Free Remark - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42 Document 22 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 22 Filed 01/12/2007 Page of 22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. SHARP CORPORATION and SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP. § § § § § §

CIVIL NO. 2:06-CV-47(TJW)

NOTICE OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE, PROPOSED DEADLINES FOR DOCKET CONTROL ORDER AND DISCOVERY ORDER The court, sua sponte, issues this Notice of Scheduling Conference, Proposed Deadlines for Docket Control Order and Discovery Order. Notice of Scheduling Conference Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and Local Rule CV-16, the Scheduling Conference in this case is set for February 6, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. in Marshall, Texas. The parties are directed to meet and confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) prior to the conference. The parties are excused from the requirement of filing a written proposed discovery plan in this case. Proposed Deadlines for Docket Control Order The proposed deadlines for docket control order set forth in the attached Appendix A shall be discussed at the Scheduling Conference. The court will not modify the proposed trial date except for good cause shown. Discovery Order After a review of the pleaded claims and defenses in this action and in furtherance of the management of the court's docket under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, it is ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Disclosures. Except as provided by paragraph 1(h), and, to the extent not already disclosed,

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42 Document 22 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 22 Filed 01/12/2007 Page of 22

within thirty (30) days after the Scheduling Conference, each party shall disclose to every other party the following information: (a) (b) (c) the correct names of the parties to the lawsuit; the name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties; the legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the disclosing party's claims or defenses (the disclosing party need not marshal all evidence that may be offered at trial); (d) the name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, a brief statement of each identified person's connection with the case, and a brief, fair summary of the substance of the information known by any such person; (e) any indemnity and insuring agreements under which any person or entity carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment entered in this action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment; (f) (g) (h) any settlement agreements relevant to the subject matter of this action; any statement of any party to the litigation; for any testifying expert, by the date set by the court in the Docket Control Order, each party shall disclose to the other party or parties: a. b. c. the expert's name, address, and telephone number; the subject matter on which the expert will testify; if the witness is retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or whose duties as an employee of the disclosing party regularly involve giving expert testimony: (a) all documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data compilations

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42 Document 22 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 22 Filed 01/12/2007 Page of 22

that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the expert in anticipation of the expert's testimony; and (b) the disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) and Local Rule CV-26. d. for all other experts, the general substance of the expert's mental impressions and opinions and a brief summary of the basis for them or documents reflecting such information; Any party may move to modify these disclosures for good cause shown. 2. Protective Orders. Upon the request of any party before or after the Scheduling

Conference, the court shall issue the Protective Order in the form attached as Appendix B. Any party may oppose the issuance of or move to modify the terms of the Protective Order for good cause. 3. Additional Disclosures. In addition to the disclosures required in Paragraph 1 of this Order, at the Scheduling Conference, the court shall amend this discovery order and require each party, without awaiting a discovery request, to provide, to the extent not already provided, to every other party the following: (a) (b) the disclosures required by the Patent Rules for the Eastern District of Texas; within forty-five (45) days after the Scheduling Conference, a copy of all documents, data compilations, and tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of the party that are relevant to the case, except to the extent these disclosures are affected by the time limits set forth in the Patent Rules for the Eastern District of Texas. By written agreement of all parties, alternative forms of disclosure may be provided in lieu of paper copies. For example, the parties may agree to exchange images of

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42 Document 22 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 4 of 22 Filed 01/12/2007 Page of 22

documents electronically or by means of computer disk; or the parties may agree to review and copy disclosure materials at the offices of the attorneys representing the parties instead of requiring each side to furnish paper copies of the disclosure materials; (c) within forty-five (45) days after the Scheduling Conference, a complete computation of any category of damages claimed by any party to the action, making available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34, the documents or other evidentiary material on which such computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered; and (d) within forty-five (45) days after the Scheduling Conference, those documents and authorizations described in Local Rule CV-34; and The court shall order these disclosures in the absence of a showing of good cause by any party objecting to such disclosures. 4. Discovery Limitations. At the Scheduling Conference, the court shall also amend this discovery order to limit discovery in this cause to the disclosures described in Paragraphs 1 and 3 together with 60 interrogatories, 60 requests for admissions, the depositions of the parties, depositions on written questions of custodians of business records for third parties, depositions of three (3) expert witnesses per side and forty (40) hours of additional depositions per side. "Side" means a party or a group of parties with a common interest. Any party may move to modify these limitations for good cause. 5. Privileged Information. There is no duty to disclose privileged documents or information. However, the parties are directed to meet and confer concerning privileged documents or information after the Scheduling Conference. Within sixty (60) days after the Scheduling

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42 Document 22 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 5 of 22 Filed 01/12/2007 Page of 22

Conference, the parties shall exchange privilege logs identifying the documents or information and the basis for any disputed claim of privilege in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, with enable the other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection. Any party may move the court for an order compelling the production of any documents or information identified on any other party's privilege log. If such a motion is made, the party asserting privilege shall respond to the motion within the time period provided by Local Rule CV-7. The party asserting privilege shall then file with the Court within thirty (30) days of the filing of the motion to compel any proof in the form of declarations or affidavits to support their assertions of privilege, along with the documents over which privilege is asserted for in camera inspection. If the parties have no disputes concerning privileged documents or information, then the parties shall inform the court of that fact within sixty (60) days after the Scheduling Conference. 6. Pre-trial disclosures. Absent a showing of good cause by any party, the court shall require the following additional disclosures: Each party shall provide to every other party regarding the evidence that the disclosing party may present at trial as follows: (a) The name and, if not previously provided, the address and telephone number, of each witness, separately identifying those whom the party expects to present at trial and those whom the party may call if the need arises. (b) The designation of those witnesses whose testimony is expected to be presented by means of a deposition and, if not taken stenographically, a transcript of the pertinent portions of the deposition testimony. (c) An appropriate identification of each document or other exhibit, including summaries

