throbber
Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 27 Filed 12/04/20 Page 1 of 5
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-810-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10TALES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`TIKTOK INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CASE READINESS STATUS REPORT
`
`Plaintiff 10Tales, Inc. and Defendant, TikTok Inc., hereby provide the following status
`
`report in advance of the initial Case Management Conference (CMC).
`
`FILING AND EXTENSIONS
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed on September 2, 2020. One Motion for Extension of Time
`
`to File Answer was filed by Defendant on September 15, 2020, and said Motion was granted,
`
`extending Defendant’s time to answer or otherwise respond to November 9, 2020. A second
`
`Motion for Extension of Time to File was filed by Defendant on November 5, 2020, and said
`
`Motion was granted, extending Defendant’s time to answer or otherwise respond to November 19,
`
`2020. On December 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to
`
`Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rules 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6) or, in the Alternative,
`
`Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, and said Motion was granted, extending the deadline to
`
`December 18, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 27 Filed 12/04/20 Page 2 of 5
`
`RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Defendant responded to the Complaint on November 19, 2020, filing a sealed Motion to
`
`Dismiss Under Federal Rules 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6) or, in the Alternative, Transfer Under 28
`
`U.S.C. §1404.
`
`PENDING MOTIONS
`
`
`
`Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rules 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6) or, in the
`
`Alternative, Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. §1404 remains pending before the Court at this time.
`
`RELATED CASES IN THIS JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`No related cases are identified in this judicial district.
`
`IPR, CBM, AND OTHER PGR FILINGS
`
`There are no IPR, CBM, or other PGR filings.
`
`NUMBER OF ASSERTED PATENTS AND CLAIMS
`
`Plaintiff has asserted a total of 1 claim from U.S. Patent No. 8,856,030.
`
`APPOINTMENT OF TECHNICAL ADVISOR
`
`The parties do not request a technical advisor to be appointed to the case to assist the Court
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`with claim construction or other technical issues.
`
`MEET AND CONFER STATUS
`
`
`
`Plaintiff and Defendant conducted a meet & confer on November 25, 2020. The parties
`
`identified the following pre-Markman issues to raise at the CMC:
`
`• The parties are working
`
`toward an agreed upon
`
`tentative schedule
`
`for
`
`venue/jurisdictional discovery.
`
`• Defendant requests that the venue/jurisdictional discovery and briefing schedule
`
`include staying all other substantive deadlines, including deadlines related to claim
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 27 Filed 12/04/20 Page 3 of 5
`
`construction, until the Court rules on Defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue
`
`under Rule 12(b)(3), motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief
`
`may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6), and the motion to transfer for forum non-
`
`conveniens under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. See In re Apple Inc., No. 2020-135, 2020 WL
`
`6554063, *6-8 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 9, 2020 (“Although district courts have discretion as to
`
`how to handle their dockets, once a party files a transfer motion, disposing of that
`
`motion should unquestionably take top priority.”) (citing In re Nintendo Co., 544 F.
`
`App’x 934, 941 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (explaining that “a trial court must first address
`
`whether it is a proper and convenient venue before addressing any substantive portion
`
`of the case”)).
`
`• Plaintiff has requested that Defendant provide a date certain when it will produce its
`
`source code.
`
`• Defendant contends that producing highly proprietary source code, prior to the opening
`
`of post-claim construction discovery, is not warranted in this case at least because the
`
`request is premature, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
`
`granted, and Plaintiff has failed to allege that source code is necessary to identify
`
`limitations in the accused instrumentality.
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 27 Filed 12/04/20 Page 4 of 5
`
`Dated: December 4, 2020
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /s/ William E Davis, III
`William E. Davis, III
`Texas State Bar No. 24047416
`bdavis@davisfirm.com
`THE DAVIS FIRM, PC
`213 N. Fredonia Street, Suite 230
`Longview, Texas 75601
`Telephone: (903) 230-9090
`Facsimile: (903) 230-9661
`
`Barry P. Golob (pro hac vice)
`bgolob@cozen.com
`Kerry B. McTigue (pro hac vice to be filed)
`kmctigue@cozen.com
`Thomas J. Fisher (pro hac vice)
`tfisher@cozen.com
`Aaron Lukas (pro hac vice to be filed)
`alukas@cozen.com
`COZEN O’CONNOR
`1200 Nineteenth Street, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Telephone: (202) 912-4800
`Facsimile: (202) 861-1905
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff 10Tales Inc.
`
`
`
`Stephen S. Korniczky (admitted pro hac
`vice)
`Martin R. Bader (admitted pro hac vice)
`Ericka J. Schulz (admitted pro hac vice)
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER &
`HAMPTON LLP
`12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
`San Diego, CA. 92130
`T: 858.720.8900
`F: 858.509.3691
`skorniczky@sheppardmullin.com
`mbader@sheppardmullin.com
`eschulz@sheppardmullin.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 27 Filed 12/04/20 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`Jason Mueller (State Bar No. 24047571)
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER &
`HAMPTON LLP
`2200 Ross Avenue, 24th Floor
`Dallas, TX 75201
`T: 469.391.7402
`F: 469.391.7550
`jmueller@sheppardmullin.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant TikTok Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket