`
`O’KELLY & ERNST, LLC
`
`
`
`\
`
`
`
`Sean T. O’Kelly, Esquire
`sokelly@oelegal.com
`Direct: (302) 778-4001
`
`901 N. Market Street
`Suite 1000
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`(302) 778-4000
`August 17, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`Re:
`
`
`Techno View IP, Inc. v. Oculus VR, LLC and Facebook, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 17-386-VAC-CJB-
`
`VIA CM/ECF
`AND HAND DELIVERY
`The Honorable Christopher J. Burke
`Magistrate Judge
`United States District Court
`J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
`844 N. King Street
`Unit 28, Room 2325
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`
`
`
`Dear Judge Burke:
`
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order of July 17, 2017, the parties jointly submit the following
`letter in response to the requested information:
`
`
`
`This case alleges patent infringement. More specifically, infringement of U.S. Patent
`
`7,666,096, claims 16-19 and U.S. Patent 8,206,218, claims 16-19. The infringement alleged
`against Defendants is based on the accused device, Oculus Rift. Defendants have pled defenses,
`including non-infringement and invalidity of the patents-in-suit.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff respectfully argues that reply expert reports would only be used if necessary, and
`
`notes that if a reply report does contain new information, the opposing part has obvious options
`to object, move to strike, or request a sur-reply on the new information. Further, Plaintiff has not
`intention of not being forthright in its opening reports.
`
`
`
`
`a) A description of what this case is about:
`
`b) The parties’ positions regarding any disputes in the proposed Scheduling Order:
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff: Reply Expert Reports:
`
`Defendants: Reply Expert Reports:
`
`Defendants do not believe reply expert reports should be permitted as a matter of course,
`as this often serves to encourage parties not to be entirely forthright in their opening reports. To
`the extent they are permitted by the Court, Defendants request they explicitly be defined as
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 17 Filed 08/17/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 157
`
`
`
`
`O’KELLY & ERNST, LLC
`August 17, 2017
`
`THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER J. BURKE
`Page 2 of 2
`
`limited to responding to affirmative opinions raised for the first time in a rebuttal report (e.g.,
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness raised in Plaintiff’s rebuttal invalidity report).
`
`c) A list of the three most significant topics (other than Scheduling Order disputes)
`
`discussed during the parties’ review of the checklist items, along with a brief description as to
`what was discussed as to those points:
`
`1) Adoption of an ESI Order – the parties discussed the Court’s Default Standard
`
`
`for Discovery, Including Discovery of Electronically Stored Information, and agreed to have
`discussions with a goal of entering an order using the Default Standard as a starting point. The
`parties respectfully reserve the right to seek Court intervention if they are unable to agree on
`such an order.
`
`2) The parties discussed whether Plaintiff plans on filing any additional cases
`
`
`involving these patents in Delaware in the near future. Plaintiff does not currently have a plan to
`do so, and Defendants reserve the right to request consolidation as appropriate should that
`change.
`
`3) The parties discussed the location of source code review (Palo Alto or an
`
`
`office closer to Delaware, Plaintiff , or Plaintiffs’ counsel or expert), and will further address this
`issue during their Protective Order negotiations.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff respectfully submits this letter on behalf of Defendants.
`
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/ Sean T. O’Kelly
`
`Sean T. O’Kelly (No. 4349)
`
`
`
`Cc: All counsel of record (via CM/ECF only)
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
