Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 328

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Strike Products Imperium Failed to Accuse in Its 029 Contentions from Imperiums Experts Report (Dkt. 135 ) is hereby DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants Motio n to Strike Portions of Dr. Cameron H.G. Wrights Rebuttal Report Concerning Validity Positions Not Previously Disclosed by Imperium (Dkt. 143 ) is hereby DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants Motion for Leave to File Further Claim Construction Briefing (Dkt. 180 ) is hereby DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants Motion for Leave to Submit Supplemental Expert Reports (Dkt. 186 ) is hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 8/22/2016. (baf, )

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

IMPERIUM IP HOLDINGS (CAYMAN),
LTD.

§
§
§
v.
§
§
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
§
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
§
INC., SAMSUNG
§
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
§
LLC, AND SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, §
INC.
§

CIVIL ACTION No. 4:14-CV-371
Judge Mazzant

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are several motions ruled on orally on January 29, 2016. On September
30, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Products Imperium Failed to Accuse in Its ‘029
Contentions from Imperium’s Expert’s Report (Dkt. #135). Plaintiff filed a response on October
19, 2015 (Dkt. #145).

On October 29, 2015, Defendants filed a reply (Dkt. #150).

On

November 9, 2015 Defendants filed a sur-reply (Dkt. #158). After consideration of the motion
and the relevant pleadings, the Court determined at pretrial that the motion should be denied
(Trial Tr. 1/29/16 at 5:1-5).
On October 16, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Portions of Dr. Cameron H.G.
Wright’s Rebuttal Report Concerning Validity Positions Not Previously Disclosed by Imperium
(Dkt. #143). On November 2, 2015, Defendants filed a response (Dkt. #153). On November 12,
2015, Plaintiff filed a reply (Dkt. #162). On November 23, 2015, Defendants filed a sur-reply
(Dkt. #168). After consideration of the motion and the relevant pleadings, the Court determined
at pretrial that the motion should be denied (Trial Tr. 1/29/16 at 4:19-21).

1

On December 8, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to File Further Claim
Construction Briefing (Dkt. #180). On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a response (Dkt.
#185). On December 23, 2015, Defendants filed a reply (Dkt. #187). On December 28, 2015,
Defendants filed a sur-reply (Dkt. #190). After consideration of the motion and the relevant
pleadings, the Court determined at pretrial that the motion should be denied (Trial Tr. 1/29/16 at
4:22-23).
On December 23, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to Submit Supplemental
Expert Reports (Dkt. #186). On January 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response (Dkt. #200). On
January 22, 2016, Defendants filed a reply (Dkt. #220). After consideration of the motion and
the relevant pleadings, the Court determined at pretrial that the motion should be denied (Trial
Tr. 1/29/16 at 4:24-25).
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Products Imperium Failed
to Accuse in Its ‘029 Contentions from Imperium’s Expert’s Report (Dkt. #135) is hereby
DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of Dr. Cameron H.G.
Wright’s Rebuttal Report Concerning Validity Positions Not Previously Disclosed by Imperium
(Dkt. #143) is hereby DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Further Claim
Construction Briefing (Dkt. #180) is hereby DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Submit Supplemental
Expert Reports (Dkt. #186) is hereby DENIED.

2

SIGNED this 22nd day of August, 2016.

___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3