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42 Document 22 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 6 6 of 22 Filed 01/12/2007 Page of 22

of other evidence, separately identifying those which the party expects to offer and those which the party may offer if the need arises. Unless otherwise directed by the court, these disclosures shall be made at least 30 days before trial. Within 14 days thereafter, unless a different time is specified by the court, a party may serve and file a list disclosing (1) any objections to the use under Rule 32(a) of a deposition designated by another party under subparagraph (B), and (2) any objections, together with the grounds therefor, that may be made to the admissibility of materials identified under subparagraph (c). Objections not so disclosed, other than objections under Rules 402 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, shall be deemed waived unless excused by the court for good cause shown. 7. Signature. The disclosures required by this order shall be made in writing and signed by the party or counsel and shall constitute a certification that, to the best of the signer's knowledge, information and belief, such disclosure is complete and correct as of the time it is made. If feasible, counsel shall meet to exchange disclosures required by this order; otherwise, such disclosures shall be served as provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. The parties shall promptly file a notice with the court that the disclosures required under this order have taken place. 8. Duty to Supplement. After disclosure is made pursuant to this order, each party is under a duty to supplement or correct its disclosures immediately if the party obtains information on the basis of which it knows that the information disclosed was either incomplete or incorrect when made, or is no longer complete or true. 9. Disputes. (a) Except in cases involving claims of privilege, any party entitled to receive disclosures may, after the deadline for making disclosures, serve upon a party required to make

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42 Document 22 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 7 7 of 22 Filed 01/12/2007 Page of 22

disclosures a written statement, in letter form or otherwise, of any reason why the party entitled to receive disclosures believes that the disclosures are insufficient. The written statement shall list, by category, the items the party entitled to receive disclosures contends should be produced. The parties shall promptly meet and confer. If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute, then the party required to make disclosures shall, within fourteen (14) days after service of the written statement upon it, serve upon the party entitled to receive disclosures a written statement, in letter form or otherwise, which identifies (1) the requested items that will be disclosed, if any, and (2) the reasons why any requested items will not be disclosed. The party entitled to receive disclosures may thereafter file a motion to compel. (b) Counsel are directed to contact the chambers of the undersigned for any "hot-line" disputes before contacting the Discovery Hotline provided by Local Rule CV-26(e). If the undersigned is not available, the parties shall proceed in accordance with Local Rule CV-26(e). 10. No Excuses. A party is not excused from the requirements of this Discovery Order because it has not fully completed its investigation of the case, or because it challenges the sufficiency of another party's disclosures, or because another party has not made its disclosures. Absent court order to the contrary, a party is not excused from disclosure because there are pending motions to dismiss, to remand or to change venue. 11. Filings. Any filings in excess of twenty (20) pages, counsel is directed to provide a courtesy copy to Chambers, simultaneously with the date of filing.

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42 Document 22 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 8 8 of 22 Filed 01/12/2007 Page of 22

12.

Modifications to Patent Rules. The attached Appendix C applies to this case and supplements the Patent Rules for the Eastern District of Texas. These modifications are not intended to apply to any other case except as may be expressly provided by order of this Court. SIGNED this 12th day of January, 2007.

__________________________________________ T. JOHN WARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42 Document 22 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 9 9 of 22 Filed 01/12/2007 Page of 22

APPENDIX A

PROPOSED DEADLINES FOR DOCKET CONTROL ORDER

PROPOSED DEADLINES TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE February 6, 2007

Monday, June 2, 2008

Jury Selection - 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas

May 22, 2008

Pretrial Conference - 9:30 a.m. in Marshall, Texas

May 16, 2008

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

May 19, 2008

Motions in Limine (due three days before final Pre-Trial Conference). Three (3) days prior to the pre-trial conference provided for herein, the parties shall furnish a copy of their respective Motions in Limine to the Court by facsimile transmission, 903/935-2295. The parties are directed to confer and advise the Court on or before 3:00 o'clock p.m. the day before the pre-trial conference which paragraphs are agreed to and those that need to be addressed at the pre-trial conference. The parties shall limit their motions in limine to those issues which, if improperly introduced into the trial of the cause, would be so prejudicial that the Court could not alleviate the prejudice with appropriate instruction(s). Response to Dispositive Motions (including Daubert motions) 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 [email protected].

April 18, 2008

May 2, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42 Document 22 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 10 of 22 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 10 of 22

April 4, 2008

For Filing Dispositive Motions and any other motions that may require a hearing (including Daubert motions) 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 CV56.

March 4, 2008

Defendant to Identify Trial Witnesses

February 19, 2008

Plaintiff to Identify Trial Witnesses

February 19, 2008

Discovery Deadline

30 Days after claim construction ruling Designate Rebuttal Expert Witnesses other than claims construction Expert witness report due Refer to Discovery Order for required information.

15 Days after claim construction ruling Comply with P.R. 3-8.

15 Days after claim construction ruling Party with the burden of proof to designate Expert Witnesses other than claims construction Expert witness report due Refer to Discovery Order for required information.

November 20, 2007

Claim construction hearing 9:00 a.m., Marshall, Texas.

October 26, 2007

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

October 19, 2007

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

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42 Document 22 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 11 of 22 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 11 of 22

October 5, 2007

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

September 12, 2007

Discovery deadline­claims construction issues

September 5, 2007

Respond to Amended Pleadings

August 22, 2007

Amend Pleadings (It is not necessary to file a Motion for Leave to Amend before the deadline to amend pleadings except to the extent the amendment seeks to add a new patent in suit. It is necessary to file a Motion for Leave to Amend after August 22, 2007.)

August 22, 2007

Comply with P.R. 4-3.

July 23, 2007

Comply with P.R. 4-2.

July 3, 2007

Comply with P.R. 4-1.

March 21, 2007

Comply with P.R. 3-3.

