Scheduling/Case Management - Page 3

District of New Jersey (Camden)

Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider

Quantificare, Inc. V. Canfield Scientific, Inc.– The U.S. District Court for District of New Jersey in Camden granted defendant’s Motion For Alternative Service, ordering that defendant shall provide direct service to plaintiff via its U.S. counsel in his capacity as its designated legal representative and/or agent. As part of its analysis, the Court found that defendant’s efforts to obtain a waiver of service from plaintiff’s domestic counsel demonstrates a good faith effort to effectuate service via traditional means, particularly in light of the extraordinary circumstances presented by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. (Case No. 1:20-cv-12305, presiding before District Judge Renee Marie Bumb; January 13, 2021).

District of New Jersey (Newark)

District Judge Madeline C. Arleo

Alkermes, Inc. et al v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. et al. – The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Newark approved a 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, subject to reasonable accommodations for 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 the parties disagree as to whether such an employee is a necessary fact witness, and the Court orders that the deposition of that shall be taken, then the employee will be made available for deposition, subject to reasonable accommodations for 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. 2:20-cv-12470; October 15, 2020).

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).

District Judge Brian R. Martinotti

TherapeuticsMD, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. – The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Trenton 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, and the Court orders that the deposition of that shall be taken, 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. The Court later approved a second Joint Stipulation Of Dismissal Of Complaint with respect to another defendant that included similar agreements.(Case No. 2:20-cv-03485; June 12, 2020 and September 8, 2020).

Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn)

District Judge Margo K. Brodie

Group One Ltd. v. GTE GmbH et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn denied a motion to dismiss the claims against one of the defendants pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process. The Court found that plaintiff was not required to attempt service through the Hague Convention before seeking alternative service via email, and that service by email of documents written in the English language was authorized and comports with due process. As part of its analysis, the Court stated that “[t]he current global pandemic provides further reason to find that service via email satisfies due process, as it is the most efficient method to accomplish service.” (Case No. 1:20-cv-02205; February 3, 2021).

Southern District of New York (Manhattan)

District Judge John Peter Cronan

Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan order the parties to appear for a conference to discuss the issues raised by a discovery dispute relating to the production of source code. In light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the Court indicated that it will conduct the conference by teleconference. (Case No. 1:20-cv-03708; November 2, 2020).

Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox

Bytemark, Inc. v. Xerox Corporation et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan denied the parties’ joint request for a pre-motion conference, ruling that any motions must be made by December 28, 2020 with the motion being no longer than 15 double-spaced pages. The Court stated it will not entertain any requests to extend the number of pages or filing deadlines absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances, and indicated COVID-19 pandemic related issues do not constitute extraordinary circumstances. (Case No. 1:17-cv-01803, presiding before District Judge Paul G. Gardephe; December 14, 2020).

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 (Akron)

District Judge Benita Y. Pearson

ASK Chemicals, LLC v. Novis Works, LLC – The Northern District of Ohio in Akron set a telephonic Status Conference for July 27, 2020 in accordance with General Order 2020−08 regarding the COVID−19 pandemic and the related guidance that “to minimize risk of infection, the Court is, when possible, conducting matters telephonically or postponing them.” (Case No. 5:19-cv-01585; July 10, 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).

Senior District Judge Donald C. Nugent

Parker-Hannifin Corporation v. Laird Technologies, Inc. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio’s Eastern Division re-set a Status Conference for September 8, 2020, to be held telephonically because “Chambers has been temporarily restricted due to COVID−19 exposure.” The Court denied plaintiffs’ Motion To Modify Schedule that was seeking to modify and extend discovery for 90 days, arguing in part that the COVID-19 pandemic “has affected its ability to obtain third-party discovery” and “will also hinder the parties’ ability to schedule fact depositions and third-party depositions.” Although denying the motion “at this time”, the Court noted that “the ruling may be re-assessed after Court issues ruling on Claim Construction.” (Case No. 1:17-cv-00988; August 25, 2020 and September 11, 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. In a June 2, 2020 Order, the Court granted a further 45-day continue due to complications in completing the discovery due to COVID-19. In addition, the Court reset jury selection to Monday, November 2, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. central and the pretrial conference was reset to Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. central. The Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Amend the Second Amended Docket Control Order to further modify the scheduling order to account for concerns that the proposed schedule and corresponding trial date are unworkable, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, the parties raised concerns about limitations on foreign discovery precluding completion of the depositions of Chinese witnesses and delays in taking the deposition and reviewing source code of a third party. During a July 10, 2020 status conference to discuss scheduling issues, the Court moved the trial date to December 7, 2020, and instructed the parties to continue to update the Court on discovery scheduling issues. On August 5, 2020, the Court granted-as-modified the parties’ Joint Motion for Continuance in View of COVID Travel Restrictions in Hong Kong, requesting a further 45-day continuance of the fact discovery deadline and of all other remaining case deadlines because the extension was “needed to complete their noticed Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of fact witnesses located in mainland China.” The Court further ordered that jury selection is reset to February 1, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. and the pretrial conference is reset to January 19, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. (Case No. 2:19-cv-00057; April 13, 2020, June 2, 2020, June 12, 2020, July 10, 2020 and August 5, 2020).

