`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00310-JRG-RSP
`
`§§§§§§§§§
`
`GREE, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`NINTH AMENDED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER
`
`Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Amend Docket Control Order filed by Defendant
`
`Supercell Oy and Plaintiff GREE, Inc. Dkt. No. 167. The Joint Motion to Amend Docket Control
`
`Order asks the Court to extend the deadline to file the Joint Pretrial Order, Joint Proposed Jury
`
`Instructions, Joint Proposed Verdict Form, Updated Exhibit Lists, Updated Witness Lists, and
`
`Updated Deposition Designations by three days, from January 19, 2021 to January 22, 2021.
`
`After due consideration, the Court GRANTS the Motion. It is therefore ORDERED that
`
`the following schedule of deadlines is in effect until the Court orders otherwise:
`
`Current Date
`
`New Date
`
`Event
`
`March 1, 2021
`
`February 1, 2021
`
`February 16, 2021
`
`*Jury Selection – 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas
`
`*Notify Deputy Clerk in Charge regarding the
`date and time by which juror questionnaires
`shall be presented to accompany by jury
`summons if the Parties desire to avail
`themselves the benefit of using juror
`questionnaires.1
`
`*Pretrial Conference – 9:00 a.m. in Marshall,
`Texas before Judge Roy Payne
`
`1 The Parties are referred to the Court’s Standing Order Regarding Use of Juror Questionnaires in Advance of Voir
`Dire.
`
`1 / 5
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00310-JRG-RSP Document 171 Filed 01/20/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 6155
`
`Prior Date
`
`New Date
`
`Event
`
`January 20, 2021
`
`*Notify Court of Agreements Reached During
`Meet and Confer
`
`The parties are ordered to meet and confer on
`any outstanding objections or motions in
`limine. The parties shall advise the Court of
`any agreements reached no later than 1:00 p.m.
`three (3) business days before the pretrial
`conference.
`
`January 19, 2021
`
`January 22, 2021
`
`*File Joint Pretrial Order, Joint Proposed Jury
`Instructions, Joint Proposed Verdict Form,
`Responses to Motions in Limine, Updated
`Exhibit Lists, Updated Witness Lists, and
`Updated Deposition Designations.
`(*) indicates a deadline that cannot be changed without showing good cause. Good cause is
`not shown merely by indicating that the parties agree that the deadline should be changed.
`
`ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
`
`Mediation: While certain cases may benefit from mediation, such may not be appropriate
`for every case. The Court finds that the Parties are best suited to evaluate whether mediation will
`benefit the case after the issuance of the Court’s claim construction order. Accordingly, the Court
`ORDERS the Parties to file a Joint Notice indicating whether the case should be referred for
`mediation within fourteen days of the issuance of the Court’s claim construction order. As a
`part of such Joint Notice, the Parties should indicate whether they have a mutually agreeable
`mediator for the Court to consider. If the Parties disagree about whether mediation is appropriate,
`the Parties should set forth a brief statement of their competing positions in the Joint Notice.
`
`Summary Judgment Motions, Motions to Strike Expert Testimony, and Daubert
`Motions: For each motion, the moving party shall provide the Court with two (2) hard copies of
`the completed briefing (opening motion, response, reply, and if applicable, sur-reply), excluding
`exhibits, in D-three-ring binders, appropriately tabbed. All documents shall be single-sided and
`must include the CM/ECF header. These copies shall be delivered to the Court within three (3)
`business days after briefing has completed. For expert-related motions, complete digital copies of
`the relevant expert report(s) and accompanying exhibits shall be submitted on a single flash drive
`to the Court. Complete digital copies of the expert report(s) shall be delivered to the Court no later
`than the dispositive motion deadline.
`
`Indefiniteness: In lieu of early motions for summary judgment, the parties are directed to
`include any arguments related to the issue of indefiniteness in their Markman briefing, subject to
`the local rules’ normal page limits.
`
`2 / 3
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00310-JRG-RSP Document 171 Filed 01/20/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 6156
`
`Motions for Continuance: The following excuses will not warrant a continuance nor
`justify a failure to comply with the discovery deadline:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`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.
`
`Amendments to the Docket Control Order (“DCO”): Any motion to alter any date on
`the DCO shall take the form of a motion to amend the DCO. The motion to amend the DCO shall
`include a proposed order that lists all of the remaining dates in one column (as above) and the
`proposed changes to each date in an additional adjacent column (if there is no change for a date
`the proposed date column should remain blank or indicate that it is unchanged). In other words,
`the DCO in the proposed order should be complete such that one can clearly see all the remaining
`deadlines and the changes, if any, to those deadlines, rather than needing to also refer to an earlier
`version of the DCO.
`
`Proposed DCO: The Parties’ Proposed DCO should also follow the format described
`above under “Amendments to the Docket Control Order (‘DCO’).”
`
`Joint Pretrial Order: In the contentions of the Parties included in the Joint Pretrial Order,
`the Plaintiff shall specify all allegedly infringed claims that will be asserted at trial. The Plaintiff
`shall also specify the nature of each theory of infringement, including under which subsections of
`35 U.S.C. § 271 it alleges infringement, and whether the Plaintiff alleges divided infringement or
`infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Each Defendant shall indicate the nature of each
`theory of invalidity, including invalidity for anticipation, obviousness, subject-matter eligibility,
`written description, enablement, or any other basis for invalidity. The Defendant shall also specify
`each prior art reference or combination of references upon which the Defendant shall rely at trial,
`with respect to each theory of invalidity. The contentions of the Parties may not be amended,
`supplemented, or dropped without leave of the Court based upon a showing of good cause.
`
`3 / 3
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 3 of 3
`
`