April 6, 2007

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).

March 6, 2007

Join Additional Parties

February 16, 2007

Comply with P.R. 3-1

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42 Document 22 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 12 of 22 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 12 of 22

To be discussed at Scheduling Conference

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 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. Scheduling Conference (All attorneys are directed to Local Rule CV-16 for scope of the Scheduling Conference).

February 6, 2007

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 12 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.

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 which are relevant to the issues in controversy shall be read into evidence. 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). The following excuses will not warrant a continuance nor justify a failure to comply with the discovery deadline: (a) The fact that there are motions for summary judgment or motions to dismiss pending;

2.

3.

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42 Document 22 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 13 of 22 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 13 of 22

(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; 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.

(c)

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42 Document 22 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 14 of 22 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 14 of 22

APPENDIX B

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. SHARP CORPORATION and SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP. § § § § § §

CIVIL NO. 2:06-CV-47(TJW)

STANDARD PROTECTIVE ORDER The Court, sua sponte, issues this Protective Order to facilitate document disclosure and production under the Local Rules of this Court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Unless modified pursuant to the terms contained in this Order, this Order shall remain in effect through the conclusion of this litigation. In support of this order, the court finds that: 1. Documents or information containing confidential proprietary and business information

and/or trade secrets ("Confidential Information") that bear significantly on the parties' claims or defenses is likely to be disclosed or produced during the course of discovery in this litigation; 2. The parties to this litigation may assert that public dissemination and disclosure of

Confidential Information could severely injure or damage the party disclosing or producing the Confidential Information and could place that party at a competitive disadvantage; 3. Counsel for the party or parties receiving Confidential Information are presently without

sufficient information to accept the representation(s) made by the party or parties producing Confidential Information as to the confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret nature of such

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42 Document 22 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 15 of 22 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 15 of 22

Confidential Information; and 4. To protect the respective interests of the parties and to facilitate the progress of disclosure

and discovery in this case, the following Order should issue: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Documents or discovery responses containing Confidential Information disclosed or produced by any party in this litigation are referred to as "Protected Documents." Except as otherwise indicated below, all documents or discovery responses designated by the producing party as "Confidential" and which are disclosed or produced to the attorney's for the other parties to this litigation are Protected Documents and are entitled to confidential treatment as described below. 2. Protected Documents shall not include (a) advertising materials, (b) materials that on their face show that they have been published to the general public, or (c) documents that have submitted to any governmental entity without request for confidential treatment. 3. At any time after the delivery of Protected Documents, counsel for the party or parties receiving the Protected Documents may challenge the Confidential designation of all or any portion thereof by providing written notice thereof to counsel for the party disclosing or producing the Protected Documents. If the parties are unable to agree as to whether the confidential designation of discovery material is appropriate, the party or parties receiving the Protected Documents shall certify to the Court that the parties cannot reach an agreement as to the confidential nature of all or a portion of the Protected Documents. Thereafter, the party or parties disclosing or producing the Protected Documents shall have ten (10) days from the date of certification to file a motion for protective order with regard to any Protected Documents in dispute. The party or parties producing the Protected Documents shall have

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42 Document 22 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 16 of 22 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 16 of 22

the burden of establishing that the disputed Protected Documents are entitled to confidential treatment. If the party or parties producing the Protected Documents do not timely file a motion for protective order, then the Protected Documents in dispute shall no longer be subject to confidential treatment as provided in this Order. All Protected Documents are entitled to confidential treatment pursuant to the terms of this Order until and unless the parties formally agree in writing to the contrary, a party fails to timely move for a protective order, or a contrary determination is made by the Court as to whether all or a portion of a Protected Document is entitled to confidential treatment. 4. Confidential Treatment. Protected Documents and any information contained therein shall not be used or shown, disseminated, copied, or in any way communicated to anyone for any purpose whatsoever, except as provided for below. 5. Protected Documents and any information contained therein shall be disclosed only to the following persons ("Qualified Persons"): (a) Counsel of record in this action for the party or party receiving Protected Documents or any information contained therein; Employees of such counsel (excluding experts and investigators) assigned to and necessary to assist such counsel in the preparation and trial of this action; and The Court.

(b)

(c)

Protected Documents and any information contained therein shall be used solely for the prosecution of this litigation. 6. Counsel of record for the party or parties receiving Protected Documents may create an index of the Protected Documents and furnish it to attorneys of record representing or having represented parties involved in litigation involving the claims alleged in this suit against the party or parties disclosing or producing the Protected Documents. The index may only

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42 Document 22 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 17 of 22 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 17 of 22

identify the document, date, author, and general subject matter of any Protected Document, but may not reveal the substance of any such document. Counsel for the party or parties receiving Protected Documents shall maintain a current log of the names and addresses of persons to whom the index was furnished. 7. The term "copy" as used herein means any photographic, mechanical or computerized copy or reproduction of any document or thing, or any verbatim transcript, in whole or in part, of such document or thing. 8. To the extent that Protected Documents or information contained therein are used in depositions, at hearings, or at trial, such documents or information shall remain subject to the provisions of this Order, along with the transcript pages of the deposition testimony and/or trial testimony referring to the Protected Documents or information contained therein. 9. Any court reporter or transcriber who reports or transcribes testimony in this action shall agree that all "confidential" information designated as such under this Order shall remain "confidential" and shall not be disclosed by them, except pursuant to the terms of this Order, and that any notes or transcriptions of such testimony (and any accompanying exhibits) will be retained by the reporter or delivered to counsel of record. 10. Inadvertent or unintentional production of documents or information containing Confidential Information which are not designated "confidential" shall not be deemed a waiver in whole or in part of a claim for confidential treatment. 11. The party or parties receiving Protected Documents shall not under any circumstances sell, offer for sale, advertise, or publicize Protected Documents or any information contained therein. 12. After termination of this litigation, the provisions of this Order shall continue to be binding,

