New Cases

New This Week (May 29, 2020)

Menu: Scheduling/Case Management | Discovery | Patent Specific Hearings/Motions | Mediation/Settlement Conferences | Trial

Scheduling/Case Management 

District of Delaware (Wilmington)

Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Hall

Wildcat Licensing WI LLC v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG et. al. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in Wilmington granted the defendants’ Motion to Stay and entered the revised proposed Scheduling Order pursuant to the District of Delaware Revised Standing Order In Re: Court Operations Under the Exigent Circumstances Created By COVID-19, ¶ 3 (Apr. 17, 2020), providing that "[j]udicial officers may apply the principles of flexibility and accommodation to reasonable requests for filing or scheduling adjustments necessitated by reasonable and fact-based travel, health, or safety concerns, or advice or directives of public health officials." The Court found that “the defendants have proffered ‘reasonable and fact based concerns’ in support of their request for a stay, and they propose ‘reasonable’ extensions that will not affect the claim construction hearing or trial dates.” The defendants argued, among other things, that a stay was warranted due to the extraordinary pressures and difficulties faced in the current COVID-19 crisis, including the fact that some defendants “paused their production and manufacturing and [] shifted their operations to help address the crisis . . . [and others] have shut down their legal departments and furloughed thousands of workers.” (Case No. 1:19-cv-00834, presiding before District Judge Maryellen Noreika; May 14, 2020).

Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division—Chicago)

District Judge Virginia M. Kendall

Aido Mobility LLC v. Sephora USA, Inc.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago sua sponte ordered the May 21, 2020 status hearing reset for June 12, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., due to the Third Amended General Order 20-0012 in re: Coronavirus COVID-19 Public Emergency dated April 24, 2020. (Case No. 1:20-cv-00662; May 19, 2020).

District Judge Joan H. Lefkow

Ironworks Patents, LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLCThe U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago adopted the slightly lengthened case schedule proposed by the defendant, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Case No. 1:20-cv-01357; May 26, 2020).

District Judge Martha M. Pacold

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd., et. al. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago ordered the status hearing scheduled for April 28, 2020 stricken and reset to June 3, 2020, consistent with the court’s Second Amended General Order 20-0012 in re: Coronavirus COVID-19 Public Emergency dated March 30, 2020. In a May 19, 2020 Order, the Court sua sponte ordered the status hearing set for June 3, 2020 stricken, and further indicated that “given the COVID−19 situation, the court is not in a position to hold a status hearing.” The parties were directed to file a joint status report by June 5, 2020. The Court will reassess the need for a hearing after reviewing the parties' status report. (Case No. 1:16-cv-06094; April 6, 2020 and May 19, 2020).

District of Kansas (Kansas City)

Senior Judge Kathryn H. Vratil 

A&J Manufacturing, LLC v. L.A.D. Global Enterprises, Inc. et. al. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City sua sponte dismissed, without prejudice, plaintiff's patent infringement complaint for counsel's failure to respond to a Notice And Order To Show Cause and comply with pro hac vice requirements. The Court found unpersuasive new counsel’s explanation, made in an email, that “the current pandemic has further complicated [plaintiff’s] finding local counsel.” In particular, since the plaintiff’s counsel had nearly a year and a half to find local counsel and seek admittance to satisfy local pro hac vice requirements, the Court rejected the notion that the COVID-19 pandemic had anything to do with the failure to do so. (Case No. 2:19-cv-02009; May 14, 2020).

District of Maine (Portland)

Chief Judge Jon D. Levy

Copan Italia SpA et. al. v. Puritan Medical Products Company LLC et. al. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine in Portland granted the parties' joint motion to stay all pending deadlines due to the COVID-19 pandemic as both parties manufacture swabs  and “are working around the clock to maximize product output due to the ongoing surge in demand” to support the fight to control the pandemic. The parties were directed to file a joint status report every 30 days. (Case No. 1:18-cv-00218; May 18, 2020).

