Signify North America Corporation et al v. Lepro Innovation Inc. et al, No. 2:2022cv02095 - Document 122 (D. Nev. 2024)
Court Description: ORDER granting 121 Stipulation TO EXTEND DEADLINES IN REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER (Third Requested Extension). Discovery due by 8/19/2024. Motions due by 9/18/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 4/23/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CAH)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Signify North America Corporation et al v. Lepro Innovation Inc. et al 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Doc. 122 F. Christopher Austin (SBN 6559) WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. 10655 Park Run Drive, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 Telephone: (702) 382-4804 Email: caustin@weidemiller.com Jeremy P. Oczek (Pro hac vice) BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC 200 Delaware Avenue Buffalo, New York 14202 Telephone: (716) 416-7000 Email: jpoczek@bsk.com Jonathan L. Gray (Pro hac vice) BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC One Lincoln Center Syracuse, New York 13202 Telephone: (315) 218-8500 Email: jlgray@bsk.com Christopher S. Leone (Pro hac vice) BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC 350 Linden Oaks, Third Floor Rochester, NY 14625-2825 Telephone: (585) 362-4700 Email: cleone@bsk.com Counsel for Plaintiffs Signify North America Corporation and Signify Holding B.V. 16 17 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 19 20 SIGNIFY NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION and SIGNIFY HOLDING B.V. 21 22 23 24 25 26 Plaintiffs, v. LEPRO INNOVATION INC, LE INNOVATION INC, INNOVATION RULES INC., HOME EVER INC., and LETIANLIGHTING, INC., Case 2:22-cv-02095-JAD-DJA JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES IN REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER (Third Requested Extension) Defendants. 27 28 -1JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES IN REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER Dockets.Justia.com 1 This is a patent-infringement suit over LED lighting products. Plaintiffs Signify North 2 America Corporation and Signify Holding B.V. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege that Defendants 3 Lepro Innovation Inc., LE Innovation Inc., Innovation Rules Inc., Home Ever Inc., and 4 Letianlighting Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) infringed seven of Signify’s patents covering 5 various LED technologies. 6 The parties have proceeded through claim construction under the Local Patent Rules of 7 this Court. On October 16 and 17, 2023, a Claim Construction Tutorial and Hearing were held 8 before Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey. On December 2, 2023, Judge Dorsey issued a 62-page Claim 9 Construction Order construing several of the terms in the patents-in-suit. 10 Discovery in this case has been worldwide with Defendants’ witnesses traveling from 11 China to Las Vegas for depositions and Plaintiffs’ counsel traveling from the United States to the 12 Netherlands for depositions of the inventors on certain of the Patents-in-Suit. Additionally, the 13 parties have had to search for and collect documents outside of the United States. 14 For the reasons discussed herein, the parties to this action have agreed and hereby stipulate 15 and respectfully seek the Court’s permission to further extend the following case deadlines in the 16 operative scheduling order (ECF No. 120)1 to complete discovery: 17 Event Current Date New Agreed Date 18 Expert Designations May 10, 2024 June 17, 2024 Rebuttal Expert Designations June 10, 2024 July 17, 2024 Expert Discovery Cut-off July 10, 2024 August 19, 2024 Dispositive Motion Deadline August 12, 2024 September 18, 2024 19 20 21 22 23 24 The parties respectfully submit that good cause exists to extend these deadlines for the reasons set forth herein. Pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, the following information is provided: 25 26 27 28 1 On December 21, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation and order to extend certain discovery deadlines (ECF No. 100), which was granted by the Court on December 28, 2023 (ECF No. 103). On February 1, 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation and order to extend certain discovery deadlines (ECF No. 119), which was granted by the Court on February 2, 2024 (ECF No. 120). -2JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES IN REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER 1 (a) A statement specifying the discovery completed. 2 The parties have served and responded to written discovery. 3 On March 20, 2023, Plaintiffs served a first set of interrogatories and a first set of 4 documents requests. 5 On April 3, 2023, the parties served Rule 26(a) initial disclosures. 6 On April 26, 2023, Defendants served responses to Plaintiffs’ first set of interrogatories 7 8 9 10 11 and first set of documents requests. On May 26, 2023, Defendants served a first set of interrogatories and a first set of documents requests. On June 26, 2023, Plaintiffs served responses to Defendants first set of interrogatories and first set of documents requests. 12 On October 27, 2023, Plaintiffs served a second set of documents requests. 13 On November 15, 2023, Plaintiffs served a third set of documents requests. 14 On November 27, 2023, Defendants served responses to Plaintiffs’ second set of 15 16 17 documents requests. On December 15, 2023, Defendants served responses to Plaintiffs’ third set of documents requests. 18 On December 15, 2023, Plaintiffs served a second set of interrogatories. 19 On January 15, 2024, Defendants served responses to Plaintiffs’ second set of 20 interrogatories. 21 The parties have produced documents in response to each other’s document requests. To 22 date, Plaintiffs have produced 92,659 pages of documents, Defendant LEPRO Innovation Inc. has 23 produced 1,550 pages of documents, Defendant LE Innovation Inc has produced 14 pages of 24 documents, Defendant Innovation Rules Inc. has produced 44,821 pages of documents, Defendant 25 Home Ever Inc. has produced 473 pages of documents, Defendant Letianlighting, Inc. has 26 produced 31,399 pages of documents, and Defendants have collectively produced an additional 27 8,535 pages of documents. 