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42 Document 22 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 18 of 22 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 18 of 22

except with respect to those documents and information that become a matter of public record. This Court retains and shall have continuing jurisdiction over the parties and recipients of the Protected Documents for enforcement of the provisions of this Order following termination of this litigation. 13. Upon termination of this action by dismissal, judgment, or settlement, counsel for the party or parties receiving Protected Documents shall return the Protected Documents to the counsel for the party or parties disclosing or producing the Protected Documents. The party or parties receiving the Protected Documents shall keep their attorney work product which refers or relates to any Protected Documents. Attorney work product may be used in subsequent litigation provided that such use does not disclose Protected Documents or any information contained therein. 14. This Order shall be binding upon the parties and their attorneys, successors, executors, personal representatives, administrators, heirs, legal representatives, assigns, subsidiaries, divisions, employees, agents, independent contractors, or other persons or organizations over which they have control. 15. The Court anticipates and encourages the parties to file a motion to modify the terms hereof with respect to the sharing of Protected Documents with experts and consultants; shifting the cost burden of production equitably; and other terms that may be reasonably required to protect a party as provided in Rule 26(b) or (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So ORDERED AND SIGNED this ______ day of ______________________, 2007.

__________________________________________ T. JOHN WARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42 Document 22 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 19 of 22 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 19 of 22

APPENDIX C

ORDER RELATING TO PATENT CASES BEFORE JUDGE T. JOHN WARD The Court issues certain modifications to the Eastern District Patent Rules. The

modifications relate to three issues: (1) Notice Requirements, (2) Infringement and Invalidity Contentions for Software, and (3) Deadlines Related to Claim Construction. I. Notice Requirements The Court has seen a dramatic increase in the number of disputes related to parties serving "supplemental," "additional," or "revised" P.R. 3-1 or P.R. 3-3 disclosures. In the past, parties were not required to provide notice to the Court regarding compliance with P.R. 3-1 or P.R. 3-3. Thus, certain parties attempted to avoid the rule that Preliminary Contentions are final except as provided in P.R. 3-6 and P.R. 3-7. Accordingly, the Court modifies P.R. 3-1 and P.R. 3-3 in the following manner: P.R. 3-1(g): Any time a party claiming patent infringement serves Preliminary Infringement Contentions on an opposing party, the party claiming patent infringement shall also file with the Court a Notice of Compliance with P.R. 3-1. P.R. 3-3(e): Any time a party opposing patent infringement serves Preliminary Invalidity Contentions on an opposing party, the party opposing patent infringement shall also file with the Court a Notice of Compliance with P.R. 3-3.

Under this Court's interpretation of the Patent Rules, leave of Court is required for serving "amended," "supplemental," or "revised" P.R. 3-1 or P.R. 3-3 disclosures. The Court will strike "amendments," "supplements," or "revisions" of P.R. 3-1 or P.R. 3-3 disclosures that do not comply with P.R. 3-6 or P.R. 3-7. II. Infringement and Invalidity Contentions for Software Additional modifications to the Patent Rules regarding P.R. 3-1 and P.R. 3-3 are being made

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42 Document 22 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 20 of 22 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 20 of 22

to reduce discovery disputes and motion practice resulting from patents that contain software claim limitations. The Patent Rules require a party asserting claims of patent infringement to take a firm position in the litigation as it relates to infringement early on in the case. This and other courts in the Eastern District of Texas, however, recognize that software claim limitations present unique challenges for the parties because parties claiming patent infringement do not typically have access to an opposing party's source code before filing suit. At the same time, parties opposing a claim for patent infringement are hampered in their ability to prepare a defense absent specific infringement contentions from the party asserting claims of patent infringement. The lack of access to source code coupled with an opponent's right to prepare a defense has led to numerous discovery disputes. To alleviate these disputes and to provide clear direction to the parties as to their rights and responsibilities under the Patent Rules, the Court modifies the Patent Rules in a manner consistent with such cases as American Video Graphics, L.P. v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 2d 558 (E.D. Tex. 2005). The Court's modifications to P.R. 3-1and P.R. 3-3 are set out below. P.R. 3-1 (h): If a party claiming patent infringement asserts that a claim element is a software limitation, the party need not comply with P.R. 3-1 for those claim elements until 30 days after source code for each Accused Instrumentality is produced by the opposing party. Thereafter, the party claiming patent infringement shall identify, on an element-by-element basis for each asserted claim, what source code of each Accused Instrumentality allegedly satisfies the software limitations of the asserted claim elements. P.R. 3-3(f): If a party claiming patent infringement exercises the provisions of P.R. 3-1(g), the party opposing a claim of patent infringement may serve, not later than 30 days after receipt of a P.R. 3-1(g) disclosure, supplemental "Preliminary Invalidity Contentions" that amend only those claim elements identified as software limitations by the party claiming patent infringement. Thus, if a party claiming patent infringement asserts that a claim element (or the entire claim) is software, that party need only identify the element as a software limitation in its initial compliance