Eastern District Of Michigan (Flint)

District Judge Virginia M. Matthew F. Leitman

Ford Motor Company v. Versata Software, Inc. et. al. – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Flint granted in part defendant’s Motion For A Status Hearing And For The Entry Of A Scheduling Order, by holding a status conference on May 14, 2020 but declining to enter a scheduling order. In particular, the Court indicated that “[f]or the reasons explained on the record during that conference, due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the Court declines to enter a scheduling order at this time and Adjourns the currently scheduled October 6, 2020, trial date.”  (Case No. 2:15-cv-10628; May 14, 2020).

Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division)

Chief District Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap

Canon, Inc. v. TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd. – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s Marshall Division granted-in-part the parties’ Joint Motion to Amend the Third Docket Control Order to modify the scheduling order to account for their inability to complete discovery in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, the parties argued that “good cause exists to extend deadlines because they have been unable to conduct depositions of foreign-based witnesses due to travel restrictions and declared states of emergency in light of the pandemic.” The Court noted that the parties specifically identified impediments, and that the parties have met and conferred to specifically identify solutions. (Case No. 2:18-cv-00546; May 22, 2020).

Western District of Texas (Waco)

District Judge Alan D. Albright

Coil Chem LLC et. al. v. Durachem Production Co. et. al. – The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Waco granted the Plaintiffs’ Agreed Motion To Stay Litigation In Light Of COVID-19 Pandemic, ordering the case stayed for six months. The parties were directed to file, at the expiration of the stay, a notice requesting a status/scheduling conference. (Case No. 7-19-cv-00225; May 16, 2020).

District Judge Robert G. Doumar

Appotronics Corp. Ltd. v. Delta Electronics, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Norfolk granted plaintiff’s request for a 30-day extension for all remaining case deadlines over defendant’s request for a stay or, alternatively, a 90-day extension, reasoning that it must "ensure cases do not remain stagnant." Acknowledging that nine (9) of the witnesses in this case are located in China or Taiwan, the court indicated that the defendant may file another motion for relief should circumstances so require. The presiding Judge granted a Joint Motion For Extension Of Case Schedule, requesting a further extension because of the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing that circumstances require an additional extension. In particular, circumstances prevent depositions in the normal course because of restrictions that affect both parties, as the defendant is a Taiwanese company with its witnesses in Taiwan and the plaintiff is a Chinese company with witnesses in mainland China. The Court extended the pretrial deadlines in accordance with an Amended Scheduling Order, including resetting the trial for November 16, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (Case No. 2:19-cv-00466; March 25, 2020 and May 22, 2020).

Back to top

Discovery

Central District of California (Southern Division—Santa Ana)

Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott

Intellectual Pixels Limited v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC – The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California’s Southern Division in Santa Ana granted the parties' motion to modify the protective order by entering the Stipulated Covid-19 Addendum To Protective Order to address source code production during the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, since certain COVID-19 public health orders and advisories make it not possible to permit the parties to inspect source code pursuant to the in-person review procedures of the existing Protective Order the parties agreed to certain alternative provisions that will “continue in effect until the in-person inspection regime of the Protective Order can be reinstated or August 1, 2020, whichever is sooner.” Among other things, the parties agreed that the source code will be shipped by the producing Party to a single agreed upon location, which may include the primary residence of the receiving Party’s Outside Consultant. The parties also acknowledged that depositions may be scheduled during the scope of the COVID-19 Addendum, and they provided for procedures for requesting and using code during a deposition. (Case No. 8:19-cv-01432, presiding before District Judge James V. Selna; May 21, 2020).

Southern District of California (San Diego)

Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal

Impact Engine, Inc. v. Google LLC – The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego issued an Order Re Tolling Of 30-Day Discovery Dispute Deadline, granting some requests to toll the deadline and supplement, while denying others for which a date certain was not known. With respect to the supplementation of interrogatory responses that were dependent on how the parties decide to accomplish source code inspection and when the Bay Area’s and California’s shelter-in-place orders are lifted, the Court ordered the parties to “meet and confer to propose an alternative method for parties to inspect source code, whether it involve remote access with a secure network or any other alternative method that would be compatible while following COVID-19 guidelines.” (Case No. 3:19-cv-01301, presiding before District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo; May 18, 2020).

District of Delaware (Wilmington)

Special Master David A. White

TQ Delta LLC v. ADTRAN Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in Wilmington, in a Special Master’s Opinion, granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Inspection of Defendant’s Source Code.  The Special Master ruled that the plaintiff shall be provided access to defendant’s source code, but further found that the current proposal would appear to violate both the letter and spirit of the Protective Order. Noting that the COVID-19 pandemic presents numerous challenges, the parties were ordered to meet and confer regarding the conditions under which plaintiff may view the source code. (Case No. 1:14-cv-00954, presiding before District Judge Richard G. Andrews; May 15, 2020).

Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division—Chicago)

District Judge Martha M. Pacold

Medline Industries, Inc. v. CR Bard, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago found good cause, after reviewing the parties’ status report, to revoke the further 28-day extension of the expert discovery deadline as provided in the Third Amended General Order No. 20-0012. The parties had completed only one of the seven necessary expert depositions in early 2020, and defendant's opposition to plaintiff's request to revoke the further 28-day extension, from August 25, 2020 to July 28, 2020, is based largely on a desire to conduct the remaining six expert depositions in person. The Court indicated that it “sees no reason to postpone the conclusion of this long-pending discovery for another month in the hope that depositions can safely be conducted in person, when there is a strong possibility that conditions surrounding the COVID-19 public health emergency will not have changed significantly.” Arguments for conducting an in-person deposition of an expert (in lieu of a remote video deposition) in a patent case were found to be not compelling. The use of remote video technology was encouraged as it “exists to reduce the cost of litigation and now to enhance its safety during a pandemic, the likes of which have not been seen in this country since World War I.” (Case No. 1:16-cv-03529; May 20, 2020).

District of New Jersey (Trenton)

Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Arpert

Amgen, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., et al. – The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Trenton granted the parties’ Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding Foreign Depositions, which permits corporate representatives under Rule 30(b)(6) as well as fact witnesses under Rule 30(b)(1) to appear for depositions by way of video, in light of travel restrictions resulting from “government orders and health concerns concerning the global COVID-19 pandemic.” A telephonic Status Conference is set for May 28, 2020 at 11:30 a.m. (EDT).  (Case No. 3:18-cv-11026, presiding before District Judge Michael A. Shipp; April 23, 2020 and May 22, 2020).

Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division)

Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne

GREE, INC v. Supercell Oy – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s Marshall Division denied defendant's Motion for Relief in View of Governmental/Public Health Restrictions in Response to COVID-19 Virus Impact and Motion to Compel Discovery and Depositions -- seeking a 3-month trial extension due to the COVID-19 pandemic in order to take additional depositions of plaintiff's employees -- because the defendant failed to establish that the depositions were necessary. In addition, the Court noted that the request “to compel these depositions to promptly proceed . . . is asking for an impossibility—one also contrary to this Court’s standing orders.” Moreover, the Court felt it not clear that even if the request for a 3-month continuance was granted, it would be enough to take the depositions since “[n]o one knows for sure when this pandemic will end and countries will begin to ease restrictions” and taking a deposition in Japan is a complicated and long process. Thus, even if the deadlines were delayed, the defendant may still be then in the same position as now.  (Case No. 2:19-cv-00071, presiding before Chief District Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap; May 12, 2020).

District of Utah (Central Division)

Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

Definitive Holdings LLC v. Powerteq LLC – The U.S. District Court for the District of Utah’s Central Division denied the Plaintiff’s Short Form Discovery Motion seeking a copy of the source code files to review without opposing counsel present, finding the requested “sweeping changes to the review or production of source code” not supported or warranted under the circumstances. The court acknowledged “the trying and challenging circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic, which impact the parties and the review of source code,” but the court encouraged the parties “to find a workable solution.” (Case No. 2:18-cv-00844, presiding before District Judge David B. Barlow; May 22, 2020).

