Scheduling/Case Management

All across the country, district courts have had to modify scheduling orders in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Patent cases have been no different. Many of the these case management modification orders have been issued on a sua sponte basis, often based on broader general Court Orders that were issued district wide within a particular jurisdiction. Some reflect a wait-and-see approach by staying all litigation until further notice or by moving all deadlines a few months, while other jurisdictions have shown a desire to avoid significant delays, often through the use of remote-capable technologies such as telephonic and video conferences.

Central District of California (Western Division—Los Angeles)

District Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr.

Theragun, Inc. v. Complete Recovery et. al. – The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles granted plaintiff’s Motion for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to FRCP 4(f)(3) to serve the Summons, Complaint and other initiating documents on the defendant by email and by uploading the documents at defendant’s interactive Alibaba website. Plaintiff requested the alternative service, in part, to avoid having to attempt to serve the Chinese defendant via The Hague Convention which might prove lengthy and futile, particularly since “[t]his vexing situation is now compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic, which undoubtedly will more than likely cause additional delays.” (Case No. 2:20-cv-03821; May 29, 2020).

District Judge John A. Kronstadt

Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC – The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California’s Western Division in Los Angeles sua sponte issued an order:

  • removing all motions, status and scheduling conferences scheduled between April 23, 2020 and May 1, 2020 from the calendar;
  • ordering that all motions will be decided without oral argument and that the court may order supplemental briefing; and
  • ordering that all current deadlines for briefing of motions and filing of status reports and scheduling conference reports remain in place.

The order was issued in accordance with the Central District of California’s Continuity of Operations Plan (“COOP”) which suspended hearings in civil cases, except emergency and time sensitive matters including temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, as ordered by the assigned district judge. (Case No. 2:17-cv-04146; March 24, 2020).

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson

Lexington Luminance LLC v. Feit Electric Company, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles, on its own motion, rescheduled until August 21, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. a hearing on plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees, which had previously been scheduled for August 19, 2020. The Court further indicated that the hearing will be held telephonically due to the COVID-19 pandemic and consistent with the District’s General Orders 20-08 Amended and 20-09. (Case No. 2:18-cv-10513, presiding before District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez; August 11, 2020).

Central District of California (Southern Division—Santa Ana)

Special Master Judge  Stephen G. Larson (Ret.)

Preservation Technologies LLC v. MindGeek USA Inc. et al. – The Special Master recommended that the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Santa Ana grant defendant’s motion to modify the scheduling order finding that “[g]iven the discovery stay, plaintiff’s transition to new counsel, and the COVID-19 pandemic, there is good cause to reexamine and modify case deadlines entered over a year-and-a-half ago.”  In crafting the proposed scheduling order, the Special Master considered a number of things including “the impact of COVID-19 on [the] case’s progression to trial.” In a July 21, 2020 Minute Order the presiding Judge accepted the recommendation of the Special Master and adopted the modified schedule outlined in the recommendation at pages 12-15. (Case No. 2:17-cv-08906, presiding before District David O. Carter; July 13, 2020 and July 21, 2020).

Northern District of California (Oakland)

District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr

Edwards Lifesciences Corp. et al v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland denied a Motion To Advance The Hearing, Setting A Briefing Schedule On Motions For Summary Judgment And Staying Certain Deadlines. Instead, the Court set a briefing schedule for the motion for summary judgment “[i]n light of defense counsel’s scheduling conflict on the currently-noticed hearing date, the obvious ongoing logistical challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting shelter-in-place and travel restriction orders, and the parties’ apparent inability to agree on essentially anything . . . .” In addition, the Court indicated that “depositions should be taken in person if possible . . . [and if they] cannot be taken in person due to ongoing COVID-19-related restrictions, they must be completed by video conference (or an otherwise agreed-upon method) on or before August 7, 2020.” (Case No. 4:19-cv-06593; June 8, 2020).

Chief District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton

Five Star Gourmet Foods, Inc., et. al. v. Fresh Express, Inc. et. al. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland sua sponte issued a clerk’s notice on March 12, 2020, to all civil litigants in matters before the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton stating the following:

  • all Case Management Conferences shall be held telephonically through CourtCall;
  • all law and motion matters will be submitted on the papers and any set hearings during this time period shall be vacated, but, if the court deems oral argument necessary it will issue a notice setting a telephonic hearing date;
  • all civil trials are subject to continuance;
  • and indicating that the notice is in effect until May 1, 2020.

(Case No. 4:19-cv-05611; March 12, 2020).