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42 Document 22 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 21 of 22 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 21 of 22

with P.R. 3-1, but does not need to identify where such limitation is met in the Accused Instrumentality. After receipt of the source code for an Accused Instrumentality, the party is permitted 30 days to supplement its P.R. 3-1 disclosure to identify, with specificity, the source code of the Accused Instrumentality that allegedly satisfies the software claim elements. P.R. 3-1(g) does not allow Plaintiff the opportunity to modify or amend any non-software claim contentions. Likewise, once a party opposing a claim of patent infringement is in receipt of a P.R. 3.1(g) disclosure, the party is allowed 30 days to modify its initial P.R. 3-3 disclosures, but only to the extent the modifications relate to the software claim elements identified by the party claiming patent infringement. P.R. 3-3(e) does not allow a party opposing a claim of infringement an opportunity to modify or amend any non-software contentions. III. Claim Construction Deadlines The final amendments to the Patent Rules relate to claim construction deadlines. In the Eastern District Patent Rules, claim construction deadlines are triggered by the filing of the parties' Infringement and Invalidity Contentions. The increase of patent cases before this Court has resulted in a large number of Claim Construction hearings and, as a result, strict application of the Patent Rules yields a P.R. 4-5 deadline approximately three months or more before Court could accommodate a Claim Construction Hearing. To facilitate the case, resolve discovery disputes, and have claim construction hearings a reasonable time after briefing is complete, the Court modifies the deadlines in P.R. 4-1 and P.R. 4-3 as set forth below: 4-1. Exchange of Proposed Terms and Claim Elements for Construction. (a) Not later than 140 days before the date set for the Claim Construction Hearing, each party shall simultaneously exchange a list of claim terms, phrases, or clauses which that party contends should be construed by the Court, and identify any claim element which that party contends should be governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42 Document 22 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 22 of 22 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 22 of 22

4-3. Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. Not later than 30 days after "Exchange of Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence" in compliance with P.R. 4.2, the parties shall complete and file a Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, which shall contain the following information: Thus, the Court's modifications will make the trigger of P.R. 4-1 through P.R. 4-5 the date of the Claim Construction Hearing. For clarification, the Court notes that the "140 days" set forth in P.R. 4-1 was not chosen to confuse the parties but was instead chosen so as to be evenly divisible by 7. Thus, whatever the date of the Claim Construction Hearing, the deadline for complying with P.R. 4-1 will always fall on a weekday. If that weekday is a Federal Holiday, the deadline for complying with P.R. 4-1 is extended to the first day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or other Federal Holiday.

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Document 42-2 Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 23

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 01/29/2007

Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Document 42-2 Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 23

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 01/29/2007

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-3 Document 24

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/01/2007

Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTIRCT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP Plaintiff vs. SHARP CORPORATION and SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP. Defendants § § § § § § § §

No: 2:06CV-00047 (TJW) JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that attorney Charles Ainsworth enters his appearance in this matter as additional counsel for Plaintiff Rembrandt Technologies, LP for the purpose of receiving notices from the Court. Dated: February 1, 2007 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Charles Ainsworth Charles Ainsworth State Bar No. 00783521 Robert Christopher Bunt State Bar No. 00787165 Robert M. Parker State Bar No. 15498000 PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C. 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114 Tyler, Texas 75702 903/531-3535 903/533-9687 - Facsimile E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Rembrandt Technologies, LP

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-3 Document 24

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/01/2007

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the all counsel of record, who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served this February 1, 2007, with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CD-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by electronic mail, facsimile transmission and/or first class mail on this same date. /s/ Charles Ainsworth Charles Ainsworth

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-4 Document 25
O AO 456 (Rev. 5/85) Notice

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/01/2007

Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. SHARP CORPORATION, ET AL.

NOTICE

CASE NUMBER: 2:06-CV-47(TJW)

TYPE OF CASE:

X CIVIL

CRIMINAL

TAKE NOTICE that a proceeding in this case has been set for the place, date, and time set forth below:
PLACE ROOM NO. DATE AND TIME

TYPE OF PROCEEDING

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE (Please NOTE that the scheduling conference previously set for 2/06/07 has been CANCELLED. The scheduling conference has been RESET to February 20, 2007 @ 10:30 a.m.)

X TAKE NOTICE that a proceeding in this case has been continued as indicated below:
PLACE United States District Court 100 E. Houston Street MARSHALL, TX 75670 DATE AND TIME PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED February 6, 2007 @ 1:30 p.m. CONTINUED TO DATE AND TIME February 20, 2007 @ 10:30 a.m.

David J. Maland US MAGISTRATE JUDGE OR CLERK OF COURT February 1, 2007 DATE Sonja H. Dupree (BY) DEPUTY CLERK

TO:

ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-4 Document 25

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/01/2007

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please sign in the space provided below and return to the court by facsimile, (903) 935-2295, within three (3) days of your receipt of the enclosed notice.

I acknowledge receipt of the indicated notice on the date shown below.

Case No. Signature of Atty. Date Print Name of Atty. Counsel for (Name of Party)

Type of Proceeding: (e.g., Scheduling Conference) Date of Proceeding: Time of Proceeding: Location of Proceeding:

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-5 Document 26-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 11 of 3 Filed 02/16/2007 Page of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-5 Document 26-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 22 of 3 Filed 02/16/2007 Page of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-5 Document 26-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 33 of 3 Filed 02/16/2007 Page of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-6 Document 26-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 11 of 5 Filed 02/16/2007 Page of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-6 Document 26-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 22 of 5 Filed 02/16/2007 Page of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-6 Document 26-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 33 of 5 Filed 02/16/2007 Page of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-6 Document 26-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 44 of 5 Filed 02/16/2007 Page of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-6 Document 26-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 55 of 5 Filed 02/16/2007 Page of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-7 Document 28-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 5 Filed 03/05/2007 Page of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP, Plaintiff, v. SHARP CORPORATION and SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § §

No. 2:06-CV-47-TJW

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

JOINT MOTION TO AMEND SELECTED DATES IN THE DOCKET CONTROL ORDER Plaintiff Rembrandt Technologies, LP, ("Rembrandt") and Defendants Sharp Corporation and Sharp Electronics Corp. (collectively, "Sharp"), hereby jointly move the Court to amend four upcoming dates and respectfully show the Court the following: On January 12, 2007, the Court issued its Notice of Scheduling Conference, Proposed Deadlines For Docket Control Order and Discovery Order setting a scheduling conference on February 6, 2007, with dates keying from the February 6 date. (Docket No. 22.) Also on January 12, 2007, the February 6 scheduling conference was continued until February 20. (Docket No. 21.) On February 16, the parties filed with the Court proposed modifications to certain dates in the docket control order in view of the continuance of the scheduling conference and other agreements between the parties. (Docket No. 26.) A new docket control order reflecting these agreed dates has not yet been entered.