Back to top

Patent Specific Hearings/Motions

Central District of California (Western Division—Los Angeles)

District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez

DivX, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California’s Western Division in Los Angeles granted defendants' motions to stay the matter pending inter partes review, in part because the Court found that the COVID-19 pandemic was a relevant consideration under the  first factor (stage of the proceedings). In particular, the Court noted that defendants stated that the pandemic hindered the ability to meet certain deadlines and plaintiff recognized that “the Court, parties, and counsel face unprecedented challenges from COVID-19 and the corresponding guidance and restrictions that have disrupted everyday life and routines.” Further, the Court indicated that “if these cases were to proceed on their current schedule, hearings and trial would be subject to delays, particularly because criminal matters will take priority over these patent infringement actions.” (Case No. 2:19-cv-01602; May 11, 2020).

District of Delaware (Wilmington)

Chief District Judge Leonard P. Stark

Citrix Systems, Inc. v. Workspot, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in Wilmington ordered that the Markman Hearing scheduled for June 5, 2020 will be a videoconference hearing to be arranged by counsel, with public access required, after receiving correspondence seeking guidance due to ongoing concerns surrounding in-person hearings and travel. The Court expressed no preference with respect to the particular videoconference format.  Any party wishing to refer to slides or other materials were instructed to provide a copy to the Court no later than 4:00 p.m. on June 4, 2020.  In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court had previously ordered a continuance of the Markman hearing, but denied continuance for arguments on a sanctions motion which shall be heard via teleconference. (Case No. 1:18-cv-00588; March 27, 2020 and May 21, 2020).

Attachement:
Citrix Systems, Inc. v. Workspot, Inc. Letter - May 15, 2020

Western District of Michigan (grand rapids)

Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker

Magna Mirrors of America, Inc. v. Samvardhana Motherson Reflectec Group Holdings Limited et. al.  – The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan in Grand Rapids held an in-person summary judgment motions hearing with respect to infringement, induced infringement, lost profits and convoyed sales, inequitable conduct, a license defense and a prior art date issue. The Court had previously ruled, in a May 1, 2020 order, that the hearing would proceed in-person as scheduled, and at that time the Court encouraged the parties to consider sensible accommodations that would limit risk of exposure to Covid-19. In particular, the Court noted that maybe “not all lawyers who have appeared and worked on the case need to come to the hearing . . . [m]aybe local counsel will be able to carry more of the argument load than they normally would so that less travel is needed . . . [a]nd to the extent travel is necessary, maybe counsel can consider an old fashioned road trip instead of airline travel.” (Case No. 1:17-cv-00077; May 1, 2020 and May 21, 2020).

District of Utah (Central Division—Salt Lake City)

Senior District Judge Dee Benson

CAO Group v. GE Lighting, et. al. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Utah’s Central Division in Salt Lake City issued an Amended Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen the Case and Lift Stay on the written submissions alone, “[g]iven the unique circumstances and social gathering restrictions brought about by the current global pandemic.” The court went further and dismissed the action in its entirety, without prejudice, due to lack of venue under the United States Supreme Court’s TC Heartland decision. (Case No. 2:11-cv-00426; May 12, 2020).

Back to top

Mediation/Settlement Conferences

Northern District of California (San Francisco)

District Judge Richard Seeborg

St. Croix Surgical Systems, LLC v. Cardiva Medical, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco sua sponte issued a General Order For All Pending Civil Cases Before Judge Richard Seeborg dated May 18, 2020, stating that due to the high uncertainty created by the COVID-19 pandemic “it would seem to be an optimal time for the parties to initiate or renew an exploration of possible settlement or some other form of alternative dispute resolution.” The parties were instructed to meet and confer telephonically within 30 days of the date of the Order to discuss the prospect of case resolution and file a joint report regarding the status of the case. (Case No. 3:18-cv-04426; May 18, 2020).

