`
`Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42 Filed 11/30/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID 612Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42 Filed 11/30/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID 612
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`
`JOINT STATUS REPORT AND
`REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs High Energy Ozone LLC d/b/a Far-UV Sterilray (“HEO3”) and Mr. S. Edward
`
`Neister (“Mr. Neister”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Larson Electronics LLC
`
`(“Larson”) jointly submit this status report and respectfully request a status conference at the
`
`Court’s convenience to discuss consolidation before this Court of the above-captioned case with
`
`two other related cases currently pending in other districts.
`
`I.
`
`Joint Status Report
`
`A.
`
`The Parties Intend To Request That This Action Be Consolidated With
`Related Actions In This Court for Pre-Trial Proceedings.
`
`
`
`In addition to the action filed in this Court against Larson, Plaintiffs filed two related cases
`
`against Far UV Technologies (“Far UV”)1 and Eden Park Illumination, Inc. (“Eden Park”)2
`
`(together with Larson, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs initially filed these actions in the Northern District
`
`of Illinois and the Western District of Missouri respectively to comply with the venue requirements
`
`
`1 High Energy Ozone LLC d/b/a Far-UV Sterilray and S. Edward Neister v. Eden Park
`Illumination, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-02753 (N.D. Ill. filed May 20, 2021) (Norgle, J.).
`2 High Energy Ozone LLC d/b/a Far-UV Sterilray and S. Edward Neister v. Far UV Technologies,
`No. 4:21-cv-00345 (W.D. Mo. filed May 17, 2021) (Fenner, J.).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 3:21-cv-01166-M
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`))
`
`
`)
`
`)))))))
`
`
`)
`
`HIGH ENERGY OZONE LLC d/b/a
`FAR-UV STERILRAY and
`S. EDWARD NEISTER,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`LARSON ELECTRONICS LLC,
`
` Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`EXHIBIT 1031
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42 Filed 11/30/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID 613Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42 Filed 11/30/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID 613
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 1400(b). To preserve judicial and party resources and to avoid the possibility of
`
`inconsistent outcomes, however, the parties collectively agree these cases should be consolidated
`
`for pretrial purposes into a single action. Undersigned counsel for Larson represents each of the
`
`other Defendants.
`
`Eden Park and Far UV each “voluntarily consent to the transfer and consolidation for
`
`pretrial purposes” of their respective actions. See Exhibits A-B. The Northern District of Illinois
`
`and the Western District of Missouri each stayed their respective actions while those actions
`
`transfer and consolidation with the above-captioned action in this Court. See Exhibits C-D.
`
`Each of these actions contains common questions of law and fact that can most efficiently
`
`be resolved by a single court. For example, Plaintiffs allege each Defendant infringes the same
`
`two asserted patents through the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, or importation of 222 nm
`
`UV Lamps. In response, each Defendant filed near-identical Rule 12 motions arguing that the
`
`asserted patents are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For purposes of that motion, and upon
`
`consolidation by this Court, Plaintiffs will stipulate that they (1) allege infringement of the
`
`same patent claims against all Defendants; and (2) will not assert any other claim of the asserted
`
`patents against the consolidated Defendants until the Court resolves that motion.3 In addition
`
`to patent eligibility, the parties anticipate that identical issues of claim construction, invalidity,
`
`and other patent questions will arise in each action. Therefore, decision of the patent issues
`
`on pre-trial matters by a single Court will preserve judicial resources and avoid inconsistent
`
`outcomes.
`
`The non-patent claims and defenses also substantially overlap. Each case contains state law claims
`
`related to Plaintiffs’ allegedly tortious conduct of notifying certain of defendants’
`3 For avoidance of doubt, Plaintiffs reserve the right to add, substitute, or drop claims or patents
`against all Defendants as discovery progresses once the Court resolves the pending Section 101
`motion.
`
`2
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42 Filed 11/30/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID 614Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42 Filed 11/30/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID 614
`
`customers that Plaintiffs owned the asserted patents and offering to license their products. In Far
`
`UV, Plaintiffs also brought false advertising, unfair competition and other related tort claims for
`
`statements Far-UV made on its website. A single Court can consistently decide these common
`
`questions of fact and law brought by the parties.
`
`Although they have consented to transfer for pre-trial administration, Far UV and Eden
`
`Park have not at this time consented to trial in this district. The parties contemplating that they will
`
`meet and confer at a later time to discuss the logistics of trial, including whether the parties would
`
`consent to trial in this district, or whether they would file motions to remand the Far UV and Eden
`
`Park actions back to the original district for trial.