District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

Netlist, Inc. v. Smart Modular Techs., Inc., et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland sua sponte suspended all in-person appearances in all civil matters before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers through at least May 1, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Case No. 4:13-cv-05889; March 12, 2020).Netlist, Inc. v. Smart Modular Techs., Inc., et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland sua sponte suspended all in-person appearances in all civil matters before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers through at least May 1, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Case No. 4:13-cv-05889; March 12, 2020).

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd. v. SiTime Corp. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland sua sponte ordered that all in-person appearances be suspended in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Specifically, the court ordered:

  • all case management conferences be held telephonically and not recorded;
  • all law and motion matters be submitted on the papers with no oral arguments or personal appearances held on regularly scheduled or specially set motions, tutorials, or other matters;
  • all compliance hearings to be addressed on the papers; and
  • continuing all civil trials pending further order of the court.

(Case No. 4:19-cv-01174; March 12, 2020).

Northern District of California (San Francisco)

District Judge William Haskell Alsup

Fluidigm Corp., et al. v. Ionpath, Inc. – On April 13, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, District Judge William Alsup sua sponte vacated all in-court civil hearings through April 17, 2020 and ordered that all case management conferences be conducted telephonically, in light of the public health concern caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This order supplemented Judge Alsup’s prior March 16, 2020 Order which had also vacated all in-court civil hearings through April 17th and, until further notice, ordered that all pending motions be submitted on the papers unless a telephonic hearing is deemed necessary by the court. The Court set a telephonic Motion Hearing regarding interrogatory responses for June 18, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. (PDT). (Case No. 3:19-cv-05639; March 16, 2020, April 13, 2020 and June 12, 2020).

Attachments:
Fluidigm Corp., et al. v. Ionpath, Inc. Docket 89
Fluidigm Corp., et al. v. Ionpath, Inc. Docket 91

District Judge William Haskell Alsup

Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. – On April 30, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, District Judge William Alsup sua sponte vacated all in-court civil hearings “for the time being”, in light of the public health concern caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court indicated that a scheduled May 7 hearing will still proceed, telephonically, with the courtroom deputy to provide further instruction.  (Case No. 3:16-cv-03463; April 30, 2020).

Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson

California Beach Co., LLC v. Exqline, Inc. et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco granted plaintiff’s Motion for Substituted Service of Process Pursuant to FRCP 4(f)(3) to serve the Summons and Complaint on one defendant through its U.S.-based counsel, and for substituted service of process on another defendant by email. The decision to allow service by email was in part made because the plaintiff made multiple attempts to serve defendant at its physical addresses and discovered that these addresses were “unsuitable for service” because they were closed at this time and for the foreseeable future due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Case No. 3:20-cv-01994; July 7, 2020).

District Judge Richard G. Seeborg

CF Traverse LLC v. Amprius, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco granted defendant’s motion for a 30-day extension for all deadlines in the parties’ Case Management Scheduling Order dated March 12, 2020, as well as all other deadlines under the Federal Rules, Civil Local Rules, or Patent Local Rules, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court further ordered the parties to “submit a Status Report by April 17, 2020 to determine whether any further extension is warranted.” (Case No. 3:20-cv-00484; March 27, 2020).

Northern District of California (San Jose)

District Judge Edward J. Davila

Breathe Techs., Inc. v. New Aera, Inc., et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose entered the parties’ stipulation and order staying certain deadlines in the case for a period of six (6) weeks. According to the stipulation, both plaintiff and defendant Inogen “provide respiratory care products to ill patients, including oxygen concentrators and ventilators, which currently are in great demand due to the COVID-19 pandemic.” (Case No. 5:19-cv-07691; April 21, 2020).

Sunset Licensing LLC v. Azuga, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose granted-in-part and denied-in-part plaintiff’s Application for Alternative Service of Process and Extension of Time for Service of Process and Continuance of Other Deadlines.  The Court denied the request for alternative service finding the Plaintiff had not demonstrated good cause, but found that an extension of 30 days to complete service is appropriate “[g]iven the added challenges to personal service caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and related shelter-in-place orders . . . .”  (Case No. 5:20-cv-02174; June 15, 2020).