The General Order For All Pending Civil Cases Before Judge Richard Seeborg, dated May 18, 2020, has also been docketed in the following patent cases before the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California:

  • Arsus, LLC v. Tesla Motors, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00313; May 18, 2020;
  • CF Traverse LLC v. Amprius, Inc , Case No. 3:20-cv-00484; May 18, 2020;
  • Power Density Solutions LLC v IBM Corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-03710; May 18, 2020; and
  • Gamevice, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01942; May 18, 2020.

District of Delaware (Wilmington)

Magistrate Judge  Sherry R. Fallon

Ingevity Corporation, et. al. v. BASF Corporation – The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in Wilmington sua sponte decided in an Oral Order to conduct the mediation scheduled for June 22, 2020 telephonically. The Court ordered that plaintiff’s counsel shall make arrangements for a dial-in number for all counsel, including the Judge, to use throughout the mediation process should the Judge wish to have discussions with all parties. In addition, Plaintiffs counsel was ordered to arrange for a separate line for their private discussions with the Judge and, likewise, defendant’s counsel was ordered to arrange for a separate line for their private discussions with the Judge. Previously, in a March 30, 2020 Order, the presiding Judge had extended the deadline for completing expert depositions to May 29, 2020 and further indicated that “[t]he parties should prepare to do the six expert depositions that are at issue by means other than in-person if governmental restrictions continue to make that necessary.” At that time the Court noted that if the current trial date of September 14, 2020 is not able to be maintained, “it may not be able to be rescheduled to a date certain for a long time, maybe until 2022.” (Case No. 1:18-cv-01391, presiding before District Judge Richard G. Andrews; March 30, 2020 and May 11, 2020).

Attachment:
Ingevity Corporation, et. al. v. BASF Corparation - March 30, 2020 

Back to top

Trial

Northern District of California (San Francisco)

District Judge Richard Seeborg

Gamevice, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. et. al.– The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco granted plaintiff’s Motion and Order to Extend Schedule in View of COVID-19 Travel Restrictions,  requesting an approximately three month extension in view of the difficulties in domestic and international travel due to COVID-19 pandemic travel restrictions. The jury trial date, currently scheduled for July 6, 2020, was moved to October 26, 2020. The Final Pretrial Conference will be held on September 23, 2020.  (Case No. 3:18-cv-01942; May 19, 2020).

Attachement:
Gamevice, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd, et. al. Docket 177 - May 19, 2020

Northern District of California (San Jose)

District Judge Beth Labson Freeman

Finjan Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose issued Civil Minutes for the pretrial conference held via Zoom Webinar on April 30, 2020, in which the Court indicated that Jury Selection and the Trial have been set to start on June 22, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. At this time, the Court intends to seat a jury of 8 (subject to change) chosen from a panel of 50. The Court held a Case Management Conference on May 26, 2020, during which it reset the Jury trial date to October 19, 2020. (Case No. 5:17-cv-00072; April 30, 2020 May 21, 2020 & May 22, 2020 and May 26,2020) 

District of New Jersey (Trenton)

Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Arpert

Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp., et al. v.  Sandoz Inc., et. al. – On April 28, 2020, the U.S. District Court for District of New Jersey in Trenton granted the joint request by the parties for a two-week extension for submission of trial briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, from April 30 to May 14, 2020, in light of the presiding Judge’s prior adjournment of the May trial in the case. In a joint letter submitted on April 22, 2020, the parties indicated that following their discussion at the final pretrial conference regarding the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the trial, the defendant agreed to an extension of the regulatory stay for 120-days from the conclusion of the trial and the parties jointly requested that the Court set the commencement of a six-day trial for some time in July 2020, or as soon as practicable thereafter in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. In a May 12, 2020 Letter Order, the Court granted a request to extend the deadline from May 14 to May 21, 2020, for the parties to submit pretrial briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. In a May 19, 2020 Letter Order, the Court granted a further one week extension May 21 to May 28, 2020. On April 24, 2020, the Court Ordered the agreed upon extension of the regulatory stay from September 29, 2020, until 120 days from the conclusion date of the trial. (Case No. 3:17-cv-05319, presiding before Chief Judge Freda L. Wolfson; April 24, 2020 & April 28, 2020 and May 12, 2020 & May 19, 2020).