`
`Once these related actions are transferred to this district for pre-trial proceedings, the
`
`parties will file appropriate motions to request that they be consolidated with this action. The
`
`parties file this status report now, however, to apprise the Court of the status of each of these
`
`related cases and to request a status conference, at which the parties and the Court can determine
`
`an appropriate consolidated pre-trial schedule.
`
`B.
`
`The Parties Propose the Larson Orders Govern the Consolidated Action.
`
`The parties agree that the existing scheduling order, protective order, and discovery orders
`
`in the above-captioned action should also govern the consolidated action. The parties intend to
`
`propose a few adjustments to account for motions pending in the related actions.
`
`First, as to the patent claims asserted, Far-UV and Eden Park filed Rule 12 motions under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 that mirror the Section 101 motion currently pending in this action. See Far UV,
`
`Dkt. 24; Eden Park, Dkt. 24. Far-UV and Eden Park each agree to join Larson’s pending motion
`
`and to be bound by its result. Therefore, the Court will not need to separately consider the Section
`
`101 motions pending in Far UV and Eden Park.
`
`
`
`3
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42 Filed 11/30/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID 615Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42 Filed 11/30/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID 615
`
`Second, as to the non-patent claims asserted, Plaintiffs have not yet responded to Eden
`
`Park’s First Amended Counterclaims. Eden Park, Dkt. 31. Plaintiffs also have not responded to
`
`Far UV’s First Amended Counterclaims (Far UV, Dkt. 30), or Far UV’s motion to dismiss
`
`Plaintiff’s false advertising claims (id., Dkt. 22). These deadlines were suspended by virtue of the
`
`stays in place in these actions. The parties propose that these and any other deadlines that pass
`
`during the pendency of these stays shall be due within fourteen (14) days of the consolidation of
`
`these actions. Any further responses prompted by these filings would be due as determined by the
`
`Federal Rules and Local Rules of this district unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
`
`Third, the parties agree to hold a single Markman hearing for the asserted patents. The
`
`parties will meet and confer and promptly inform the Court if they believe that the presence of
`
`additional parties or proposed terms merits any changes to the current Markman briefing schedule.
`
`Fourth, the parties agree to meet and confer and promptly inform the Court of any changes
`
`to the protective or discovery orders currently in place to accommodate the addition of Far UV
`
`and Eden Park as parties to this action.
`
`II.
`
`Joint Request for Status Conference
`
`The parties jointly request the Court hold a status conference at the Court’s earliest
`
`convenience so that the Court may satisfy itself that the consolidated action will proceed in an
`
`orderly manner and so that the parties may understand the Court’s preferred procedures for moving
`
`to consolidate these actions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42 Filed 11/30/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID 616Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42 Filed 11/30/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID 616
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: David B. Conrad
`David B. Conrad
`
`(TX Bar No. 2409042)
`Lance E. Wyatt, Jr.
`(TX Bar No. 24093397)
`Collin J. Marshall
`(TX Bar No. 24109509)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1717 Main Street
`Suite 5000
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Phone: (214) 747-5070
`Email: conrad@fr.com
`wyatt@fr.com
`cmarshall@fr.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`Larson Electronics LLC
`
`By:
`
`
`Dated: November 30, 2021
`
`
` Brent P. Ray
`Jill R. Carvalho
`(TX Bar No. 24087266)
`KING & SPALDING LLP
`500 West 2nd Street, Ste. 1800
`Austin, TX 78701
`Phone: (512) 457-2000
`Email: jcarvalho@kslaw.com
`
`Brent P. Ray (pro hac vice)
`(IL Bar No. 6291911)
`KING & SPALDING LLP
`110 N. Wacker Drive, Ste. 3800
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Phone: (312) 995-6333
`Email: bray@kslaw.com
`
`Abby L. Parsons (pro hac vice)
`(TX Bar No. 24094303)
`Matthew Wood
`(TX Bar No. 24110548)
`KING & SPALDING LLP
`1100 Louisiana St., Ste. 4100
`Houston, TX 77002
`Phone: (713) 751-3294
`Email: aparsons@kslaw.com
`mwood@kslaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs High Energy
`Ozone LLC d/b/a Far-UV Sterilray
`and S. Edward Neister
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42 Filed 11/30/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID 617Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42 Filed 11/30/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID 617
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on November 30, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing document
`
`with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic
`
`filing to all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brent P. Ray
`Brent P. Ray
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID 618Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID 618
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID 619Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID 619
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
`
`
`HIGH ENERGY OZONE LLC d/b/a
`FAR-UV STERILRAY and
`S. EDWARD NEISTER,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`FAR UV TECHNOLOGIES,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 21-000345-CV-W-GAF
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`))
`
`
`)
`
`)))))))
`
`
`)
`
`JOINT MOTION FOR STAY OF ALL DEADLINES
`TO FACILITATE VOLUNTARY TRANSFER OF THIS ACTION
`TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`Plaintiffs High Energy Ozone LLC d/b/a Far-UV Sterilray (“HEO3”) and Mr.
