Case 1:14-cv-01430-VAC Document 488 Filed 03/29/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 28024
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Pkindff,
`
`V.
`
`CA. No. 14-CV-1430-VAC
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.., et al..
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendants.
`
`STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`WHEREAS, the Court entered Amended Scheduling Orders on May 9,2018 (D.1.176),
`
`January 15,2020 (Docket Text Order), Match 26,2020 (Docket Text Order), July 16,2020 (D.I.
`
`316), October 7,2020 (Docket Text Order), January 7,2021 (Docket Text Order), July 22,2021
`
`(Docket Text Order), and January 4,2022 (Docket Text Order);
`
`WHEREAS, the parties have not yet completed feet discovery in this case;
`
`NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate and agree, subject to the approval of the
`
`Court, to amend the scheduling order as follows. The pardes disagree over the dates for disposidve
`
`motions, and have included brief explanations for those disagreements below:
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-VAC Document 488 Filed 03/29/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 28025
`
`Event
`
`Current Deadline
`
`Extended Deadline
`
`Samsung to produce downstream sales data for the
`100 representative products with die thicknesses
`above 50 microns, in a form that will be immediately
`useable by Elm.
`
`Samsung to substantially complete discovery on the
`too representative products with die thicknesses
`above 50 microns, including document producdon,
`producdon of samples, and interrogatory
`supplementadon.
`
`Elm's deadline to serve interrogatones and Rule
`30(b)(6) deposidon nodces relating to Samsung's
`representadve products
`
`Elm's deadline to serve fact-deposidon nodces on
`Samsung
`
`4/1/2022
`
`2/18/2022
`
`4/15/2022
`
`3/14/2022
`
`4/29/2022
`
`3/14/2022
`
`4/29/2022
`
`Fact discovery closes
`
`4/14/2022
`
`6/3/2022
`
`Elm elects no more than 36 total claims and provide
`final infringement contendons
`
`5/3/2022
`
`6/17/2022
`
`Defendants' responses to contendon interrogatones
`related to infiingement
`
`5/20/2022
`
`7/8/2022
`
`Defendants elect no more than 36 pdor art references
`and provide final invalidity contendons
`
`6/3/2022
`
`7/15/2022
`
`Elm's responses to contendon interrogatories related
`to invalidity
`
`6/17/2022
`
`7/29/2022
`
`Opening expert reports
`
`7/8/2022
`
`8/19/2022
`
`Responsive expert reports
`
`8/12/2022
`
`9/23/2022
`
`Expert discovery closes
`
`9/2/2022
`
`10/6/2022
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-VAC Document 488 Filed 03/29/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 28026
`
`Event
`
`Current Deadline
`
`Extended Deadline
`
`Case dispositive and Daubert motions
`
`9/16/2022
`
`Responses to case dispositive and Daubett motions
`
`10/21/2022
`
`RepMes to case disposidve and Daubert motions
`
`11/2/2022
`
`Hearing on pending dispositive and Daubert motions TBD
`
`Rule 16 Conference
`
`TBD
`
`-Samsung Proposal!
`10/27/2022
`
`Saniuung PruposM:
`11/30/2022
`
`triii'|iiiiriirinrnrnl~
`utwim.
`
`TBD
`
`TBD
`
`Deadline for Elm to provide a draft pretrial order to
`all other parties
`
`No Change
`
`No Charge
`
`Deadline for all odier parties to provide Elm and each
`other party %vith their responses to Elm's dnift order
`
`No Change
`
`No Change
`
`Pretrial conference
`
`Jury trial
`
`Deadline for the parties to jointly submit a form of
`order to enter judgment on the verdict and to submit a
`joint status report (should they wish to file one),
`indicating among other things how the case should
`proceed and listing any post-trial motions each party
`intends to file
`
`TBD
`
`TBD
`
`TBD
`
`TBD
`
`No Change
`
`No Change
`
`Elm^s Statement Regatding Scheduie for Dispositive Motions. Uiider the current case
`
`schedule, there are two weeks between the dose of expert discovery (scheduled for 9/2/2022) and
`
`the filing of dispositive motions (scheduled for 9/16/2022). Elm proposes that the updated
`
`schedule similarly indude two weeks between those events. Samsung proposes extending that
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-VAC Document 488 Filed 03/29/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 28027
`
`dmeftame by one week. Elm opposes Samsung's approach for two reasons. First, Samsung has
`
`never e^lained to Elm why Samsung previously agreed to a two-week space between those events,
`
`but now believes an additional week is necessary.' Second, Samsung's approach creates the real
`
`possibility that dispositive motion briefing will not be completed this year. Under Samsung's
`
`approach, dispositive motion briefing is scheduled to end on December 14,2022. This is just over a
`
`week before the Christmas holidays. If any intervening deadlines are even just slightly delayed, then
`
`dispositive briefing will not be completed this year. Given past experiences, such delays are highly
`
`likely. Elm filed this lawsuit in 2014. While another week may seem like a small matter. Elm opposes
`
`a schedule that will likely delay dispositive motion briefing into 2023.
`
`Samsung's Statement Regatdittg Schedule foe Dispositive Motion: The parties
`
`primarily dispute how soon after the close of expert discovery to set the date for case dispositive and
`
`Daubert motions. While Samsung believes four weeks is appropriate—which is the same timing
`
`often seen in Delaware scheduling orders—Samsung proposed three weeks in the spirit of
`
`compromise and with the hope of reaching an agreement, without burdening the Court At least
`
`three weeks is necessary here; the motions Samsung intends to file include technologically-complex
`
`topics and will rely on expert testimony. Elm, in contrast, seeks to s^nificandy compress the
`
`timeline down to two weeks from the close of expert discovery, while at the same time seeking
`
`nearly five weeks for responsive briefing, followed by two weeks for reply briefing. This unbalanced
`
`proposal is unworkable and would severely prejudice Samsung, as it would not provide sufficient
`
`time to prepare opening briefs, including reviewing and incorporating the testimony from expert
`
`depositions. Samsung respectfully requests that the Court adopt Samsung's proposal accordingly.
`
`' The parties exchanged their statements simultaneously. To the extent that Samsung's statement
`explains why it previously agreed to a two-week gap but now insists on three, that explanation was
`never previously provided to Flm.
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-VAC Document 488 Filed 03/29/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 28028
`
`Dated: March 23,2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
`TAYLOR, LLP
`
`Isl Adam W. Poff
`Adam W.Poff (#3990)
`Filar G. Kraman (#5199)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 571-6600
`apoff@ycst.com
`pkraman@fcstcora
`
`Attom^s for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd, SamsungSemiconductor, Inc., Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc., and SamsmigAustin
`Semiconductor, LLC
`
`FARNANLLP
`
`Isl Michael 1. Farnan
`Brian E. Faman (#4089)
`Michael J. Faman (#5165)
`919 Nordi Market Street
`12th Floor
`Wilmii^ton, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 777-0300
`Fax: (302) 777-0301
`b&man@famanlaw.com
`mfaman@^nanlaw.com
`
`Attom^s for PlaintiffEbn 3DS
`Innovations, LUC
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED
`
`