Southern District of California (San Diego)

Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard

Orthopaedic Hospital d/b/a Orthopaedic Institute For Children v. DJO Global, Inc. et. al. – The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego granted defendants’ opposed motion to extend case deadlines by 60 days due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court found defendants’ requested extension to be “modest and reasonable”, particularly in light of the previous two-month continuance of the claim construction hearing from April 16, 2020 to June 11, 2020, however it agreed with plaintiff that there is “no right to prepare witnesses or take depositions in person” and “there is no evidence that circumstances will be materially different in August 2020 than in June 2020.”  While granting the extension, the Court cautioned the parties that it “will not find good cause to grant any further extensions of the case schedule based on the purported need to take depositions or prepare witnesses in person.” (Case No. 3:19-cv-00970, presiding before District Judge Janis L. Sammartino; May 28, 2020).

District of Colorado (Denver)

Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty

Anza Tech., Inc. v. Mushkin, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in Denver sua sponte ordered that all hearings and conferences scheduled for the week of March 16, 2020 be conducted telephonically. (Case No. 1:17-cv-03135; March 14, 2020).

District Judge Raymond P. Moore

Rain Design, Inc. et al v. Spinido, Inc. et al. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in Denver set aside an order to show cause dealing with failure to effectuate service, in response to which the Plaintiffs’ counsel “[admitted] his failures, including due to personal issues such as concerns that he had contracted Covid-19 . . . .” Considering the fact that Plaintiffs had attempted to effect service and did so as permitted by a California court before the case was transferred, the Court decided to allow Plaintiffs one final opportunity to properly obtain service on Defendants within 60 days or move for an order of substituted service, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. (Case No. 1:19-cv-00349; June 8, 2020).

District of Delaware (Wilmington)

District Judge Richard G. Andrews

Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in Wilmington approved a Joint Stipulation Of Dismissal Of Complaint as to one of the named defendants. It was agreed, as part of the stipulation, that if the parties agree that an employee of the removed defendant is a necessary fact witness, the witness will be made available for deposition in the United States, subject to any governmental travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 global pandemic without the need for service of a subpoena or adherence to the procedures of the Hague Convention or other methods of foreign service/discovery if outside the United States. If the parties disagree as to whether such an employee is a necessary fact witness, then the parties will present the matter for Court resolution, and if the deposition is ordered then the employee will be made available for deposition in the United States, subject to any governmental travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, pursuant to the Court’s Order without requiring that Plaintiff adhere to the procedures of the Hague Convention or other methods of foreign service/discovery. (Case No. 1:20-cv-00986; July 24, 2020).

Ingevity Corp., et al. v. BASF Corp. – In response to the parties’ dispute over whether expert depositions should go forward, and in an effort to keep the case on track for a September trial date, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware:

  • extended the time for expert depositions by 30 days;
  • extended deadlines for Daubert and dispositive motions; and
  • vacated deadlines for depositions and dispositive motions relating to bifurcated claims, subjecting them to a separate schedule to be set after the patent trial is held.

(Case No. 1:18-cv-01391; March 30, 2020).

Pfizer, Inc., et al. v. Apotex, Inc., et al. – On March 23, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in Wilmington granted the parties’ stipulation and proposed order staying all deadlines in the case and ordering the parties to submit a joint status report on April 17, 2020. The stipulation and order states that “there have been delays in the taking of depositions due to the COVID-19 emergency and given the uncertainties that exist regarding travel, absent a stay, the parties would need to discuss with the Court revisions to the case schedule.” On March 31, 2020, the court entered an oral order stating that the pretrial conference scheduled for April 29, 2020 will be held telephonically. On April 15, 2020, the parties’ request to continue the stay was granted and the April 29th pretrial conference, as well as the bench trial scheduled for May 11, 2020 are continued to an undetermined date. On June 12, 2020, the Court approved the request to extend the stay to July 10, 2020. (Case No. 1:18-cv-00795; March 23, 2020, March 31, 2020, April 15, 2020 and June 12, 2020).

District Judge Colm F. Connolly

Labrador Diagnostics LLC v. BioFire Diagnostics, LLC et al. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware entered a voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, filed by plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A).  The plaintiff stated that “in view of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and as requested by the defendants, [it] is dismissing the complaint to allow the defendants to focus their resources on combating the coronavirus and addressing the public health crisis . . . [and that it] continues to fully support all efforts directed to addressing the present international COVID-19 pandemic and continues to hope that more tests will be created, disseminated, and used to quickly and effectively protect our communities here and throughout the world.” (Case No. 1:20-cv-00348; June 28, 2020).

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).