JOINT MOTION TO AMEND SELECTED DATES IN THE DOCKET CONTROL ORDER - 1
Dallas 233774v1

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-7 Document 28-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 5 Filed 03/05/2007 Page of 5

According to agreed schedule in Docket No. 26, and in view of the February 20 scheduling conference, the following deadlines pertaining to this motion are currently in place: 1. Rembrandt is to comply with P.R. 3-1 and 3-2 on March 5, 2007. 2. The parties are to comply with Paragraph 1 ("Disclosures") of the Court's Discovery Order on March 22, 2007. 3. Sharp is to comply with P.R. 3-3 and 3-4 on April 4, 2007. 4. The parties are to comply with Paragraph 3 ("Additional Disclosures") of the Court's Discovery Order on April 6, 2007. 5. The deadline to join additional parties is April 19, 2007. Rembrandt and Sharp now jointly move the Court to extend each of these dates four (4) weeks as follows: 1. Rembrandt will comply with P.R. 3-1 and 3-2 on April 2, 2007. 2. The parties will comply with Paragraph 1 ("Disclosures") of the Court's Discovery Order on April 19, 2007. 3. Sharp will comply with P.R. 3-3 and 3-4 on May 2, 2007. 4. The parties will comply with Paragraph 3 ("Additional Disclosures") of the Court's Discovery Order on May 4, 2007. 5. The deadline to join additional parties would be April 27, 2007. The requested extensions are by agreement, for the convenience of the parties and their counsel, and not sought for the purpose of delay. The parties do not now foresee additional changes to these dates. The parties have not yet reached agreement on the deadline for Sharp's proposed rolling production but will do so by the deadline set at the

JOINT MOTION TO AMEND SELECTED DATES IN THE DOCKET CONTROL ORDER - 2
Dallas 233774v1

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-7 Document 28-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 5 Filed 03/05/2007 Page of 5

scheduling conference and will notify the Court under a separate filing. The parties respectfully request that the Court allow the relief requested. A proposed Order granting this Motion is attached.

JOINT MOTION TO AMEND SELECTED DATES IN THE DOCKET CONTROL ORDER - 3
Dallas 233774v1

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-7 Document 28-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 4 of 5 Filed 03/05/2007 Page of 5

Dated: March 5, 2007 Respectfully submitted, By: __/s/ Sam Baxter________________ Sam Baxter State Bar No. 01938000 McKOOL SMITH, P.C. 505 E. Travis, Suite 105 Marshall, Texas 75670 Telephone: (903) 927-2111 Telecopier: (903) 927-2622 [email protected] Douglas A. Cawley State Bar No. 04035500 McKOOL SMITH, P.C. 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 978-4006 Telecopier: (214) 978-4044 Robert M. Parker Tex. State Bar No. 15498000 Robert Christopher Bunt Tex. State Bar No. 00787165 PARKER & BUNT 100 E. Ferguson, Ste. 114 Tyler, Texas 75702 Telephone: (903) 531-3535 Facsimile: (903) 533-9687 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

JOINT MOTION TO AMEND SELECTED DATES IN THE DOCKET CONTROL ORDER - 4
Dallas 233774v1

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-7 Document 28-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 5 of 5 Filed 03/05/2007 Page of 5

_/s/ Richard H. Brown (w/permission SB) Tom Henson State Bar Card No. 09494000 RAMEY & FLOCK, P.C. 100 East Ferguson Suite 500 Tyler, Texas 75702 (903) 597-3301 (903) 597-2413 (FAX) Gerald Levy Richard H. Brown Yukio Kashiba DAY PITNEY LLP 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036-7311 (212) 297-5800 (212) 916-2940 (FAX) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS SHARP CORPORATION AND SHARP ELECTRONICS, INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document and attachments were served upon counsel for all parties who have consented to service via the Court's ECF Systen on this 5th day of March, 2007.

____/s/ David Sochia____________ David Sochia

JOINT MOTION TO AMEND SELECTED DATES IN THE DOCKET CONTROL ORDER - 5
Dallas 233774v1

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-8 Document 28-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 1 Filed 03/05/2007 Page of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP, Plaintiff, v. SHARP CORPORATION and SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § §

No. 2:06-CV-47-TJW

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

ORDER The Court, having considered the parties' Joint Motion to Amend Certain Dates in the Docket Control Order and finding good cause supporting it, finds the Motion should be GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Rembrandt shall comply with P.R. 3-1 and 3-2 on April 2, 2007. The parties shall comply with Paragraph 1 ("Disclosures") of the Court's Discovery Order on April 19, 2007. Sharp shall comply with P.R. 3-3 and 3-4 on May 2, 2007. The parties shall comply with Paragraph 3 ("Additional Disclosures") of the Court's Discovery Order on May 4, 2007. The deadline to join additional parties is April 27, 2007.

ORDER
Dallas 233773v1

PAGE SOLO

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-9 Document 29

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/07/2007

Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP, Plaintiff, v. SHARP CORPORATION and SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § §

No. 2:06-CV-47-TJW

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

ORDER The Court, having considered the parties' Joint Motion to Amend Certain Dates in the Docket Control Order and finding good cause supporting it, finds the Motion should be GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Rembrandt shall comply with P.R. 3-1 and 3-2 on April 2, 2007. The parties shall comply with Paragraph 1 ("Disclosures") of the Court's Discovery Order on April 19, 2007. Sharp shall comply with P.R. 3-3 and 3-4 on May 2, 2007. The parties shall comply with Paragraph 3 ("Additional Disclosures") of the Court's Discovery Order on May 4, 2007. The deadline to join additional parties is April 27, 2007. SIGNED this 7th day of March, 2007.

