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 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).

Northern District of California (Oakland)

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. (Case No. 3:19-cv-05639; March 16, 2020 & April 13, 2020).

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).

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).

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 of Delaware (Wilmington)

District Judge Richard G. Andrews

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. (Case No. 1:18-cv-00795; March 23, 2020, March 31, 2020 & April 15, 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.” (Case No. 1:16-cv-00706; May 8, 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).

Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division)

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 the Second Amended General Order 20-01 regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent Circumstances Created by COVID-19 and Related Coronavirus dated March 16, 2020, extending the time periods specified therein through and including May 29, 2020, and further ordering no civil or criminal jury trails in any division of the district until after said date.  This order supersedes the Amended General Order 20-01 dated March 30, 2020, which extended the court’s original 30-day continuance for all jury trials and any trial specific deadlines through and including May 15, 2020. (Case No. 1:12-cv-04123, presiding before District Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.; May 1, 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. (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).

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 Second Amended General Order 20-0012 dated 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. 1:10-cv-00715, presiding before District Judge Virginia M. Kendall; March 30, 2020).

The Second Amended General Order 20-0012 has been docketed in the following patent cases before U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago:

  • Encoditech LLC v. The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00675, presiding before District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.; 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;

  • Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Chicago Laminating, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01833, presiding before District Judge John Z. Lee; March 30, 2020;

  • Internet Media Interactive Corp. v. Express, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01014, presiding before District Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr.; March 30, 2020;

  • Nike, Inc. v. Putian Qingchunzhijia Sports Goods, Co., Ltd. d/b/a OneMix, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01408, presiding before District Judge Virginia M. Kendall; March 30, 2020;

  • Princeps Secundus LLC v. LG Corp., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00683, presiding before District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly; March 30, 2020;

  • Putco, Inc. v. Carjamz Com, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-50109, presiding before District Judge John Z. Lee; March 30, 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; March 30, 2020;

  • VARTA Microbattery GmbH v. Audio Partnership LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01568, presiding before District Judge John Z. Lee; March 30, 2020;

  • Virtual Immersion Techs., LLC v. Turner Construction Co., Case No. 1:20-cv-00974, presiding before District Judge Virginia M. Kendall; March 30, 2020;

  • WiNet Labs LLC v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01096, presiding before District Judge Mary M. Rowland; March 30, 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 Virginia Mary 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 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).

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 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).

District of Massachusetts (Boston)

District Judge Indira Talwani

Big Beings USA Pty. Ltd., et al. v. Nested Bean, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston sua sponte cancelled the Rule 16 conference scheduled for March 23, 2020, issued a written scheduling order, and referred the matter to mediation before a magistrate judge pursuant to the parties’ Rule 16 Joint Statement 17. The order was issued in response to the spread of COVID-19 and in accordance with the court’s General Order 20-2 issued by Chief Judge Saylor. (Case No. 1:20-cv-10101; March 17, 2020).

Philips North America LLC f/k/a Philips Electronics North America Corp. v. Fitbit, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston ordered that the parties’ March 24, 2020 scheduling conference be held telephonically, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Case No. 1:19-cv-11586; March 21, 2020).

SoClean, Inc. v. Sunset Healthcare Solutions, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston cancelled the parties’ Rule 16 conference. The order states that, “[i]n light of the coronavirus pandemic, General Order 20-2 issued by Chief Judge Saylor to protect public health and reduce unnecessary travel, and the parties’ Rule 16 Joint Statement [37] setting forth no disagreements as to a proposed scheduling order, the court is cancelling the Rule 16 conference set for March 30, 2020, and issuing a written scheduling order.” The court did, however, provide that any party may request a rescheduled Rule 16 conference by motion or by email. (Case No. 1:20-cv-10351; March 24, 2020).

District Judge William G. Young

Bio-Rad Labs., Inc., et al. v. Stilla Techs., Inc., et al. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston stayed the case for 90 days so that defendants could focus their resources on developing a test kit for use in the COVID-19 global pandemic. (Case No. 1:19-cv-11587; March 23, 2020).

Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit)

District Judge David M. Lawson

Michigan Motor Technologies LLC v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit denied a Motion To Extend Hearing On Motion To Dismiss, requesting a 45 day continuance of the May 19, 2020, hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss due to the exigent circumstances created by the coronavirus pandemic. Instead, the Court cancelled the May 19 Hearing, indicating that it will decide the motion on the papers without oral argument because the motion is fully briefed. (Case No. 2:19-cv-10485; May 8, 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).