Chief District Judge Leonard P. Stark

Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Office Depot, Inc. – On March 18, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in Wilmington ordered the parties to submit a joint status report by March 24, 2020 proposing how the case should proceed in light of the March 18th Standing Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent Circumstances Created by COVID-19. Specifically, the parties are to advise the court:

  • whether they intend to proceed with the scheduled upcoming teleconference or plan to seek a continuance or modification; and
  • if they intend to rely on a demonstrative or cite to other material, when in advance of the proceeding they propose to submit electronic versions of such materials to the court.

On April 6, 2020, the court entered an oral order, “[h]aving received an email communication from counsel for PDIC and Adobe,” cancelling all dates, deadlines, and upcoming court proceedings, including the April 7, 2020 motions hearing. The court further ordered that the parties shall provide a joint status report no later than April 27, 2020. (Case No. 1:13-cv-00239; March 19, 2020 & April 6, 2020).

SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. et. al. v. Autel Robotics USA LLC et. al. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in Wilmington, based on reviewing the parties' joint status report and proposed stipulation, ordered the parties to file a joint claim construction brief on June 26, 2020, adopted the parties' agreed-upon nature and timing of additional expert discovery, and ruled that the trial will be phased -- with liability to be decided in the first phase, and if necessary, damages and willfulness to be decided in the second phase, by the same jury.  The Court further indicated that it expects the parties to “remain in full and cooperative contact with one another, and the Court,” as all progressed towards “a hoped-for jury trial” set to begin on September 14, 2020. The parties were also instructed to file a joint status report on June 26, 2020 and to “let the Court know at any point if they believe the ongoing challenges and restrictions imposed as a result of the coronavirus pandemic will make it impossible to proceed with trial as scheduled.” After reviewing the parties' June 26 joint status report, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit a further joint status report, addressing “the following: (i) whether any party believes it has a right to a jury trial and, if so, whether it is willing to waive that right in order to permit [the] case to be tried on or around its current schedule; and (ii) regardless of whether [the] case is tried as a bench or jury trial, whether there is any objection to the trial proceeding remotely or ‘partial−remotely,’ such that only a limited number of lawyers and witnesses would be present in the courtroom while the remainder participate by video technology.” The Court further indicated that “if the case proceeds as a bench trial, the Court fully expects to be able to conduct it on or around the currently−scheduled dates (September 14−24) and will demonstrate maximum flexibility to accommodate witnesses testifying remotely (even those confronting 12−hour time differences).” After reviewing the further joint status report, the Court ordered the parties to submit simultaneous letter briefs addressing: “(i) whether, notwithstanding [defendant’s] belief that it has a jury right on Counts I-IV of [plaintiff's] complaint and all pending counts in [defendant's] Second Amended Counterclaims, [defendant] truly does have such a right and (if so) if it is a right the Court can and should balance against other interests and convert the scheduled September trial to a bench trial (which would likely be a remote bench trial); (ii) whether there is any way (and, if so, how) to obtain the testimony of the fact witnesses residing in China by having them travel to Hong Kong and testify remotely from Hong Kong; and (iii) if the Court were, instead, to reschedule the September trial to a date to be determined in 2021, whether there are steps the Court and/or [defendant] could take to ameliorate the prejudice to [plaintiff] from that further delay.” After further communication with the parties regarding “appropriate next steps”, the Court vacated the trial date of September 14, 2020 and all pretrial dates and deadlines, including the pretrial order deadlines and the date of the pretrial conference, indicating that the trial will be rescheduled for a date to be determined. (Case No. 1:16-cv-00706; May 8, 2020, June 30, 2020, July 6, 2020 and July 15, 2020).

Middle District of Florida (Orlando)

District Judge Paul G. Byron

ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., et. al. – The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Orlando modified the Case Management Scheduling Order, based on the parties’ proposed Fifth Amended Scheduling Order and representation that they are equipped to proceed with discovery, with “some reservations” due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In an August 10, 2020 Order, the Court scheduled a hearing on a Motion To Compel for August 25, 2020 at 10:00 a.m., indicating that hearing will be conducted remotely using web-based Zoom application due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. (Case No. 6:14-cv-00687; June 3, 2020 and August 10, 2020).

Middle District of Florida (Tampa)

District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington

Delta T, LLC v. Dan's Fan City, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Tampa granted in part plaintiff’s unopposed motion for a 90-day continuance. While the court “understands the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic,” it did not find a 90-day continuance was warranted, noting that the case had been pending for “well over a year” with more than three (3) months left for factual discovery. “Nevertheless, out of an abundance of fairness,” the court granted a 60-day extension of the case management and scheduling order and further indicated that it will be “disinclined to grant any further extensions.” (Case No. 8:19-cv-01731; April 9, 2020).