__________________________________________ T. JOHN WARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER
Dallas 233773v1

PAGE SOLO

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Document 42-10 Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 30

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/08/2007

Page 1 of 5 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. SHARP CORPORATION and SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP. § § § § § §

CIVIL NO. 2:06-CV-47(TJW)

DOCKET CONTROL ORDER In accordance with the case scheduling conference held herein on the 20th day of February, 2007, it is hereby ORDERED that the following schedule of deadlines is in effect until further order of this court: Monday, June 2, 2008 May 22, 2008 Jury Selection - 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas

Pretrial Conference - 9:30 a.m. in Marshall, Texas

May 16, 2008

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

May 19, 2008

Responses to motions in limine due

May 12, 2008

Motions in Limine (due three days before final Pre-Trial Conference). Three (3) days prior to the pre-trial conference provided for herein, the parties shall furnish a copy of their respective Motions in Liming to the Court by facsimile transmission, 903/935-2295. The parties are directed to confer and advise the Court on or before 3:00 o'clock p.m. the day before the pre-trial conference which paragraphs are agreed to and those that need to be addressed at the pre-trial conference. The

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Document 42-10 Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 30

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/08/2007

Page 2 of 5 Page 2 of 5

parties shall limit their motions in limine to those issues which, if improperly introduced into the trial of the cause, would be so prejudicial that the Court could not alleviate the prejudice with appropriate instruction(s).

May 5, 2008

Video Deposition Designation

May 2, 2008

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 [email protected]. Response to Dispositive Motions (including Daubert motions)1 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 CV56.

April 25, 2008

April 11, 2008

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

April 18, 2008

Mediation to be completed

April 11, 2008

Parties to identify rebuttal witness

1

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 12 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.

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Document 42-10 Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 30

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/08/2007

Page 3 of 5 Page 3 of 5

April 4, 2008

Parties to identify trial witness on issues for which they bear the burden of proof

February 19, 2008

Plaintiff to Identify Trial Witnesses

April 4, 2008

Discovery Deadline

March 14, 2008, or 60 days after claim construction ruling, whichever date is later.

Designate Rebuttal Expert Witnesses other than claims construction Expert witness report due Refer to Discovery Order for required information.

February 15, 2008, or 30 days after claim construction ruling, whichever date is later.

Comply with P.R. 3-8.

February 15, 2008, or 30 days after claim construction ruling, whichever date is later.

Party with the burden of proof to designate Expert Witnesses other than claims construction Expert witness report due Refer to Discovery Order for required information.

November 20, 2007

Claim construction hearing 9:00 a.m., Marshall, Texas.

November 2, 2007

Submit technical tutorials to the Court.

October 26, 2007

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

October 19, 2007

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

October 5, 2007

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

September 12, 2007

Discovery deadline

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Document 42-10 Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 30

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/08/2007

Page 4 of 5 Page 4 of 5

September 5, 2007

Respond to Amended Pleadings

August 22, 2007

Amend Pleadings (It is not necessary to file a Motion for Leave to Amend before the deadline to amend pleadings except to the extent the amendment seeks to add a new patent in suit. It is necessary to file a Motion for Leave to Amend after August 22, 2007).

August 22, 2007

Comply with P.R. 4-3.

July 23, 2007

Comply with P.R. 4-2.

July 3, 2007

Comply with P.R. 4-1.

June 11, 2007

Privilege Logs to be exchanged by parties

April 27, 2007

Join Additional Parties

May 2, 2007

Comply with P.R. 3-3 and P.R. 3-4.

April 2, 2007

Comply with P.R. 3-1 and P.R. 3-2.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit the name, address, telephone number, and fax number of an agreed mediator to the Court within thirty (30) days from the date of the Scheduling Conference. If the parties are unable to agree, the Court will appoint a mediator in the above referenced case.

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Document 42-10 Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 30

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/08/2007

Page 5 of 5 Page 5 of 5

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 which are relevant to the issues in controversy shall be read into evidence. 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).

2.

3.

The following excuses will not warrant a continuance nor justify a failure to comply with the discovery deadline: (a) The fact that there are motions for summary judgment or motions to dismiss pending; 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; 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.

(b)

(c)

SIGNED this 8th day of March, 2007.

__________________________________________ T. JOHN WARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-11 Document 31-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/09/2007

Page 1 of 5 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:05-CV-443-TJW ) COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST ) CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ) COMCAST OF PLANO, LP, ) ) Defendants ) _____________________________________ ) REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:06-CV-506-TJW ) COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST ) CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ) COMCAST OF PLANO, LP, ) ) Defendants ) _____________________________________ ) REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:06-CV-047-TJW ) SHARP CORPORATION and SHARP ) ELECTRONICS CORP. ) ) Defendants ) _____________________________________ )

US2000 9828424.1

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-11 Document 31-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/09/2007

Page 2 of 5 Page 2 of 5

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:06-CV-369-TJW ) TIME WARNER CABLE, INC. ) ) Defendant ) _____________________________________ )

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:06-CV-224-TJW ) TIME WARNER CABLE, INC. ) ) Defendant ) _____________________________________ )

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:06-CV-507-TJW ) CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ) CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS ) OPERATING, LLC, COXCOM, ) INC., CSC HOLDINGS, INC., and ) CABLEVISION ) SYSTEMS CORPORATION ) ) Defendants ) _____________________________________ )

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

US2000 9828424.1

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-11 Document 31-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/09/2007

Page 3 of 5 Page 3 of 5

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:06-CV-223-TJW ) CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ) CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS ) OPERATING, LLC, COXCOM, ) INC., CSC HOLDINGS, INC., and ) CABLEVISION ) SYSTEMS CORPORATION ) ) Defendants ) _____________________________________ )

NOTICE OF FILING MOTION FOR TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATION OF REMRBANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP PATENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1407

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to J.P.M.L. Rule 5.2(b), on March 9th, 2007, CoxCom, Inc. filed its Motion for Transfer and Consolidation of the Rembrandt Technologies, LP Patent Litigation Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in Washington, D.C. CoxCom, Inc. is a named defendant in both Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. Charter Communications, Inc., et. al.; Civil Action No. 2:06-CV-507, and Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. Charter Communications, Inc., et. al.; Civil Action No. 2:06-CV-223, both pending before Judge T. John Ward in the Eastern District of Texas. Enclosed with this Notice are copies of the motion for transfer and consolidation and all documents in support thereof.