`
`S. Edward Neister (“Mr. Neister”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and Defendant Far UV
`
`Technologies (“Far-UV”), jointly move this Court to stay all deadlines in this action
`
`until the parties can file a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of
`
`Texas for pretrial purposes. In that venue, the parties will seek to consolidate this
`
`case with two other related cases filed by Plaintiffs against defendants Eden Park
`
`Illumination, Inc. (pending in the Northern District of Illinois) and Larson
`
`Electronics LLC (already pending in the Northern District of Texas).
`
`The parties seek to stay and consolidate this case (and the two others) for
`
`pretrial purposes to preserve judicial resources and avoid entry of different
`
`outcomes on the same legal questions, including, for example, whether the asserted
`
`patents claim patent eligible subject matter and are valid over the same alleged
`
`prior art. Undersigned counsel for Defendant represents each of the other
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00345-GAF Document 33 Filed 11/01/21 Page 1 of 4
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID 620Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID 620
`
`
`defendants. All three pending cases filed by Plaintiffs relate to each defendant’s
`
`alleged infringement of the same claims of the same two asserted patents. As an
`
`example, Defendant moved for a judgment on the pleadings based upon 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 101, see Dkt. 24, and counsel for defendant filed near-identical motions the other
`
`two cases. That means, without consolidation, this Court and two other judges will
`
`be asked to answer the same question of law about the asserted patents. Similarly,
`
`the parties will seek claim construction orders (another question of law) from three
`
`separate courts, presumably about the meaning of the same or similar disputed
`
`terms.
`
`Each case also involves unique but related state law defenses and
`
`counterclaims. These arise from Plaintiffs’ allegedly tortious conduct involving
`
`notifying defendants and certain of defendants’ customers by letter that Plaintiffs
`
`owned the asserted patents (and others) and offering to license their products. In
`
`this case, Plaintiffs also brought false advertising, unfair competition and other
`
`related tort claims for statements Far-UV made on its website. Accordingly, a single
`
`judge can consistently decide these common questions of fact and law brought by
`
`the parties.
`
`Finally, all parties voluntarily consent to the transfer and consolidation for
`
`pretrial purposes, and there is no prejudice to any party. In fact, quite the opposite;
`
`each party likely will benefit from the efficiency and cost-savings of the stay and
`
`eventual transfer and consolidation for pretrial purposes.
`
`2
`Case 4:21-cv-00345-GAF Document 33 Filed 11/01/21 Page 2 of 4
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID 621Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID 621
`
`
`The parties, therefore, respectfully request that the Court grant this joint
`
`motion to stay this case and hold all deadlines in abeyance until the parties resolve
`
`the issue of transferring the case to the United States District Court for the Northern
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`District of Texas.
`
`
` Dated: November 1, 2021
`
`
` /s/Abby L. Parsons
`Michael D. Pospisil
`(MO #49139)
`Matthew T. Swift
`(MO #63601)
`POSPISIL SWIFT LLC
`1600 Genessee, Suite 340
`Kansas City, MO 64102
`Phone: (816) 895-9105
`Email: mdp@pslawkc.com
` mts@pslawkc.com
`
`Brent P. Ray (pro hac vice)
`(IL Bar No. 6291911)
`KING & SPALDING LLP
`110 N. Wacker Drive
`Suite 3800
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Phone: (312) 995-6333
`Email: bray@kslaw.com
`
`Abby L. Parsons (pro hac vice)
`(IL Bar No. 6297018)
`KING & SPALDING LLP
`1100 Louisiana Street, Ste. 4100
`Houston, TX 77002
`Phone: (713) 751-3294
`Email: aparsons@kslaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
`High Energy Ozone LLC d/b/a
`Far-UV Sterilray and
`S. Edward Neister
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/Lance E. Wyatt, Jr.
`Benjamin Stelter-Embry,
`
`MO No. 65404
`Andrew B. Protzman,
`MO No. 47086
`4001 W. 114th Street, Suite 110
`Leawood, Kansas 66211
`Telephone: (816) 421-5100
`Facsimile: (816) 421-5105
`Email: andy@protzmanlaw.com
`ben@protzmanlaw.com
` Local counsel
`
`David B. Conrad
`(TX Bar No. 2409042)
`Lance E. Wyatt, Jr.