District of Minnesota (St. Paul)

Senior District Judge Donovan W. Frank

Wilson, et al. v. Corning, Inc. – On March 17, 2020, in response to the “unprecedented situation [we are experiencing] as COVID-19 continues to spread in our community,” Senior U.S. District Court Judge Donovan W. Frank, for the District of Minnesota in St. Paul, sua sponte cancelled all in-person hearings for at least two weeks, including the Motion on Summary Judgment hearing in this matter scheduled for March 24, 2020. Judge Frank ordered the parties to confer and advise the court whether they would prefer to reschedule the hearing or have the motion decided on the papers. Notably, Judge Frank concluded the order with the following:

“The Court does not make this decision lightly but hopes that this will help slow the spread of the virus and keep more people healthy and safe.  Thank you for your understanding.”

On April 1, 2020, Judge Frank issued a notice rescheduling the Motion for Summary Judgement hearing, which will be conducted on April 10, 2020 via teleconference. (Case No. 0:13-cv-00210; March 17, 2020).

District of Nevada (Las Vegas)

Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah

Sunlighten, Inc. v. Finnmark Designs, LLC – The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada in Las Vegas denied the parties Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, because the proposed dates are inconsistent with the 90-day extension requested. According to the parties, “[t]he proposed dates [had] been adjusted by approximately 90-days to account for the travel and work restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.” However, the court noted that the parties proposed “a one year discovery period; that is, a discovery period that is twice the standard length of 180 days, not a 90 day extension.” Accordingly, the court ordered the parties to “submit a revised proposed discovery plan and scheduling order that extends discovery to 240 days, measured from April 1, 2020,” with all other dates moving forward from that date. (Case No. 2:20-cv-00127, presiding before District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey; April 15, 2020).

District of New Jersey (Newark)

Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion

TriStar Products, Inc v. Tekno Products, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Newark granted defendant’s request for a 30-day extension of several dates set forth in the Scheduling Order dated November 21, 2019, as well as an additional 30-days extension to respond to certain requests for production and interrogatories currently due on March 19, 2020. The defendant’s request is based on the COVID-19 outbreak and its effects on both defendant and counsel. “Due to the outbreak, defendants’ counsel are working remotely and on decreased services. In addition, defendants have been experiencing serious supply chain and/or business issues due to closures in China resulting from the outbreak and inability of employees to come into the office [which is now closed].” It is worth nothing that defendant’s counsel sought consent from plaintiff’s counsel, who declined. (Case No. 2:17-cv-13222, presiding before District Judge Claire C. Cecchi; March 19, 2020).

District of New Jersey (Trenton)

Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al v. Lupin Atlantis Holdings SA et al. – The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Trenton granted defendant’s Motion To Seal in a text order, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating that a paper Order will not be entered. Instead, the Court stated that the text order entry shall serve to adopt the proposed order filed, along with the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. (Case No. 3:18-cv-12663, presiding before District Judge Brian R. Martininotti; May 7, 2020).

Southern District of New York (Manhattan)

District Judge Jesse M. Furman

Altair Logix, LLC v. Parrot, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan sua sponte cancelled the scheduling conference, ordered the parties to provide a proposed case management plan and joint letter indicating if a conference is needed, and, if so, ordered said conference be conducted telephonically. (Case No. 1-19-cv-10966; March 23, 2020).

District Judge Edgardo Ramos

Signify North America Corp., et al. v. Reggiani Lighting USA, Inc., et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted defendants’ unopposed letter motion requesting a 30-day continuance of the March 13, 2020 status conference. The request arose out of the Italian government’s national lockdown effecting one of the defendants, a small family-owned company located in the Lombardy region more recently known locally as the “the center of the COVID-19 coronavirus crisis.” (Case No. 1:18-cv-11098; March 12, 2020).

Northern District of Ohio (Eastern Division—Cleveland)

Senior District Judge Christopher A. Boyko

The NOCO Co., Inc. v. Shenzhen ChangXinYang Tech. Co., Ltd. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio’s Eastern Division sua sponte:

  • cancelled all in-person and telephonic case management conferences and status conferences prior to May 1, 2020; and
  • extended by 60 days all deadlines for discovery completion, amendment of pleadings, mediation completion, completion of special master duties, and filings of dispositive motions.

Notably. the order "does not stay all civil cases and discovery shall proceed accordingly." The order was issued in accordance with the court’s Civil Docket Management Order and General Orders 2020-5 and 2020-5-1 regarding the coronavirus outbreak. (Case No. 1:17-cv-02209; March 24, 2020).