District Judge Mary S. Scriven

Wave Linx, LLC v. Outreach Corp. – The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Tampa sua sponte continued all criminal and civil jury trials and hearings in any cases assigned to Judge Scriven scheduled to begin or occur before May 29, 2020 pending further order, and stayed all civil cases assigned to Judge Scriven and all associated deadlines until May 29, 2020. The court will continue to resolve fully briefed motions ripe for resolution. (Case No. 8:19-cv-03144; March 19, 2020).

Southern District of Florida (Miami)

District Judge Federico A. Moreno

Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Celebrity Cruises Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami sua sponte dismissed the case, without prejudice, for failure to serve the summons and the complaint in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). In responding to an Order to Show Cause why the complaint in the case had not been served in a timely manner, the plaintiff in part responded “that it attempted but failed to personally serve Defendant on April 29, 2020 because the office of Defendant’s registered agent was closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.” (Case No. 1:20-cv-21652; July 21, 2020).

Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division)

District Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.

Intellectual Sporting Goods, LLC vs. StarPro Greens Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Case Deadline and Modify Scheduling Order, ordering that the discovery period be extended from August 13, 2020 up to and through September 18, 2020, and that the other deadlines be adjusted to conform to the deadlines set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules. The parties had argued a short extension to complete discovery was warranted due to “unanticipated and unforeseen circumstances”, including that the COVID-19 pandemic made document collection and production, and coordination with third-parties, “more time consuming than usual”. (Case No. 1:19-cv-04161; August 4, 2020).

Chief District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.

Acceleron, LLC v. Dell, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta sua sponte issued on August 3, 2020, the Sixth Amended General Order 20-01 regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent Circumstances Created by COVID-19 and Related Coronavirus, stating that “the adverse conditions giving rise to General Order 20-01 have not sufficiently resolved for the Court to return to normal operations.”  The Fifth Amendment further amends the General Order 20-01 entered on March 16, 2020, the Amended General Order 20-01 entered on March 30, 2020, the Second Amended General Order 20-01 entered on April 30, 2020, the Third Amended General Order 20-01 entered on May 26, 2020, the Fourth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on July 1, 2020, and the Fifth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on July 10, 2020. Specifically, the Sixth Amended General Order 20-01:

  • extends the time periods specified in General Order 20-01 through and including October 4, 2020;
  • orders that no civil or criminal jury trials be held until after October 4, 2020; and
  • grand jury proceedings may continue to he held, and summonses may be issued to prospective jurors for proceedings scheduled to begin after October 4, 2020.

(Case No. 1:12-cv-04123, presiding before District Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.; August 3, 2020).

Attachment:
Acceleron, LLC v. Dell, Inc. Second Amended General Order - May 1, 2020

ERMI LLC v . GreeneOn March 30, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta sua sponte issued the Amended General Order 20-01 In Re: Court Operations Under The Exigent Circumstances Created By COVID-19 And Related Coronavirus which extended the specified 30-day time periods contained in the court’s General Order 20-01 through and including May 15, 2020.  General Order 20-01 directed that no jurors be summoned for any case or grand jury proceedings for 30 days, and continued all jury trials and trial specific deadlines for 30 days. (Case No. 1:20-cv-01476, presiding before District Judge J. P. Boulee; March 30, 2020).

The Amended General Order 20-01 has been docketed in the following patent cases before U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta:

  • ERMI LLC v. Smith, Case No. 1:20-cv-01474, presiding before District Judge J. P. Boulee; March 30, 2020;
  • Ledcomm LLC v. Sengled Optoelectronics Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00956, presiding before District Judge Mark H. Cohen; March 30, 20200;
  • Mobile Networking Solutions, LLC v. Goldman Sachs & Co., LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01061, presiding before District Judge Eleanor L. Ross; March 30, 2020;
  • PureCircle USA Inc., et al., v. Almendra Americas LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01462, presiding before District Judge William M. Ray, II; March 30, 2020.

Fitness Anywhere LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Assocs. Identified on Schedule "A", Case No. 1:20-cv-01361, presiding before Senior District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber; March 30, 2020.

District Judge Amy Totenberg

Glock, Inc. v. The Wuster – In response to the emergency public health and safety conditions posed by the outbreak of COVID-19, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia’s Atlanta Division sua sponte issued an order and notice for all civil cases assigned to District Judge Amy Totenberg’s docket:

  • ordering all in-person hearings scheduled through at least April 16, 2020, to be conducted via telephone or videoconference “absent exceptional circumstances or a properly supported request for time sensitive injunctive relief requiring evidentiary presentation;”
  • extending by 30-days the time for discovery in all cases in which discovery has or will commence prior to April 16, 2020;
  • ordering all Rule 26(f) conferences to be conducted via telephone or videoconference; and
  • granting an automatic 15-day extension for submission of proposed pretrial orders in cases where discovery has been closed and that are due on or before April 16, 2020.

