Case 2:21-cv-00413-JRG-RSP Document 635 Filed 09/05/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 28406
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`NETLIST, INC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.; MICRON
`SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC.; AND
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY TEXAS LLC,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Civil Action No. 2:22-CV-00203-JRG-RSP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOURTH AMENDED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER
`
`The parties have jointly moved to amend the docket control order, which is
`
`GRANTED. Dkt. No. 634. It is hereby ORDERED that the following schedule of deadlines is
`
`in effect until further order of this Court:
`
`Current Date
`October 30, 2023
`October 2, 2023
`
`Amended Date
`No change
`No change
`
`September 25, 2023 No change
`
`Event
`*Jury Selection – 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas
`*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 date1
`*Pretrial Conference – 9 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.
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00413-JRG-RSP Document 635 Filed 09/05/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 28407
`
`September 6, 2023 No change
`
`*Notify Court of Agreements Reached During
`Meet and Confer
`
`
`
`September 1, 2023
`
`September 5, 2023
`
`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.
`*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 an acceptable 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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00413-JRG-RSP Document 635 Filed 09/05/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 28408
`
`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. The true lead counsel should
`be designated early and should not expect to parachute in as lead once the case has been largely
`developed.
`
`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, 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. The Parties in a case which has been consolidated for pre-trial purposes
`and which is moving towards a separate trial on the merits (subsequent to pre-trial) shall file, as
`an exhibit to the parties’ Joint Pretrial Order, a list identifying all docket entries from the lead
`case that relate to the applicable member case.
`
`Trial: All parties must appear in person at trial. All non-individual (including but not
`limited to corporate) parties must appear at trial through the presence in person of a designated
`representative. Once they have appeared, any representative of a non-individual party shall not
`be replaced or substituted without express leave of Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00413-JRG-RSP Document 635 Filed 09/05/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 28409
`
`
`