Attachements:
Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp., et. al. v. Sandoz Inc., et. al. Letter - April 22, 2020
Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp., et. al. v. Sandoz Inc., et. al. Order - April 24, 2020
Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp., et. al. v. Sandoz Inc., et. al. Order - April 28, 2020
Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp., et. al. v. Sandoz Inc., et. al. Order - May 12, 2020
Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp., et. al. v. Sandoz Inc., et. al. Order - May 19, 2020

Southern District of New York (Manhattan)

Chief District Judge Colleen McMahon

Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. et. al. v. Serenity Pharmaceuticals LLC, et. al.– On April 23, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan sua sponte notified the parties that the Court intended to move forward with the trial set to start on May 26, 2020, or within two weeks of that date, and it was “not prepared to wait until the world is back to normal to get it done.” The Court highlighted it was a bench trial, and such trials "are the one type of proceeding that can go forward, even during a pandemic."  In particular, the Court noted in a bench trial it can take testimony in writing (as it usually does at bench trials) and listen to cross examination conducted remotely. In addition, the Court indicated “witnesses who are located in other countries and cannot travel to court can have their depositions submitted instead - and I am sure that all the really relevant witnesses were deposed.” On April 24, 2020, the parties jointly submitted a letter in response to the April 23 Notice to Counsel indicating that they were “prepared and wish to move forward . . . but current travel and business restrictions make the logistics of doing so on May 26 uncertain.”  The parties requested that the start of the trial be adjourned until the week of July 6, 2020, however “recognizing the constraints of the Court” the parties also confirmed that they could be available in the middle of June but they noted “there still may be some restrictions on travel in place at that time.” In a handwritten memo endorsed order on April 28, 2020, the Court stated “[o]k, the trial is adjourned to July 6, 2020.  The Court will  schedule a teleconference in the near future to discuss trial logistics.” In a May 14, 2020 Notice To Counsel, the Court scheduled a conference call for May 20, 2020 to discuss any concerns about the trial, given the parties preference for a trial in person, and the likely possibility that “stay at home orders and travel restrictions will not be lifted by July 6 . . [and] that some or all of the testimony at [the] trial will have to be taken remotely.” The Court reiterated that it will “take direct testimony of witnesses under any party’s control in writing” and indicated that “the Court’s view [is] that cross examination via a video platform would allow [it] to make necessary credibility determinations.”  The Court further stated that it was “not eager to hear that you don’t want to go to trial on your chosen date of July 6. We simply have to find a way to get this case tried.” In a May 28, 2020, Trial Procedures communication to Counsel the Court indicated that the entire trial will be “all remote” and that it will use TrialGraphix’s TRIALanywhere product for the trial. The decision to have all witnesses testify remotely was based on the draft protocols for Phase II re-entry which would require all individuals who traveled from abroad to quarantine for two weeks before being allowed to enter the courthouse. One of the proposals under consideration from the parties that was described as “eminently sensible” by the Court, was the shipping of sealed binders to witnesses. It was also being left to the parties to agree whether an attorney may be present with witnesses during their remote testimony, which might make it even easier to deal with exhibits. The Court stated it was open to an in-person real bench trial closing argument, if it were safe, with lead trial counsel coming to court after all the witnesses have been heard from, but it strongly discouraged bringing a lot of people to court for any such closing argument. (Case No. 1:17-cv-09922; April 23, 2020 & April 28, 2020, May 14, 2020 and May 27, 2020). 