The order provides additional guidance on communicating with Chambers, submitting courtesy copies of filings, handling discovery disputes, and notably concludes with the following:

“Be kind to one another in this most stressful of times. Remember to maintain your perspective about legal disputes, given the larger life challenges now besetting our communities and world. Good luck to one and all.”

(Case No. 1:14-cv-00568; March 17, 2020).

Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division—Chicago)

District Judge Gary Feinerman

Upaid Systems, Inc. v. Card Concepts, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago sua sponte ordered the March 16, 2020 status hearing stricken and rescheduled it for April 7, 2020, “[g]iven the COVID-19 situation.” (Case No. 1:17-cv-08150; March 13, 2020).

Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes

Medline Industries, Inc. v. CR Bard, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago issued an order confirming the additional 28-day extension granted in the court’s Second Amended General Order No. 20-0012. Notably, in considering Paragraph 2(c) of the Second Amended General Order, which empowered the court to revoke said extension for good cause, the court weighed “the uncertainty associated with the COVID-19 public health emergency” over plaintiff’s prior objection to an extension of time to complete expert discovery due to concerns about the progress of the case. (Case No. 1:16-cv-03529, presiding before District Judge Martha M. Pacold; April 8, 2020).

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. On April 1, 2020, the court sua sponte ordered the status hearing set for April 8, 2020 to be rescheduled for May 21, 2020. This order is in accordance with the Second Amended General Order 20-0012 issued by the court on March 30, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic:

  • striking all civil case hearings, bench trials, and settlement conferences on or before May 1, 2020;
  • striking all civil jury trials scheduled on or before May 29, 2020;
  • extending all deadlines in civil cases and Executive Committee matters by an additional 28 days beyond the 21-day extension ordered in Amended General Order 20-0012 (excluding deadlines concerning civil appeals and those imposed by certain rules under the Fed. R. Civ. P.); and
  • imposing similar orders relating to criminal cases, matters requiring emergency relief, filing procedures, and pro se litigants.

(Case No. 1:20-cv-00662; April 1, 2020 and May 19, 2020).

Nike, Inc. v. Putian Qingchunzhijia Sports Goods, Co., Ltd. d/b/a OneMix, et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago sua sponte continued the status hearing scheduled for April 6, 2020 to May 5, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and in accordance with Second Amended General Order 20-0012 dated March 30, 2020 and signed by Chief District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer. The order further directs the parties to docket entry 47 regarding appearing telephonically if needed. (Case No. 1:19-cv-01408; April 1, 2020).

District Judge John Z. Lee

Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Chicago Laminating, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago set a telephonic initial status hearing for June 15, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. (CDT), the Court finding that it would be necessary to conduct the status hearing via telephone conference in light of the COVID−19 pandemic and related General Orders. In a June 10, 2020 Docket the status hearing previously set for June 15th was reset to July 30, 2020 at 9:15 a.m. (CDT). (Case No. 1:20-cv-01833; June 3, 2020 and June 10, 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).

Attachment:
The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd., et. al. Docket Entry - May 19, 2020

Chief District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago sua sponte issued the Fifth Amended General Order 20-0012 dated July 10, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic:

  • declining to further extend any deadlines in civil cases;
  • allowing civil case hearings, bench trials, and settlement conferences to be scheduled and conducted by the presiding judge by remote means;
  • limiting in-court hearings to urgent matters that cannot be conducted remotely;
  • ordering that no civil trials be conducted prior to August 3, 2020, and trials set to begin before August 3, 2020 be reset by the presiding judge; and
  • imposing similar orders relating to criminal cases, matters requiring emergency relief, filing procedures, and pro se litigants.

The Fifth Amended General Order vacated and superseded Amended General Order 20-0012, entered on March 17, 2020; General Order 20-0014, entered on March 20, 2020; Second Amended General Order 20-0012, entered on March 30, 2020; Third Amended General Order 20-0012, entered April 24, 2020, and Fourth Amended General Order 20-0012 dated May 26, 2020.  (Case No. 1:10-cv-00715, presiding before District Judge Virginia M. Kendall; July 10, 2020).

Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago sua sponte issued the Fourth Amended General Order 20-0012 dated May 26, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic:

  • declining to further extend any deadlines in civil cases;
  • allowing civil case hearings, bench trials, and settlement conferences to be scheduled and conducted by the presiding judge by remote means;
  • limiting in-court hearings to urgent matters that cannot be conducted remotely;
  • ordering that no civil trials be conducted prior to August 3, 2020, and trials set to begin before August 3, 2020 be reset by the presiding judge; and
  • imposing similar orders relating to criminal cases, matters requiring emergency relief, filing procedures, and pro se litigants.

The Fourth Amended General Order vacated and superseded Amended General Order 20-0012, entered on March 17, 2020; General Order 20-0014, entered on March 20, 2020; Second Amended General Order 20-0012, entered on March 30, 2020; and Third Amended General Order 20-0012, entered April 24, 2020.  (Case No. 1:10-cv-00715, presiding before District Judge Virginia M. Kendall; May 26, 2020).

The Fourth Amended General Order has been docketed in the following patent cases before U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago:

  • Aido Mobility LLC v. Sephora USA, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00662, presiding before District Judge Virginia M. Kendall; May 26, 2020;
  • Beijing Choice Elec. Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Contec Medical Sys. USA Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00825, presiding before District Judge Sara L. Ellis; May 26, 2020;
  • Encoditech LLC v. The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00675, presiding before District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.; May 26, 2020;
  • Fitness Anywhere LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Assocs. Identified on Schedule "A", Case No. 1:20-cv-01361, presiding before Senior District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber; May 26, 2020;
  • Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Chicago Laminating, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01833, presiding before District Judge John Z. Lee; May 26, 2020;
  • Internet Media Interactive Corp. v. Express, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01014, presiding before District Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr.; May 26, 2020;
  • Medline Industries, Inc. v. CR Bard, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-03529, presiding before District Judge Martha M. Pacold; May 26, 2020;
  • NeuroGrafix, et al. v. Brainlab, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-06075, presiding before District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly; May 26, 2020;
  • Princeps Secundus LLC v. LG Corp., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00683, presiding before District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly; May 26, 2020;
  • Putco, Inc. v. Carjamz Com, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-50109, presiding before District Judge John Z. Lee; May 26, 2020;
  • Reflection Code LLC v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01005, presiding before U.S. District Judge Martha M. Pacold; May 26, 2020;
  • RTC Industries, Inc. v. Fasteners for Retail, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-03595, presiding before District Judge Martha M. Pacold; May 26, 2020;
  • The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-06094, presiding before District Judge Martha M. Pacold; May 26, 2020;
  • Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-00715, presiding before District Judge Virginia M. Kendall; May 26, 2020;
  • Upaid Systems, Inc. v. Card Concepts, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-08150, presiding before District Judge Gary Feinerman; May 26, 2020;
  • Virtual Immersion Techs., LLC v. Turner Construction Co., Case No. 1:20-cv-00974, presiding before District Judge Virginia M. Kendall; May 26, 2020;
  • Wi-LAN, Inc., et al. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00941, presiding before District Judge John F. Kness; May 26, 2020;

WiNet Labs, LLC v. LG Elec. U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01096, presiding before District Judge Mary M. Rowland; May 26, 2020.

Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago sua sponte issued the Third Amended General Order 20-0012 dated April 24, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic:

  • striking all civil case hearings, bench trials, and settlement conferences scheduled on or before May 29, 2020, to be re-set by the presiding judge to a date on or after June 1, 2020;
  • striking all civil jury trials scheduled on or before June 26, 2020, to be re-set by the presiding judge to a date on or after June 29, 2020;
  • extending all deadlines in civil cases and Executive Committee matters by an additional 28 days beyond the further 28-day extension ordered in the Second Amended General Order 20-0012 (excluding deadlines concerning civil appeals and those imposed by certain rules under the Fed. R. Civ. P.); and
  • imposing similar orders relating to criminal cases, matters requiring emergency relief, filing procedures, and pro se litigants.

The Third Amended General Order vacated and superseded Amended General Order 20-0012, entered on March 17, 2020; General Order 20-0014, entered on March 20, 2020; and Second Amended General Order 20-0012, entered on March 30, 2020.  (Case No. 1:10-cv-00715, presiding before District Judge Virginia M. Kendall; April 24, 2020).

The Third Amended General Order has been docketed in the following patent cases before U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago:

  • Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Chicago Laminating, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01833, presiding before District Judge John Z. Lee; April 24, 2020;
  • Princeps Secundus LLC v. LG Corp., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00683, presiding before District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly; April 24, 2020.

