`
`INFOGATION CORPORATION
`
`v.
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, ET
`AL.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:23-CV-0359-JRG
`
`This case is set for a scheduling conference in Marshall, Texas on January 18, 2024 at
`
`1:30 p.m. before the Honorable Rodney Gilstrap. The purpose of the scheduling conference will
`
`be to assign a claim construction hearing date and a trial setting. The parties shall be prepared to
`
`inform the Court whether they will consent to trial before the Magistrate Judge.
`
`The parties shall prepare and submit a proposed docket control order, a proposed discovery
`
`order and a proposed protective order, within the time periods contained in the schedule set forth
`
`hereinafter.1 These orders shall be guided by the sample docket control, discovery, and protective
`
`orders for patent cases, which can be found on the Court’s website. The sample orders include
`
`provisions that require input from the parties. If the parties are unable to reach agreement on these
`
`provisions, then the parties shall submit to the Court their competing proposals along with a
`
`summary of their disagreements in a single joint submission.
`
`The sample orders include provisions that are mandatory and are not subject to change
`
`without showing good cause. Good cause shall not be considered to be met simply by an indication
`
`of the parties’ agreement. Should either party believe good cause can be shown to alter an
`
`
`1 Timely submission of the parties’ proposed docket control order, proposed discovery
`order and proposed protective order will be viewed by the Court as complying with the conference
`requirement of Rule 26(f).
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00359-JRG Document 10 Filed 12/13/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 79
`
`otherwise mandatory provision, then such party shall file a separate motion to alter the provision
`
`after the parties have filed the proposed docket control and discovery orders with the mandatory
`
`provisions intact as previously required above.
`
`Furthermore, it is hereby ORDERED that the following schedule of deadlines is in effect
`
`until further order of this Court:
`
`6 Weeks After
`Scheduling Conference
`
`Comply with Standing Order Regarding Subject-Matter Eligibility
`Contentions2
`
`6 Weeks After
`Scheduling Conference
`
`3 Weeks After
`Scheduling Conference
`
`2 Weeks After
`Scheduling Conference
`
`1 Week After
`Scheduling Conference
`
`2 Weeks Before
`Scheduling Conference
`
`Comply with P.R. 3-3 & 3-4 (Invalidity Contentions)
`
`*File Proposed Protective Order and Comply with Paragraphs 1 & 3
`of the Discovery Order (Initial and Additional Disclosures)
`
`The Proposed Protective Order shall be filed as a separate motion
`with the caption indicating whether or not the proposed order is
`opposed in any part.
`
`*File Proposed Docket Control Order and Proposed Discovery Order
`
`The Proposed Docket Control Order and Proposed Discovery Order
`shall be filed as separate motions with the caption indicating whether
`or not the proposed order is opposed in any part.
`
`Join Additional Parties
`
`Comply with P.R. 3-1 & 3-2 (Infringement Contentions)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2_http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/judgeFiles/EDTX%20Standing%20Order%20
`Re%20Subject%20Matter%20Eligibility%20Contentions%20.pdf
`
`- 2 -
`
`.
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 13th day of December, 2023.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
