Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS CORP. et al

Filing 133

4.26.11 Minute Entry - Status Conf: for proceedings held before Judge Leonard Davis: Status Conference held on 4/26/2011. (Court Reporter Shea Sloan.) (Attachments: # 1 Attorney Sign-in Sheets) (rlf, )

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

DATE: April 26, 2011
JUDGE
LEONARD DAVIS

COURT REPORTER:
Shea Sloan

LAW CLERKS: Kori Bagrowski

NOTE: 7 CASES ARE INCLUDED IN THESE MINUTES
UNILOC, USA

CIVIL ACTION NO: 6:10-CV-373 - CASE NO. 1

vs.
STATUS CONFERENCE
SONY, ET AL

UNILOC, USA
CIVIL ACTION NO: 6:10-CV-471 - CASE NO. 2
vs.
STATUS CONFERENCE
DISK DOCTORS, ET AL

UNILOC, USA
CIVIL ACTION NO: 6:10-CV-472 - CASE NO. 3
vs.
STATUS CONFERENCE
NATIONAL INSTRUM ENTS, ET AL

UNILOC, USA
CIVIL ACTION NO: 6:10-CV-591 - CASE NO. 4
vs.
STATUS CONFERENCE
ENGRASP, ET AL

UNILOC, USA
CIVIL ACTION NO: 6:10-CV-636 - CASE NO. 5
vs.
STATUS CONFERENCE
BM C SOFTW ARE, ET AL

UNILOC, USA
CIVIL ACTION NO: 6:10-CV-691 - CASE NO. 6
vs.
STATUS CONFERENCE
FOXIT CORPORATION, ET AL

DAVID J. MALAND, CLERK
BY: Rosa L. Ferguson, Courtroom Deputy

PAGE 2 - Proceedings Continued

SYM ANTEC CORPORATION
CIVIL ACTION NO: 6:11-CV-33 - CASE NO. 7
vs.
STATUS CONFERENCE
UNILOC, USA

SEE ATTACHED SIGN-IN SHEETS FOR APPEARANCES
On this day, came the parties by their attorneys and the following proceedings were had:
OPEN: 9:10 am
TIME:
9:10 am

ADJOURN: 10:20 am

MINUTES:
Cases called. Parties announced ready. See sign-in sheets.
Court addressed the parties on a more efficient manner to handle this case. Court has
received filings and has reviewed.
Mr. Hill addressed the Court on behalf of Uniloc and made a proposal to organize and
efficient proceed with these cases. Court tendered the Court a hard copy of slides. Mr. Hill
addressed the Court and outlined his suggestions. (1) Prompt Infringement Contentions; (2)
Early production of accused product sales data; (3) Early mediation deadline; (4) Parties
wishing to engage on non-infringement voluntarily provide source code; (5) Post-mediation P.R. 3-3, 3-4, and consolidated claim construction process; (6) Post-Markman - 2nd
management conference and trial setting / planning.
Court inquired as to consolidation of the cases. Mr. Hill responded. Mr. Hill continued to
elaborate on the outline of his suggestions.
Court inquired as to a tentative trial date. Mr. Hill responded.
Mr. Henson addressed the Court and responded and will speak on behalf of the defendants
generally. Mr. Henson addressed the Court on transferring to Rhode Island. Mr. Healey
addressed the Court and emphasized that they do want the transfer, and the stay on the reexam, but will go forth with the management of the case. Mr. Henson further addressed the
Court.
Mr. Hill responded as to the transfer. Court addressed Mr. Henson. Mr. Churchill
responded and addressed the Court on the re-exam. Mr. Hill responded as to a noninfringement defense, provide source code that they do not infringe, the plaintiff will cut
them loose. Mr. Etheridge addressed the Court on the transfer and the local rules as to
Rhode Island. Mr. Etheridge addressed the Court on the stay and the prejudice of the
plaintiff. Mr. Hayes addressed the Court on behalf of the plaintiff. Mr. Glitzenstein
addressed the Court. Mr. Hill briefly responded as to the infringement contentions. Mr.
Glitzenstein further addressed the Court on 3-1 contentions.
Mr. Glitzenstein addressed the Court on defendants’ proposed management of the case. Mr.
Hill responded to the defendant’s plan. Mr. Glitzenstein further addressed the Court on the
early MSJ’s. Court inquired as to claim construction issues or have most of them been
resolved. Mr. Glitzenstein responded. Mr. Churchill addressed the Court.

PAGE 3 - Proceedings Continued
TIME:

MINUTES:
Mr. Hill responded.
Mr. Healey addressed the Court on the 2 terms on the Uniloc v Microsoft case. Mr. Benson
addressed the Court on the problems on representing small defendants. Mr. Benson
proposed on getting the infringement contentions and the mediation. Mr. Collins addressed
the Court on smaller defendants and the cost of defense. Ms. DeRieux addressed the Court
and asked for clarifying the plaintiff’s proposal and the defendant providing source code.
Mr. Hill responded as to a voluntary exchange and the last chance to declare their claims.
Ms. DeRieux responded. Mr. Hill responded. Mr. Sacksteder addressed the Court. Ms.
Elkjer addressed the Court and would like some time for the Defendants to get together with
a plan and would like the Court to rule on the transfer and stay motions. Mr. Hill responded.
Mr. Benson addressed the Court.

10:20 am

There being nothing further, Court adjourned.