District of Rhode Island (Providence)

District Judge Mary S. McElroy

Summer Infant (USA), Inc. v. TOMY Int’l, Inc.  – The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island in Providence granted Plaintiff's Motion for an Emergency Stay stating that “[a]s a result of the unprecedented circumstances created by the COVID-19 global pandemic, and its disruption of all aspects of business worldwide, the court finds that exigent circumstances exist that make the granting of a short (90 day) stay appropriate in this case.” (Case No. 1:17-cv-00549; April 15, 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).

EVS Codec Technologies, LLC, et al. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s Marshall Division granted-as-modified the parties’ joint motion for a 45-day continuance due to complications resulting from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, including difficulties in completing discovery. (Case No. 2:19-cv-00057; April 13, 2020).

Optis Wireless Tech., LLC, et al. v. Apple Inc. – On March 20, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s Marshall Division ordered a 30-day extension for the completion of fact discovery in response to the parties’ competing proposals to extend various deadlines in the Docket Control Order emanating from the health emergency created by COVID-19. The court further ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit a proposed amended docket control order reflecting the 30-day extension and “any other extensions the parties believe are appropriate” within 14 days. On April 4, 2020, the court entered a supplemental order in response to another joint motion to amend the docket control order. The court stated that “[n]othing prevents the parties from seeking additional relief at a later date, taking into account compelling circumstances or unforeseeable changes as the COVID-19 pandemic develops and evolves.” (Case No. 2:19-cv-00066; March 20, 2020 & April 6, 2020).

Solas OLED Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd., et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s Marshall Division denied defendant's request for a 60- to 90-day continuance in response to the current COVID-19 pandemic and instead imposed plaintiff's request for a two-week extension, finding it more appropriate under the circumstances. (Case No. 2:19-cv-00152; March 25, 2020).

TriOptima AB v. Quantile Technologies, Ltd. – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s Marshall Division ordered that the parties’ in-person scheduling conference be held telephonically. (Case No. 2:19-cv-00390; March 19, 2020).

Eastern District of Texas (Sherman Division)

District Judge Sean D. Jordan

Qwikcash, LLC v. Blackhawk Network Holdings, Inc., et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s Sherman Division stayed all proceedings and deadlines in the case through May 3, 2020, in accordance with the Alameda County’s Shelter-in-Place Order set to expire on the same date. The parties are further ordered to submit an amended Rule 26(f) joint conference report with a proposed revised case schedule. (Case No. 4:19-cv-00876; April 3, 2020).

Northern District of Texas (Dallas)

District Judge Ed Kinkeade

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave Proceed as Out-of-Town Counsel, ordering that separate Local Counsel be designated within 20 days. The plaintiff had argued, among other things, that in light of the COVD-19 pandemic, the expense and logistics of hiring both a local counsel and a lead counsel, who is already admitted into the District, would be uniquely burdensome to Plaintiff. (Case No. 3:20-cv-01103; May 6, 2020).

Attachment:
Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. - Cedar Lane Motion - May 6, 2020

Chief District Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn

Albritton, IV v. Acclarent, Inc. – Under Special Order No. 13-5 regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas sua sponte:

  • continued all bench and jury trial dates but left all other pending deadlines unaltered;
  • continued grand jury proceedings, suspending and tolling all deadlines; and
  • ordered that individual judges may continue to hold in-person hearings, sentencing proceedings, and conferences, but permits counsel to move for relief if necessary.

(Case No. 3:16-cv-03340; March 13, 2020).

Western District of Texas (Austin)

District Judge Robert Pitman

ARX Fit, LLC v. Outstrip Equipment, LLC, et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Austin sua sponte issued an order:

  • continuing trials, pre-trial conferences and filing deadlines for cases with trial dates before May 1, 2020;
  • indicating that parties may propose new scheduling orders if they cannot meet set deadlines due to the COVID-19 pandemic;
  • extending deadlines for filing agreed proposed scheduling orders to May 1, 2020 in cases without existing scheduling orders; and
  • providing guidelines for emergency motions and proceedings, non-emergency proceedings, communicating with chambers.

Notably, the order states that deadlines set out in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and the scheduling order for the case, if applicable, continue to govern, except as supplemented by this order. The order was issued in accordance with the court’s Emergency Order in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic, which cancelled all settings in any civil and criminal matter scheduled before May 1, 2020. (Case No. 1:18-cv-00848; March 25, 2020).