28 -3JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES IN REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER A deposition of Signify’s technical expert, Dr. Regan Zane, was completed on August 25, 1 2 2023, in connection with the parties’ claim construction briefing. 3 Defendants conducted depositions of four named inventors of the Patents-in-suit, Matthias 4 Wendt and Reinhold Elferich, on January 7 and 9, 2024, Martijn Lankhorst and Patrick Van 5 Kooten, on February 7 and 9, 2024. The witnesses and Plaintiffs’ counsel for these depositions 6 were in Eindhoven, The Netherlands. In addition, the following depositions of Defendants’ witnesses were conducted by 7 8 Plaintiffs on January 15-25, 2024: 9 1) Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant LEPRO Innovation Inc. 10 2) Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant LE Innovation Inc. 11 3) Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant Innovation Rules Inc. 12 4) Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant Home Ever Inc. 13 5) Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant Letianlighting, Inc. 14 6) Individual deposition of Weiqiao Xun 15 7) Individual deposition of Litao Xu 16 8) Individual deposition of Ji Wu 17 Furthermore, the following depositions of Plaintiffs were conducted by Defendants on 18 April 17 and 18, 2024: 19 1) Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Plaintiff Signify North America Corporation 20 2) Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Signify Holding B.V. 21 (b) A specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed. 22 The depositions of Defendants’ witnesses Zhikang Huang and Tianying Li remain to be 23 completed. These depositions were delayed due to motion practice of the parties and visa issues 24 of the witnesses, as set forth in more detail in section (c) below. The deposition of Mr. Huang is 25 scheduled to proceed on April 23-24, 2024, and the deposition of Ms. Li is scheduled to proceed 26 during the week of May 6-10, 2024. The parties believe that it is most efficient to complete these 27 depositions in advance of expert discovery and dispositive motions. 28 -4JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES IN REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER 1 (c) The reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not 2 completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan. 3 Plaintiffs have been attempting to schedule depositions of Defendants’ witnesses since 4 August 2023. However, the scheduling of Defendants’ witnesses has been impacted by disputes 5 pertaining to these depositions which has required the intervention of the Court, as well as visa 6 issues with Defendants’ witnesses. 7 On August 18, 2023, Plaintiffs served their individual and Rule 30(b)(6) depositions 8 notices to Defendants. On September 23, 2023, Defendants served objections to the deposition 9 notices and informed Plaintiffs that Defendants’ deposition witnesses would not be made available 10 for depositions in Las Vegas, Nevada. Plaintiffs contended that Defendants’ witnesses should be 11 made available in Las Vegas, Nevada because each of the Defendants is a Nevada corporation 12 with a principal place of business in Nevada. Thereafter, the parties met and conferred, and the 13 parties reached an impasse on the location of deposition of Defendants’ witnesses. 14 On October 4, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the depositions of Defendants’ 15 witnesses in Las Vegas, Nevada. (ECF No. 69.) On October 18, 2023, Defendants opposed 16 Plaintiff’s motion to compel and filed a cross-motion for protective order. (ECF Nos. 75, 76.) On 17 October 31, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a reply to their motion to compel and an opposition to 18 Defendants’ cross-motion. (ECF Nos. 81, 82.) On November 8, 2023, Defendants filed a reply to 19 their cross-motion. (ECF No. 84.) On November 20, 2023, the Court (Magistrate Judge Daniel J. 20 Albregts) held a hearing on the parties’ motions and ruled in Plaintiffs’ favor and ordered that 21 Defendants’ witnesses to appear for depositions in Las Vegas, Nevada. (ECF No. 87.) 22 23 Thereafter, the parties worked to schedule depositions of Defendants’ witnesses, however, the parties reached disagreement on the length of the depositions of Defendants’ witnesses. 24 On December 11, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel full depositions and requested 25 the Court to order Defendants to produce each of their witnesses for the full time required by the 26 Federal Rules: one day for each individual witness, and one day per corporate entity for each 27 designated 30(b)(6) witness. On December 26, 2023, Defendants filed an opposition, and on 28 -5JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES IN REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER 1 January 2, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a reply. On January 4, 2024, the Court (Magistrate Judge Daniel 2 J. Albregts) held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion and ruled in Plaintiffs’ favor and ordered that 3 Defendants’ witnesses to appear for full depositions as requested by Plaintiffs. 4 Defendants’ witnesses Zhikang Huang and Tianying Li recently obtained visas to travel to 5 the United States. This process involved submitting visa applications and securing visa interviews 6 with the U.S. consulate in Southern China (Guangzhou). Because these witnesses were ordered to 7 have their depositions taken in the U.S. and did not have visas to allow them to travel to the U.S, 8 Plaintiffs respectfully seek leave of Court to take depositions of these two witnesses and extend 9 the remaining case deadlines (expert discovery and dispositive motions). The parties previously 10 advised the Court that they may need to file a stipulation of extension and seek leave of Court to 11 take depositions of these witnesses beyond the current discovery deadlines if the witnesses did not 12 receive visas in time to allow them to travel for their depositions. (See ECF Nos. 100 and 119.) 