District Judge Manish S. Shah

Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A  – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion to extend an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO). The Court found that the district-wide general orders modifying proceedings in light of the COVID-19 pandemic -- Amended General Order 20-0012, entered on March 17, 2020; Second Amended General Order 20-0012 entered on March 30, 2020, and the Third Amended General Order 20-0012 entered on April 24, 2020 -- did not extend TROs, The Court found Counsel's belief that “the General Orders extended TROs unless specifically excepted was not a reasonable reading of the orders.” The Court, however, found that the defendants received notice of the proceedings having been served with the summons and complaint by electronic means and served the motion for a preliminary injunction by electronic means. It further ruled that “conversion of the TRO to a preliminary injunction (while the motion for a preliminary injunction is pending) is appropriate because the plaintiff has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm if injunctive relief does not issue.” (Case No. 1:20-cv-02931; June 29, 2020).


Oakley, Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A  – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago denied plaintiff's motion to extend an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO). The Court found that the district-wide general orders modifying proceedings in light of the COVID-19 pandemic -- Amended General Order 20-0012, entered on March 17, 2020; Second Amended General Order 20-0012 entered on March 30, 2020, and the Third Amended General Order 20-0012 entered on April 24, 2020 -- did not extend TROs, The Court found Counsel's belief that “the General Orders extended TROs unless specifically excepted was not a reasonable reading of the orders.” In particular, the Court stated that “the General Orders fail to comply with the requirement that extensions of TROs beyond the 28−day mark comport with the formal requirements for a preliminary injunction (which requires notice to the adverse party).” (Case No. 1:20-cv-02970; June 29, 2020).

Northern District of Indiana (South Bend)

Magistrate Judge Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.

Days Corporation v. Lippert Components, Inc. et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana’s South Bend division denied without prejudice the parties’ Stipulation Regarding Extension of Case Management Schedule seeking to extend the deadline for expert witness depositions, discovery-related, non-dispositive motions, and all other discovery by 6 to 8 weeks because of the protective measures in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  The Court found that “the parties have not provided sufficient information about their discovery efforts, especially in the last 3-1/2 months, to demonstrate the good cause necessary to justify further extension of the discovery deadlines as stipulated.”  However, recognizing the “unique constraints” imposed upon litigation by the COVID-19 pandemic, the denial was without prejudice and the Court indicated that a renewed stipulation, or a motion to amend the Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order, will be deemed timely if filed on or before July 21, 2020. On July 28, 2020, the Court ordered that the Case Management Schedule be further extended after considering the Stipulation of the Parties and “the facts stated therein.” In particular, “due to the protective measures being taken by various state and local governments” in response to the COVID-19 pandemic “previously requiring counsel and experts (who are located in various states) to shelter in place, the Parties need time to complete fact witness and expert depositions.” (Case No. 3:17-cv-00208, presiding before District Judge Philip P. Simon; July 16, 2020 and July 28, 2020).

Southern District of Iowa (Des Moines)

Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer

Putco, Inc. v. Shenzhen Aurora Tech. Co., Ltd. – The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa in Des Moines denied plaintiff’s motion to deem its service of process of the Summons and Complaint effective, or to order that the foreign corporate Defendant accept service of process by its counsel in related cases. The Court did, however, find good cause to extend the time for Plaintiff to effectuate service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), in part because the plaintiff made good-faith attempts to serve the Defendant and “[c]omplications for completion of that service, caused by the need for personal service and due to the COVID-19 pandemic, are issues outside of Plaintiff’s control.” (Case No. 4:19-cv-00412, presiding before Chief Judge John A. Jarvey; June 5, 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 Co. 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).

District of Maryland (Baltimore)

District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher

Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. v. Iron World Manufacturing, LLC. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Baltimore denied plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs incurred in seeking an Order of Default and in filing its Motion for Default Judgment, because it was filed eight days after the Court imposed deadline. The Court had previously granted defendant’s motion to set aside the default, but at that time the Court stated that it “also views Defendant’s conduct as possibly deserving of monetary sanctions [permitting plaintiff] to file a motion seeking reasonable costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees.” When that order issued in May, plaintiff missed the ECF notice because it only had a single attorney of record on the Court’s docket, who left the firm for another position, in mid-March. The Court was unpersuaded by the plaintiff’s argument giving “the unusually disruptive circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic as the reason for its neglect.”  (Case No. 1:19-cv-03027; July 17, 2020).

Load More Cases

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.