumentality is
often subject to reasonable debate. The later preliminary election allows
time to resolve such matters. Second, the later deadline allows initial claim

3

construction disclosures to take place, giving the parties the benefit of each
other’s claim construction positions in making their preliminary elections.
At the same time, the preliminary election is early enough to avoid undue
expense from briefing and arguing excess claim construction issues.
Significantly, the timing of the preliminary election will also lessen the
court’s burden in preparing for, hearing, and ruling on claim construction
issues.
4.

Relocating and amending the second sentence of footnote 2 to footnote 1
where it better fits with the discussion of the flexible considerations
appropriate before imposing limits in a given case. The slight amendments
to the relocated sentence avoid implication that the Model Order’s identified
circumstances warranting enlargement of the order’s limitations are
exhaustive or limited to expanding only the number of prior art references,
not also the number of asserted claims.

5.

Revising paragraph 3’s deadline to serve a Final Election of Asserted Claims
to not later than 28 days before the service of expert reports by the party
with the burden of proof, rather than the Model Order’s tethering of the
deadline to the issuance of the claim construction order. The principal
object of the final narrowing is lessening the costs associated with expert
witnesses and final preparation of the case for trial. Requiring the plaintiff

4

to make its final election 28 days before the deadline to serve opening expert
reports permits the parties’ experts to focus on those claims and references
that will remain for trial. The timing of the final election also gives the
parties maximum opportunity to consider discovery and claim construction
in making their election, and may move the presentation of any discovery
disputes to points earlier in the case. The anticipated cost savings is
necessarily dependent on the issuance of a claim construction order
sufficiently far in advance of the narrowing date to permit the parties to
make a meaningful election. In the experience of the members of the
working group, this will be the usual situation. However, should the court’s
claim construction order be delayed, the parties may need to seek an
extension of the deadline to make their final election until some period after
the issuance of the order, a matter committed to the court’s discretion as
discussed in point 7, below. Revision of paragraph 3’s deadline for the final
election also reflects the reality that many judges set deadlines for expert
reports which are not tied to the issuance of the claim construction order.
6.

Supplementing paragraph 3 by stating that each obviousness combination
counts as a separate prior art reference. A small number of prior art
references can be combined to form an exponentially greater number of
bases for invalidity. For the limit on prior art references to be meaningful,

5

each obviousness combination should count as a separate prior art reference.
Not imposing this requirement for purposes of the preliminary election gives
defendants increased flexibility to develop the appropriate combinations as
discovery proceeds. However, by the time of the final election, each basis
for invalidity should be specifically identified.
7.

Revising paragraph 5 to provide greater flexibility to modify the order’s
requirements depending on the circumstances of the case. Flexibility allows
the order to account for such things as adjustments in the disclosure
deadlines necessitated by the timing of the issuance of the claim construction
order or other case specific events. However, post-entry motions to modify
the numerical limits of the order remain subject to a showing of good cause.

6