Case 2:20-cv-00113-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 12/30/20 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 407
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`GREE, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Case No.: 2:20-cv-00113-JRG-RSP
`
`SECOND AMENDED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER
`
`It is hereby ORDERED that the following schedule of deadlines are in effect until further
`
`order of this Court. Dkt. Nos. 42, 44, 47.
`
`Current Deadline
`
`New Deadline
`
`Event
`
`August 2, 2021
`
`July 6, 2021
`
`June 29, 2021
`
`June 21, 2021
`
`*Jury Selection -9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas
`before Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
`* If a juror questionnaire is to be used, an
`editable (in Microsoft Word format)
`questionnaire shall be jointly submitted to the
`Deputy Clerk in Charge by this date.1
`*Pretrial Conference - 9:00 a.m. in Marshall,
`Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
`*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.
`
`1 The Parties are referred to the Court’s Standing Order Regarding Use of Juror Questionnaires in
`Advance of Voir Dire.
`
`1
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 1 of 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00113-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 12/30/20 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 408
`
`June 21, 2021
`
`June 14, 2021
`
`June 7, 2021
`
`June 7, 2021
`
`June 1, 2021
`
`May 17, 2021
`
`June 1, 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.
`*File Notice of Request for Daily Transcript or
`Real Time Reporting.
`If a daily transcript or real time reporting of
`court proceedings is requested for trial, the
`party or parties making said request shall file a
`notice with the Court and e-mail the Court
`Reporter, Shelly Holmes, at
`shelly_holmes@txed.uscourts.gov.
`File Motions in Limine
`The parties shall limit their motions in limine
`to issues that if improperly introduced at trial
`would be so prejudicial that the Court could
`not alleviate the prejudice by giving
`appropriate instructions to the jury.
`Serve Objections to Rebuttal Pretrial
`Disclosures.
`Serve Objections to Pretrial Disclosures; and
`Serve Rebuttal Pretrial Disclosures.
`Serve Pretrial Disclosures (Witness List,
`Deposition Designations, and Exhibit List) by
`the Party with the Burden of Proof.
`*Response to Dispositive Motions (including
`Daubert Motions). Responses to dispositive
`motions that were filed prior to the dispositive
`motion deadline, including Daubert Motions,
`shall be due in accordance with Local Rule
`CV-7(e), not to exceed the deadline as set forth
`in this Docket Control Order.2 Motions for
`Summary Judgment shall comply with Local
`Rule CV-56.
`
`2 The parties are directed to Local Rule CV-7(d), which provides in part that “[a] party’s failure
`to oppose a motion in the manner prescribed herein creates a presumption that the party does
`not controvert the facts set out by movant and has no evidence to offer in opposition to the
`motion.” If the deadline under Local Rule CV 7(e) exceeds the deadline for Response to
`Dispositive Motions, the deadline for Response to Dispositive Motions controls.
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 2 of 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00113-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 12/30/20 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 409
`
`May 18, 2021
`
`May 18, 2021
`
`May 3, 2021
`April 19, 2021
`
`March 29,2021
`
`March 29, 2021
`
`March 10, 2021
`
`February 17, 2021
`
`February 3, 2021
`
`January 27, 2021
`
`January 20, 2021
`
`January 6, 2021
`
`*File Motions to Strike Expert Testimony
`(including Daubert Motions).
`No motion to strike expert testimony
`(including a Daubert motion) may be filed
`after this date without leave of the Court.
`*File Dispositive Motions
`No dispositive motion may be filed after this
`date without leave of the Court.
`Motions shall comply with Local Rule CV-56
`and Local Rule CV-7. Motions to extend page
`limits will only be granted in exceptional
`circumstances. Exceptional circumstances
`require more than agreement among the
`parties.
`Deadline to Complete Expert Discovery.
`Serve Disclosures for Rebuttal Expert
`Witnesses.
`Deadline to Complete Fact Discovery and File
`Motions to Compel Discovery.
`Serve Disclosures for Expert Witnesses by the
`Party with the Burden of Proof.
`Comply with P.R. 3-7 (Opinion of Counsel
`Defenses).
`*Claim Construction Hearing -9:00 a.m. in
`Marshall, Texas before Judge Rodney
`Gilstrap.
`*Comply with P.R. 4-5(d) (Joint Claim
`Construction Chart).
`*Comply with P.R. 4-5(c) (Reply Claim
`Construction Brief).
`Comply with P.R. 4-5(b) (Responsive Claim
`Construction Brief).
`Comply with P.R. 4-5(a) (Opening Claim
`Construction Brief) and Submit Technical
`Tutorials (if any).
`Good cause must be shown to submit technical
`tutorials after the deadline to comply with P.R.
`4-5(a).
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 3 of 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00113-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 12/30/20 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 410
`
`January 6, 2021
`
`December 23, 2020
`
`December 16, 2020
`
`December 23, 2020
`
`December 2, 2020
`
`November 24, 2020
`
`December 1, 2020
`
`Deadline to Substantially Complete
`Document Production and Exchange Privilege
`Logs.
`Counsel are expected to make good faith
`efforts to produce all required documents as
`soon as they are available and not wait until
`the substantial completion deadline.
`Comply with P.R. 4-4 (Deadline to Complete
`Claim Construction Discovery).
`File Response to Amended Pleadings.
`
`*File Amended Pleadings.
`It is not necessary to seek leave of Court to
`amend pleadings prior to this deadline unless
`the amendment seeks to assert additional
`patents.
`Comply with P.R. 4-3 (Joint Claim
`Construction Statement).
`
`(*) 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.
`
`ADDITONAL 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
`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.
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 4 of 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00113-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 12/30/20 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 411
`
`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.
`
`Lead Counsel: The Parties are directed to Local Rule CV-11(a)(1), which provides that
`“[o]n the first appearance through counsel, each party shall designate a lead attorney on the
`pleadings or otherwise.” Additionally, once designated, a party’s lead attorney may only be
`changed by the filing of a Motion to Change Lead Counsel and thereafter obtaining from the
`Court an Order granting leave to designate different lead counsel.
`
`Motions for Continuance: The following excuses will not warrant a continuance
`nor justify a failure to comply with the discovery deadline:
`
`(a) The fact that there are motions for summary judgment or motions to dismiss
`pending;
`
`(b) 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;
`
`(c) 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,
`
`5
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 5 of 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00113-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 12/30/20 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 412
`
`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.
`
`6
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 6 of 6
`
`