Optis Wireless Technology, LLC et al v. ZTE Corporation et al, No. 2:2015cv00300 - Document 114 (E.D. Tex. 2016)
Court Description: FILED IN ERROR MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 04/19/2016. (nkl, ) Modified on 4/20/2016 (nkl, ).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Optis Wireless Technology, LLC et al v. ZTE Corporation et al Doc. 114 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION OPTIS WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, LLC AND PANOPTIS PATENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-300-JRG-RSP Plaintiffs, v. ZTE CORPORATION AND ZTE (USA) INC., Defendants. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO FURTHER AMEND THE DOCKET CONTROL ORDER The Court, having considered Plaintiffs Optis Wireless Technology, LLC’s and PanOptis Patent Management, LLC’s (together, “PanOptis”) Unopposed Motion to Further Amend the Docket Control Order (Dkt. 36), as previously amended by the Orders Granting Plaintiffs’ Motions to Amend the Docket Control Order (Dkt. 102 and 112), and the Court being of the opinion that for good cause the same should be GRANTED, it is therefore, ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion to Further Amend the Docket Control Order is granted, and is hereby amended as follows: ACTION Deadline to Complete Fact Discovery and File Motions to Compel Discovery Serve Disclosures for Expert Witnesses by the Party with the Burden of Proof (opening expert reports) *Deadline to File Letter Briefs Regarding Dispositive Motions1 1 CURRENT DATE IN COURT’S ORDER [DKT. 112] April 25, 2016 May 2, 2016 April 25, 2016 May 2, 2016 NEW DATE May 6, 2016 Entries in bold and with an “*” indicate deadlines that cannot be changed without showing good cause. 1 Dockets.Justia.com ACTION Serve Disclosures for Rebuttal Expert Witnesses (rebuttal reports) *File Dispositive Motions or Motions to Strike Expert Testimony (including Daubert Motions) Deadline to Complete Expert Discovery Serve Pretrial Disclosures (Witness List, Deposition Designations, and Exhibit List) by the Party with the Burden of Proof *File Notice of Request for Daily Transcript or Real Time Reporting. Serve Objections to Pretrial Disclosures; and Serve Rebuttal Pretrial Disclosures File Motions in Limine The parties shall limit their motions in limine to issues that if improperly introduced at trial would be so prejudicial that the Court could not alleviate the prejudice by giving appropriate instructions to the jury. Serve Objections to Rebuttal Pretrial Disclosures *File Joint Pretrial Order, Joint Proposed Jury Instructions, Joint Proposed Verdict Form, and Responses to Motions in Limine *Notify Court of Agreements Reached During Meet and Confer *Pretrial Conference – 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas before Judge Roy Payne *Jury Selection – 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas CURRENT DATE IN COURT’S ORDER [DKT. 112] May 20, 2016 May 30, 2016 June 3, 2016 June 17, 2016 June 20, 2016 June 24, 2016 July 8, 2016 July 8, 2016 July 13, 2016 July 15, 2016 July 27, 2016 August 15, 2016 2 NEW DATE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS Summary Judgment Motions: Prior to filing any summary judgment motion, the parties must submit letter briefs seeking permission to file the motion. The opening letter brief in each of those matters shall be no longer than five (5) pages and shall be filed with the Court no later than the deadline for filing letter briefs. Answering letter briefs in each of those matters shall be no longer than five (5) pages and filed with the Court no later than fourteen (14) days thereafter. Reply briefs in each of those matters shall be no longer than three (3) pages and filed with the Court no later than five (5) days thereafter. The Court may decide the question on the submissions or hold a hearing or telephone conference to hear arguments and to determine whether the filing of any motion will be permitted. Letter briefs shall be filed without exhibits. Any requests to submit letter briefs after the deadlines outlined above must show good cause. 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. 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 3rd DCO. January, 2012. SIGNED this the day of SIGNED this 19th day of April, 2016. ____________________________________ ROY S. PAYNE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3
]]>
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.