13 The parties previously agreed, for the purpose of conserving resources of the parties and 14 the Court, that Plaintiffs would first proceed with the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of Defendants and 15 individual depositions of Defendants’ witnesses Weiqiao Xun, Litao Xu, and Ji Wu to ascertain 16 whether further depositions of Defendants’ witnesses would be needed. Following these 17 depositions on January 15-25, 2024, and after reviewing the transcripts, Plaintiffs determined that 18 the depositions of Zhikang Huang and Tianying Li were needed. 19 The deposition of Mr. Zhikang Huang is scheduled to proceed in Las Vegas, Nevada on 20 April 23 and 24, 2024. The deposition of Ms. Tianying Li is scheduled to proceed during the week 21 of May 6-10, 2024, with the witness traveling to Hong Kong. While Ms. Li was ordered by the 22 Court to travel to Las Vegas, Nevada for her deposition, Defendants have provided Plaintiffs with 23 a doctor’s note advising that Ms. Li should not travel long distances due to a recently diagnosed 24 medical condition. Accordingly, the parties have agreed to conduct Ms. Li’s deposition remotely 25 from Hong Kong. 26 For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs respectfully seek the Court’s permission, and 27 Defendants consent to the relief requested herein, to extend the current discovery deadlines to 28 -6JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES IN REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER 1 allow Plaintiffs to take the depositions of Defendants’ witnesses Zhikang Huang and Tianying Li. 2 This is the second request to extend the time to take the depositions of Defendants’ fact witnesses 3 Zhikang Huang (as a substitute for Jiangyu Zhou) and Tianying Li, and the third request to extend 4 expert discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. 5 (d) A proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery. The parties jointly proposed the following schedule for completing remaining discovery: 6 7 8 Event Current Date New Agreed Date Expert Designations May 10, 2024 June 17, 2024 Rebuttal Expert Designations June 10, 2024 July 17, 2024 Expert Discovery Cut-off July 10, 2024 August 19, 2024 Dispositive Motion Deadline August 12, 2024 September 18, 2024 9 10 11 12 13 (e) 14 15 16 17 18 Good cause exists for the requested relief for the reasons set forth above and further stated herein. The depositions of Defendants’ witnesses Mr. Zhikang Huang and Ms. Tianying Li could not be completed due to U.S. Visa interview delays2. The parties have stipulated that Plaintiff may take depositions of these witnesses and that the remaining case deadlines should be extended to accommodate the taking of these depositions before expert discovery and dispositive motions. 19 20 The parties respectfully submit that good cause exists to extend these deadlines for the reasons set forth above. No other case deadlines are affected by the requested extension. 21 22 Good Cause Exists for Extending the Subject Deadlines Above. WHEREFORE, the parties hereby respectfully request that the Court enter an order extending the deadlines as set forth above. 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Plaintiffs’ Statement: Defendants did not begin the visa process for Zhikang Huang and Tianying Li until after the Court’s November 20, 2023 decision on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel depositions in Las Vegas, Nevada, despite the fact that Plaintiffs served their deposition notices for these individuals on August 18, 2023. -7JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES IN REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER 1 Dated: April 23, 2024 2 Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted, 3 /s/ F. Christopher Austin /s/ Hua Chen (by permission) 4 F. Christopher Austin (SBN 6559) WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. 10655 Park Run Drive, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 Telephone: (702) 382-4804 Email: caustin@weidemiller.com Hua Chen (Pro hac vice) SCIENBIZIP, P.C. 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2825 Los Angeles, California 90071 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Jeremy P. Oczek (Pro hac vice) BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC 200 Delaware Avenue Buffalo, New York 14202 Telephone: (716) 416-7000 Email: jpoczek@bsk.com Jonathan L. Gray (Pro hac vice) BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC One Lincoln Center Syracuse, New York 13202 Telephone: (315) 218-8500 Email: jlgray@bsk.com Christopher S. Leone (Pro hac vice) BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC 350 Linden Oaks, Third Floor Rochester, NY 14625-2825 Telephone: (585) 362-4700 Email: cleone@bsk.com COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS Signify North America Corporation and Signify Holding B.V. Nicholas Brown (Pro hac vice) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105 Email: Nicholas.Brown@gtlaw.com Aimee Housinger (Pro hac vice) GREENBERG TAURIG, LLP 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 6700 Houston, TX 77002 Email: housingera@gtlaw.com Callie J. Sand (Pro hac vice) GREENBERG TAURIG, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60601 Email: callie.sand@gtlaw.com COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS LEPRO Innovation Inc., LE Innovation Inc., Innovation Rules Inc., Home Ever Inc., and Leitianlighting, Inc. 20 21 22 23 Akke Levin (SBN 9102) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 10845 Griffith Peak Dr., Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 Email: Akke.Levin@gtlaw.com IT IS SO ORDERED: 24 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 DATED: April 23, 2024 27 28 -8JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES IN REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