`(TX Bar No. 24093397)
`Collin J. Marshall
`(TX Bar No. 24109509)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1717 Main Street
`Suite 5000
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Phone: (214) 747-5070
`Email: conrad@fr.com
`wyatt@fr.com
`cmarshall@fr.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants,
`Far UV Technologies
`
`3
`Case 4:21-cv-00345-GAF Document 33 Filed 11/01/21 Page 3 of 4
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID 622Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID 622
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on November 1, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing
`
`document with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send
`
`a notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Abby L. Parsons
`Abby L. Parsons
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`4
`Case 4:21-cv-00345-GAF Document 33 Filed 11/01/21 Page 4 of 4
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-2 Filed 11/30/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID 623Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-2 Filed 11/30/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID 623
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02753 Document #: 35 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:231
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-2 Filed 11/30/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID 624Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-2 Filed 11/30/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID 624
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`
`HIGH ENERGY OZONE LLC d/b/a
`FAR-UV STERILRAY and
`S. EDWARD NEISTER,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`EDEN PARK ILLUMINATION, INC.
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:21-cv-02753
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`))
`
`
`)
`
`)))))))
`
`
`)
`
`JOINT MOTION FOR STAY OF ALL DEADLINES
`TO FACILITATE VOLUNTARY TRANSFER OF THIS ACTION
`TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`Plaintiffs High Energy Ozone LLC d/b/a Far-UV Sterilray (“HEO3”) and Mr.
`
`S. Edward Neister (“Mr. Neister”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and Defendant Eden
`
`Park Illumination, Inc. (“Eden Park”), jointly move this Court to stay all deadlines in
`
`this action until the parties can file a motion to transfer the case to the Northern
`
`District of Texas for pretrial purposes. In that venue, the parties will seek to
`
`consolidate this case with two other related cases filed by Plaintiffs against
`
`defendants Far-UV Technologies (pending in the Western District of Missouri) and
`
`Larson Electronics LLC (already pending in the Northern District of Texas).
`
`The parties seek to stay and consolidate this case (and the two others) for
`
`pretrial purposes to preserve judicial resources and avoid entry of different
`
`outcomes on the same legal questions, including, for example, whether the asserted
`
`patents claim patent eligible subject matter and are valid over the same alleged
`
`prior art. Undersigned counsel for Defendant represents each of the other
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02753 Document #: 35 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:232
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-2 Filed 11/30/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID 625Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-2 Filed 11/30/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID 625
`
`
`defendants. All three pending cases filed by Plaintiffs relate to each defendant’s
`
`alleged infringement of the same claims of the same two asserted patents. As an
`
`example, Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint based upon 35 U.S.C. §101, see
`
`Dkt. 23, and counsel for defendant filed near-identical motions the other two cases.
`
`That means, without consolidation, this Court and two other judges will be asked to
`
`answer the same question of law about the asserted patents. Similarly, the parties
`
`will seek claim construction orders (another question of law) from three separate
`
`courts, presumably about the meaning of the same or similar disputed terms.
`
`Each case also involves unique but related state law defenses and
`
`counterclaims. These arise from Plaintiffs’ allegedly tortious conduct involving
`
`notifying defendants and certain of defendants’ customers by letter that Plaintiffs
`
`owned the asserted patents (and others) and offering to license their products. In
`
`the Far-UV Technologies case pending in Missouri, Plaintiffs also brought false
`
`advertising, unfair competition and other related tort claims for statements Far-UV
`
`Technologies made on its website. Accordingly, a single judge can consistently
`
`decide these common questions of fact and law brought by the parties.
`
`Finally, all parties voluntarily consent to the transfer and consolidation for
`
`pretrial purposes, and there is no prejudice to any party. In fact, quite the opposite;
`
`each party likely will benefit from the efficiency and cost-savings of the stay and
`
`eventual transfer and consolidation for pretrial purposes.
`
`2
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02753 Document #: 35 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:233
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-2 Filed 11/30/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID 626Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-2 Filed 11/30/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID 626
`
`
`The parties, therefore, respectfully request that the Court grant this joint
`
`motion to stay this case and hold all deadlines in abeyance until the parties resolve
`
`the issue of transferring the case to the United States District Court for the Northern
`
`
`
`
`
`
`District of Texas.