Richman Technology Corporation v. ASSA ABLOY Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Austin sua sponte docketed the Chief District Judge Orlando Luis Garcia’s Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic dated April 15, 2020, continuing all jury trial start dates through May 31, with the date to be reset by the presiding Judge, but stating that the Supplemental Order does not continue any other pending deadlines except for the trial dates. In the Supplemental Order, the Court indicated that "there have been several confirmed cases of coronavirus within the Western District of Texas” and it “is concerned with the health and safety of the public, Court employees, staff of other entities with whom Court personnel interact, litigants, including defendants in criminal matters, counsel, interpreters, law enforcement officials, and jurors, who must work in close quarters to hear evidence and to deliberate.”   (Case No. 1:20-cv-00417; April 24, 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).

Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Waco issued a standing order 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. 1-19-cv-01238; April 9, 2020).

MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Waco issued a standing order 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. The court did, however, deny defendant’s motion to continue its trial date, stating only that such a continuance would be premature as “the trial is still several weeks away.” (Case No. 6:18-cv-00308; April 8, 2020 & April 9, 2020).

Chief District Judge Orlando L. Garcia

Karetek Holdings LLC v. 360training.com, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Austin sua sponte issued a Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under The Exigent Circumstances Created By The COVID-19 Pandemic dated April 15, 2020, continuing all grand jury proceedings and civil and criminal bench and jury trials scheduled to begin through May 31, 2020, as well as other measures. (Case No. 1:20-cv-00463, presiding before District Judge Robert Pitman; May 1, 2020).

Southern District of Texas (Houston Division)

District Judge Keith P. Ellison

OHVA, Inc. v. Ace Merchant Processing, LLC – The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas’s Houston Division granted plaintiff’s motion for substitute service of the Summons and Complaint, along with this Order, by way of either delivery via registered mail or by securely attaching true copies to the front door of defendant’s primary address. Plaintiff’s request was made “in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, given that normal service of process involves bringing the process server into close proximity with the agent of the defendant [and because] process servers are generally declining to serve process by normal means.” (Case No. 4:20-cv-01244; April 14, 2020).

District Judge Lynn N. Hughes

Aristors Licensing, LLC v. Raptor Techs., LLC – The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas’s Houston Division denied plaintiff’s motion for substitute service of the Summons and Complaint on the defendant. Plaintiff requested that service be effected by way of either delivery via registered mail or by securely attaching true copies to the front door of defendant’s primary address, “in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, given that normal service of process involves bringing the process server into close proximity with the agent of the defendant [and because] process servers are generally declining to serve process by normal means.” The court denied plaintiff’s motion and further ordered that defendant be served by May 1, 2020. (Case No. 4:20-cv-01116; April 15, 2020).

Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria)

Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson

Hydro Net LLC v. Inhand Networks, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria denied plaintiff’s motion for substitute service of the Summons and Complaint by way of either delivery via registered mail or by securely attaching true copies to the front door of defendant’s primary address, “in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, given that normal service of process involves bringing the process server into close proximity with the agent of the defendant [and because] process servers are generally declining to serve process by normal means.” Notably, the court pointed out that plaintiff’s motion “did not address the alternative of requesting that defendant waive service pursuant to [Rule 4(d)]” and held further that it will reconsider plaintiff’s motion if the defendant fails to waive service. (Case No. 1:20-cv-00357, presiding before Senior District Judge T. S. Ellis, III; April 15, 2020).

Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk)

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. The court found the “parties acted diligently and timely in making this joint request” and that good cause supported extensions in all deadlines and further vacated the dates for the settlement conference, pretrial conference, and trial. In addition, the parties were ordered to submit requests for possible Markman hearing, settlement conference, pretrial conference, and trial dates within 14 days of the order. (Case No. 2:18-cv-00320; April 9, 2020).

District Judge Raymond A. Jackson

Trans-Radial Solutions, LLC v. Burlington Medical, LLC, et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Norfolk sua sponte stayed all litigation in this case until further notice of the court. (Case No. 2:18-cv-00656; March 23, 2020).

Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard

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, presiding before District Judge Robert G. Doumar; March 25, 2020 and May 22, 2020).

Western District of Virginia (Harrisonburg Division)

Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe

Tippmann Engineering, LLC v. Innovative Refrigeration Systems, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia’s Harrisonburg Division granted the parties’ joint motion to extend all deadlines and reset the Markman hearing due to travel restrictions imposed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In doing so, all deadlines specified in the court’s scheduling order were extended by 60-days and the Markman hearing scheduled for October 24, 2020 was vacated, to be rescheduled for a date in December 2020 or January 2021. (Case No. 5:19-cv-00087, presiding before District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon; April 1, 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.