Attachement:
Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. et. al. v. Serenity Pharmaceuticals LLC, et. al. Notice - May 14, 2020
Ferring Pharmaceuticalcs Inc. et. al. v. Serenty Pharmaceuticals LLC, et. al. Trial Procedures - May 27, 2020

District Judge Gregory H. Woods

Au New Haven, LLC f/k/a Uretek LLC, et. al. v. YKK Corp. – On April 21, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan sua sponte “adjourned sine die” a jury trial scheduled to begin on June 15, 2020, because it “does not anticipate that it will be able to conduct a jury trial in June 2020.” The court indicated that it will reschedule the trial when it has more information about “the timeline for the resumption of normal operations.” In providing further guidance to the parties, however, the court noted that, due to rescheduling also occurring in other matters as a result of the pandemic, it “does not anticipate that it will be able to schedule a trial to begin in this matter until sometime this winter at the earliest—more likely, the trial will not be rescheduled to begin until a date in 2021.” In a May 15, 2020 Text Order, the Court indicated that the final pretrial conference previously scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on May 28, 2020 will still proceed as a telephonic conference, to focus on the parties' pending motions in limine, and that the Court anticipates holding a second final pretrial conference closer to the date of trial. (Case No. 1:15-cv-03411; April 21, 2020 and May 15, 2020).

Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh)

District Judge Cathy Bissoon

Cutsforth, Inc. v. Lemm Liquidating Co., LLC, et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh sua sponte stayed and administratively closed the case, postponed the jury trial from April 20, 2020 to October 26, 2020, and further amended the Pre-trial Scheduling Order. In a May 19, 2020 Text Order the Court stated “the COVID-19 pandemic continues to create barriers to resuming normal, in-person operations in our nation's courts. . . . [with no issue] more problematic than the resumption of jury trials . . . [because] there can be no doubt that from selection to deliberation, jury trials pose unique and potentially, unavoidable concerns during this pandemic.”  The parties were ordered to file a joint notice, on or before June 15, 2020, indicating whether they jointly and voluntarily consent to waiving their right to a jury trial and to converting the case to a bench trial, without specifying who did or did not consent. (Case No. 2:17-cv-01025; March 17, 2020 and May 19, 2020).

Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division)

Chief District Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap

SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Limited et. al. – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s Marshall Division denied, without prejudice, the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue Trial Setting, requesting a 90-day extension to the jury trial – currently scheduled to begin with jury selection on July 6, 2020 -- due to travel restrictions stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court acknowledged “the need to protect parties, court staff, witnesses, corporate representatives, and practitioners during this crisis”, but felt the motion is premature “[g]iven the constant evolution of the pandemic” and related travel restrictions. In particular, The Court noted the evolving COVID-19 pandemic and related travel restrictions may very well change several times before the scheduled jury selection, hopefully in ways that may assuage the present concerns raised by the Motion. Nonetheless, the Court also noted that “[t]he parties are free to seek similar relief at a later date, if present impediments do not abate or are otherwise modified/lifted.” (Case No. 2:18-cv-00295; May 22, 2020).g the case to a bench trial, without specifying who did or did not consent. (Case No. 2:17-cv-01025; March 17, 2020 and May 19, 2020).

Western District of Texas (Waco)

District Judge Alan D. Albright

MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Waco sua sponte set a telephone conference for May 13, 2020 during which the Court indicated that the trial date has been reset from June 1, 2020 to June 29, 2020, in light of the Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under The Exigent Circumstances Created By The COVID-19 pandemic issued on May 8, 2020 by Chief Judge Orlando L. Garcia, and that the Final Pretrial Conference is postponed from May 20, 2020 until a later date in June at which time it will be held in person. The Court further indicated that the jurors will probably have voir dire the Thursday or Friday before the trial. According to a May 1, 2020 Minute Entry, there will be 8 jurors selected from a jury pool of 48 and the seating in the gallery will be 4 per bench. On April 8, 2020, the Court had previously denied defendant’s motion to continue the June 1 trial, stating that such a continuance would be premature as “the trial is still several weeks away.” In addition, the court issued a standing order on April 9, 2020 for all patent infringement cases in the post-Markman stage of litigation, acknowledging the “potential difficulties related to the COVID-19 virus that parties in patent cases may experience” and, thus, “is willing to consider all reasonable adjustments to the current orders to allow the parties to complete discovery…and file appropriate motions.” The court required only that the parties meet-and-confer first, further stating that it would give “great deference” to joint scheduling proposals. (Case No. 6:18-cv-00308; April 8 & April 9, 2020 and May 1 & May 4, 2020 and May 11, 2020).

