Free Order on Motion to Dismiss - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00385-GMS-LPS Document 36 Filed 06/10/2008 Page1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
FEBIT HOLDING GMBH, ;
Plaintiff, [
v. C. A. No. 07-385-GMS-LPS
CODON DEVICES, INC.,
Defendant.
LQ?
At Wilmington this 10"‘ day ofJune, 2008.
For the reasons set forth by the Court during the teleconference with
counsel on June 9, 2008,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's motion to dismiss (D.I. 11) is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff shall file by June 11, 2008, an amended complaint containing
the specific allegations regarding plaintiffs ownership ofthe patents at issue.
3. On or before June 16, 2008, the parties shall file a Revised Rule 16
Scheduling Order, incorporating the text of their previously-proposed scheduling order
(D.l. 32) with the following modifications;
a. Rule 26 initial disclosures to be made on or before five days
from the date ofthe Scheduling Order.
b. A ll/Iarkman claim construction hearing shall be held before
Magistrate Judge Leonard P. Stark on June 18, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.
c. Any proposed protective order relating to confidential

Case 1:07-cv-00385-GIVIS-LPS Document 36 Filed 06/10/2008 Page 2 of 3
information shall be filed no later than 30 days from the date of the Scheduling Order.
d. The next-to-last sentence of paragraph 8 shall read: “Upon
receipt of the foregoing letters, Judge Stark will schedule a Status Conference to hear
argument and to determine whether the filing of any motion for summary judgment will
be permitted."
e. The first sentence of paragraph 13 shall read: "Judge Stark
will hold a Pretrial Conference in Chambers with counsel at a date to be determined?
The blanks in the remainder of paragraph 13 shall be filled in "TBD."
f. This matter is scheduled for a five-day jury trial at a date to
be determined.
g. Paragraph 15 is to be deleted.
h. A new paragraph 15 is to be added to state as follows:
Tutorial Describing the Technology and Matters in Issue.
On December 15, 2008, beginning at 10:00 a.m., the Court will hold a hearing
during which the parties will present a tutorial on the technology at issue. The tutorial
should not be used to argue the parties’ claims construction contentions. The parties
shall arrange for the in-court tutorial to be videotaped, with a copy to be provided to the
Court following the hearing, with costs to be shared equally by both sides.
i. A new paragraph 16 is to be added to state as followst
Ownership-related Discoveg. For the first 30 days of discovery provided for under
this Order, the only discovery that may be sented is discovery relating solely to the issue
ofthe ownership of the patents in suit. With respect to these discovery requests only,
responses shall be due within twenty (20) days of service of the request, rather than the
ordinary thirty (30) days. Absent agreement of the parties or further order of the Court,

Case 1:07-cv-00385-GIVIS-LPS Document 36 Filed 06/10/2008 Page 3 of 3
any motion (and opening brief in support of such a motion) challenging the plaintifFs
ownership ofthe patents in suit must be filed within ten (10) days after the close of the
period for Ownership—re|ated Discovery set out in this paragraph. Briefing on any such
motion shall take place according to the Local Rules.
Local counsel are reminded of their obligations to inform out—of-state
counsel of this Order. To avoid the imposition of sanctions, counsel shall advise the
Court immediately of any problems regarding compliance with this Order.

met /
fi