`
`
` Dated: November 1, 2021
`
`By: /s/Brent P. Ray
`Brent P. Ray
`
`(IL Bar No. 6291911)
`KING & SPALDING LLP
`110 N. Wacker Drive
`Suite 3800
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Phone: (312) 995-6333
`Email: bray@kslaw.com
`
`Abby L. Parsons
`(IL Bar No. 6297018)
`KING & SPALDING LLP
`1100 Louisiana Street, Ste. 4100
`Houston, TX 77002
`Phone: (713) 751-3294
`Email: aparsons@kslaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs High
`Energy Ozone LLC d/b/a
`Far-UV Sterilray and
`S. Edward Neister
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/Lance E. Wyatt, Jr.
`Jason A. Engel (IL 6274878)
`
`K&L GATES LLP
`70 W. Madison St., Suite 3300
`Chicago, IL 60602
`Tel.: (312) 372-1121
`jason.engel@klgates.com
`
`David B. Conrad
`(TX Bar No. 2409042)
`Lance E. Wyatt, Jr.
`(TX Bar No. 24093397)
`Collin J. Marshall
`(TX Bar No. 24109509)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1717 Main Street
`Suite 5000
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Phone: (214) 747-5070
`Email: conrad@fr.com
`wyatt@fr.com
`cmarshall@fr.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants,
`Eden Park Illumination, Inc.
`
`3
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02753 Document #: 35 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:234
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-2 Filed 11/30/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID 627Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-2 Filed 11/30/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID 627
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on November 1, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing
`
`document with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send
`
`a notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Abby L. Parsons
`Abby L. Parsons
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-3 Filed 11/30/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID 628Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-3 Filed 11/30/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID 628
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02753 Document #: 36 Filed: 11/03/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:236
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-3 Filed 11/30/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID 629Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-3 Filed 11/30/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID 629
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3
`Eastern Division
`
`High Energy Ozone LLC, et al.
`
`v.
`
`Eden Park Illumination, Inc.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No.: 1:21−cv−02753
`Honorable Charles R. Norgle Sr.
`
`NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY
`
`This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, November 3, 2021:
`
` MINUTE entry before the Honorable Charles R. Norgle: The Joint Motion for
`Stay of all Deadlines to Facilitate Voluntary Transfer of this Action to the Northern
`District of Texas [35] is GRANTED. Mailed notice(ewf, )
`
`ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was
`generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and
`criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please
`refer to it for additional information.
`
`For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our
`web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-4 Filed 11/30/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID 630Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-4 Filed 11/30/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID 630
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-4 Filed 11/30/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID 631Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-4 Filed 11/30/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID 631
`April Thatch
`
`
`From: ecfMOW.notification@mow.uscourts.gov <ecfMOW.notification@mow.uscourts.gov>
`Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 2:12 PM
`To: cmecf_atynotifications@mow.uscourts.gov
`Subject: Activity in Case 4:21-cv-00345-GAF High Energy Ozone LLC et al v. Far UV Technologies Order on Motion to Stay
`
`CAUTION: MAIL FROM OUTSIDE THE FIRM
`
`This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail
`because the mail box is unattended.
`***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and
`parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if
`receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges,
`download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the
`free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
`
`U.S. District Court
`
`Western District of Missouri
`
`Notice of Electronic Filing
`
`The following transaction was entered on 11/2/2021 at 1:12 PM CDT and filed on 11/2/2021
`Case Name:
`High Energy Ozone LLC et al v. Far UV Technologies
`Case Number:
`4:21-cv-00345-GAF
`
`Filer:
`Document Number: 34(No document attached)
`
`Docket Text:
`ORDER granting [33] motion to stay. Parties directed to file a joint status on or before
`December 2, 2021 and every 30 days thereafter pending transfer of this case. Signed on
`11/2/21 by District Judge Gary A. Fenner. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is
`attached. (Mitchell, Lisa)
`
`
`4:21-cv-00345-GAF Notice has been electronically mailed to:
`
`Michael Dale Pospisil mdp@pslawkc.com, mh@edgarlawfirm.com, pag@edgarlawfirm.com
`
`Matthew Swift mts@pslawkc.com, mh@edgarlawfirm.com
`
`Benjamin Allen Stelter-Embry ben@protzmanlaw.com, filings@protzmanlaw.com
`
`Brent P. Ray bray@kslaw.com, athatch@kslaw.com
`
`Abby Parsons aparsons@kslaw.com
`
`David B. Conrad conrad@fr.com
`
`1
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-4 Filed 11/30/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID 632Case 3:21-cv-01166-M Document 42-4 Filed 11/30/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID 632
`Lance E. Wyatt, Jr wyatt@fr.com, prim@fr.com
`
`Collin J. Marshall cmarshall@fr.com
`
`4:21-cv-00345-GAF It is the filer's responsibility for noticing the following parties by other means:
`
`
`2
`
`21
`
`