Attachement:
MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku Inc. Order - May 11, 2020

Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk)

Senior District Judge Henry C. Morgan, Jr.

Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia’s Norfolk Division denied defendant’s Motion Opposing Trial Entirely by Videoconference, filed in response to the court’s decision to hold the trial by Zoom's videoconference platform. In response to the pandemic, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued General Order 2020-09 (“Authorization to Use Video Teleconferencing Pursuant to the CARES Act”), providing temporary emergency video and teleconferencing for civil and criminal hearings, including the use of Zoomgov for remote proceedings, and General Order 2020-11 (“Public Access to Remote Hearings”), authorizing access to the press and public to listen by a toll free telephone line to proceedings held remotely during the pandemic. Defendant raised a variety of concerns with respect to the decision to proceed with the trial via Zoom, including security, its ability to effectively cross examine witnesses and the Rule of Sequestration. In particular, the defendant argued that the lack of security on the Zoom platform would jeopardize its confidential material which may be made available to the public during a video trial. However, the court rejected this argument because a trial in the courtroom would similarly be open to the public. The court felt any concerns regarding cross examination of witnesses were unwarranted because “both parties are required to disclose all exhibits, except those [] used for purposes of impeachment, in advance of trial and therefore both sides will know what evidence is intended to be presented at trial…[and] are required to prepare an exhibit book.” With respect to the Rule of Sequestration, the court indicated that if called upon to do so, it would impose its usual limitation upon witness discussion of testimony with another witness or counsel discussing past testimony with the witness in advance of present testimony. The court also pointed to Local Rule 83.3 and noted that “the general prohibition on televising, recording or photographing any civil or criminal court proceedings remains in effect for remote proceedings.” Further explaining “that the operation of any video or audio recording device by any lawyer, litigant, participant or observing member of the public or press is prohibited during remote proceedings.” On April 27, 2020, the Clerk filed the approved Joint Pretrial Order. (Case No. 2:18-cv-00094; April 23, 2020 & April 27, 2020).

Public Access Information For Trial: Daily at 10:00 a.m. (EDT) starting on May 6, 2020

Teleconference Number: 1-866-390-1828

Access Code: 9231679

Attachment:
Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. Pretrial Order - April 27, 2020

District Judge Mark S. Davis

Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. v. Bentley Motors Ltd., et. al. – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia’s Norfolk Division granted the parties’ joint motion to extend currently pending deadlines in light of complications related to the COVID-19 outbreak, including agreeing to remove the trial date previously scheduled for October 13, 2020. The court found the “parties acted diligently and timely in making this joint request” and that good cause supported extensions in all deadlines. In a May 5 Order, pursuant to the General Orders in case 2:20mc7 re the outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019, the Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order was amended to reset the Final Pretrial Conference for February 5, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. and the Jury Trial for February 23, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. The Markman Hearing was held remotely on May 21, 2020 using ZoomGov. (Case No. 2:18-cv-00320; April 9, 2020, May 5, 2020 and May 21. 2020).

Attachment:
Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. v. Bentley Motors Ltd., et. al. Docket 344 - May 21, 2020

Back to top

COVID-19 Resource Center

  • Access our insights on the impact of COVID-19 to help you navigate this unprecedented environment.

CadwaladerSpotlight

Making a Mark on Our Communities:

Pro Bono Report 2019

To assist individuals in working from home during the coronavirus social-distancing period, Cadwalader is providing clients and friends free access to our legal research platform, the Cadwalader Cabinet.