Case 2:22-cv-00322-JRG-RSP Document 483 Filed 04/25/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 33003
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`LIONRA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
`
`v.
`
`FORTINET, INC.
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00322-JRG-RSP
`(Lead Case)
`
`SIXTH AMENDED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER
`
`Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Amend the Docket Control Order.. (Dkt. No. 473.)
`
`Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that it should be GRANTED, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that the following schedule of deadlines is in effect until further order of this Court:
`
`Amended Date
`
`Event
`
`*Jury Selection – 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas
`
`*File Joint Proposed Jury Instructions and Joint Proposed
`Verdict Form (timed to take place after both sides have
`made final disclosures)
`
`Original
`Date
`
`May 20,
`2024
`
`1 day after
`Defendants
`disclose
`final
`invalidity
`theories,
`etc.
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00322-JRG-RSP Document 483 Filed 04/25/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 33004
`
`7 days
`before Jury
`Selection
`
`10 days
`before Jury
`Selection
`
`May 6,
`2024
`
`April 26,
`2024
`
`April 26,
`2024
`
`April 26,
`2024
`
`*Defendant to disclose final invalidity theories, final prior
`art references/combinations, and final equitable defenses.
`
`*Plaintiff to disclose final election of Asserted Claims.
`
`April 29, 2024
`
`*Pretrial Conference - 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas before
`Judge Roy S. Payne
`
`*File Joint Pretrial Order, Joint Proposed Jury Instructions,
`Joint Proposed Verdict Form, Updated Exhibit Lists,
`Updated Witness Lists,
`and Updated Deposition
`Designations
`
`April 29, 2024
`
`*File Responses to Motions in Limine
`
`*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.
`
`(*) indicates a deadline that cannot be changed without an acceptable showing of 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
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00322-JRG-RSP Document 483 Filed 04/25/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 33005
`
`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-1l(a)(l), 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. 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 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
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00322-JRG-RSP Document 483 Filed 04/25/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 33006
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`- 4 -
`
`