US2000 9828424.1

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-11 Document 31-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/09/2007

Page 4 of 5 Page 4 of 5

Dated: March 9th, 2006.

Respectfully Submitted KILPATRICK STOCKTON 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 (404) 815-6500 (404) 815-6555 (facsimile) [email protected] [email protected] Tonya R. Deem KILPATRICK STOCKTON 1001 West Fourth Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101-2400 (336) 607-7300 (336) 607-7500 (facsimile) [email protected] Michael E. Jones State Bar No. 10929400 [email protected] Allen F. Gardner State Bar No. 24043679 [email protected] POTTER MINTON A Professional Corporation 110 N. College, Suite 500 (75702) PO Box 359 Tyler, Texas 75710 Telephone: 903-597-8311 Facsimile: 903-593-0846 Mitchell G. Stockton R. Scott Griffin

ATTORNEYS FOR COXCOM, INC.

US2000 9828424.1

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-11 Document 31-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/09/2007

Page 5 of 5 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The Undersigned certifies that a copy of the NOTICE OF FILING MOTION FOR TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATION OF REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP PATENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1407 was filed electronically in compliance with local rule CV-5(a) and contemporaneously served by first class mail on all counsel of record in the above-captioned cases.

Mitchell G. Stockton KILPATRICK STOCKTON 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 (404) 815-6500 (404) 815-6555 (facsimile) [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR COXCOM, INC.

US2000 9828424.1

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-12 Document 31-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/09/2007

Page 1 of 7 Page 1 of 7

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION In re: MDL Docket No. Rembrandt Technologies, LP Patent Litigation

MOTION FOR TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATION OF REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES PATENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1407

Mitchell G. Stockwell Taylor Higgins Ludlam KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP 1100 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 815-6500 Facsimile: (404) 815-6555 Tonya R. Deem KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP 1001 West Fourth Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101-2400 Telephone: (336) 607-7300 Facsimile: (336) 607-7500 Attorneys For COXCOM, INC.

9802265.2 C8490-331049

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-12 Document 31-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/09/2007

Page 2 of 7 Page 2 of 7

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Rule 7.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "Panel"), Defendant CoxCom, Inc. ("CoxCom") 1 moves the Panel for an Order: (1) transferring fourteen (14) related patent infringement actions filed by or against Rembrandt Technologies, LP ("Rembrandt") (the "Actions"), as well as any actions that may subsequently be filed by or against Rembrandt, asserting similar or related claims to the District of Delaware. 2 In support of this Motion, CoxCom states the following, as more fully explained in the accompanying Memorandum of Law: 1. This Motion seeks the transfer and consolidation of fourteen related actions for

patent infringement filed by Rembrandt against twenty-nine defendants 3 (the "Actions"), ten of which were filed within the last six months. The Actions have been filed in three judicial districts: the Eastern District of Texas; the District of Delaware; and the Southern District of New York.
CoxCom is a defendant in the recently filed cases of Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. Charter Communications, Inc., et al., No. 2:06-CV-223-TJW (E.D. Tex.) (Marshall Division) and Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. Charter Communications, Inc., et al., No. 2:06-CV-507-TJW (E.D. Tex.) (Marshall Division). CoxCom is also a plaintiff in the recently filed declaratory judgment action of CoxCom, Inc. v. Rembrandt Technologies, L.P., No. 06-721-GMS (D. Del.). 2 As explained more fully in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, CoxCom moves for consolidation of all 14 related patent infringement actions, but suggests that, because of the illogical way in which the claims were grouped in the 14 cases, the most convenient, just and efficient administration of these actions would be achieved if the transferee court severed from the consolidated action those claims asserting the `627 patent for separate treatment and conduct. Claims relating to the `627 patent implicate completely different technology and activity (receipt and transmission of broadcast television signals through ATSC-compliant equipment) than the rest of the claims (which implicate high speed internet services through DOCSIS-compliant equipment). 3 The Actions were initially filed against twenty-nine defendants, but claims asserted against Cox Communications, Inc. and Cox Enterprises, Inc. were voluntarily dismissed. See Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. Charter Communications, Inc., et al., No. 2:06-CV-223-TJW (E.D. Tex.). 2
US2000 9823191.1

1

Case 1:07-cv-00399-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00047-TJW-CE Document 42-12 Document 31-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/09/2007

Page 3 of 7 Page 3 of 7

2.

Pursuant to Rule 7.2(a)(ii) of the Rules of the Panel, a schedule of the Actions

is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. Plaintiff Rembrandt is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the

State of New Jersey with its principal place of business in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. Rembrandt is a company that invests in patents, but does not practice them. Instead, it acquires rights to patents and sues entities it believes infringe upon those patents. 4. Rembrandt has initiated two waves of patent litigation relating to: (a) the

receipt and transmission over the cable television systems of digital terrestrial broadcast signals that comply with the ATSC 4 Digital Television Standard; and (b) the provision of high speed internet services through the use of DOCSIS 5 -compliant equipment. 5. Rembrandt filed the Actions in two waves, apparently as it became the

assignee of the various patents in suit. The first wave of litigation (the "Rembrandt I" litigation) includes nine cases against fifteen current defendants spanning three industries (cable, television broadcast, and manufacturing) and asserts infringement of up to five patents. One