Intertrust Technologies Corporation v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s Marshall Division denied defendants’ Motion to Stay Actions Pending Mandamus Proceedings regarding their denied motion to transfer. As part of their arguments regarding the potential harms in denying the motion, the defendants noted the “unique challenges faced by Defendants and in their industry at this time [accentuating] such irreparable harms and the need to avoid unnecessary expenses.” The Court concluded a stay of the proceedings is not warranted given the advanced stage of the case, with jury selection set for March 1, 2021, and the likely prejudice the plaintiff would suffer from a stay. (Case No. 2:19-cv-00266; November 24, 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.” On June 9, 2020, the Court granted a Joint Motion to Conduct Five Expert Depositions After Close of Expert Discovery, because the parties were unable to schedule the five expert depositions due to travel restrictions in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Case No. 2:19-cv-00066; March 20, 2020 & April 6, 2020 and June 9, 2020).

Seagen Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s Marshall Division granted Unopposed Motion to Intervene by two intervenor entities. As part of the Order, the Court indicated that if the plaintiff needs to conduct an in-person deposition of a witness affiliated with the intervenor who is based in the United Kingdom and who has been identified in the initial disclosures, to avoid the need to invoke procedures under the Hague Evidence Convention, intervenor shall make such a witness available for deposition in the United States, subject to any travel restrictions imposed by either the United States or the United Kingdom as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Case No. 2:20-cv-00337, July 30, 2021).

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).

Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s Marshall Division granted plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File its First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, to formally add an allegation of willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284. As part of its analysis, the Court found that the delay in bringing the motion “weighs slightly against granting leave for the amendment” recognizing that “outside factors have impacted both parties’ abilities to conduct discovery in this case.” In particular, the “bulk of the fact discovery window” occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic and as such “[w]hat may appear to be dilatory discovery conduct in normal circumstances may not be when colored by the current pandemic.”  The Court indicated that “[t]here is no question that this pandemic has disrupted [the] Court’s docket and has impacted the complex discovery that occurs in every patent-infringement case.” (Case No. 2:19-cv-00123; July 17, 2020).

Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com Inc. –The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s Marshall Division held an in-person patent jury trial beginning on October 1, 2020, imposing precautions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On October 8, 2020, the Eastern District of Texas jury returned its verdict, finding that the patents were not proven invalid and that they were infringed (but not willfully infringed), and that plaintiff was entitled to a lump sum damages award of $5,000,000 to compensate it for damages resulting from the infringement.  (Case No. 2:19-cv-00123; October 8, 2020).

Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne

Deep Web, LLC v. Kakao Corporation - The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s Marshall Division denied plaintiff’s  Motion for Leave to Effect Alternative Service,  seeking to effect alternative service on Defendant with process via email pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3). The Court found that the motion failed because plaintiff did not show that Korea allows alternative methods of service beyond the Hague Convention, that service by email is appropriate, or provide any “evidence to support its assertion that service in Korea pursuant to the Hague Convention has been slowed due to COVID-19 to an impracticable level.”  (Case No. 2:20-cv-00139, presiding before Chief District Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap ; October3, 2020).

Ultravision Technologies, LLC v. GoVision, LLC - The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s Marshall Division denied a non-party’s Motion To Intervene In Proceedings to correct inventorship, finding that the motion is untimely and their interests are adequately represented by existing parties.  As part of its analysis the Court also found that intervention would unduly delay or prejudice the existing parties, in response to an argument raised by plaintiff “that intervention would likely delay the trial date that has already been delayed due to COVID-related complications.” (Case No. 2:18-cv-00100, presiding before Chief District Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap ; December 9, 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).

Eastern District of Texas (Texarkana Division)

District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III

National Oilwell Varco, LP v. Auto-Dril, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s Texarkana Division denied, without prejudice, Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Amend Scheduling Order Deadlines which sought approximately a one-month extension of the discovery deadline and the deadline for dispositive motions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff argued that the parties’ ability to meet case deadlines “was severely hindered due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” however the Court noted that “motions such as these require something more than . . . generalized concerns about COVID-19 to establish good cause.” The Court further indicated that plaintiff may be able “to show good cause by providing a more detailed explanation.” (Case No. 5:15-cv-00027; September 10,  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).

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).

EVS Codec Technologies LLC v. ZTE Corporation et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the defendant's Motion for Continuance of December 14, 2020 Trial Date and to Move Remaining Pretrial Deadlines, requesting a 120-day continuance of the trial date and remaining pretrial deadlines because three “key trial witnesses”, who are Chinese nationals and reside and work in China, are presently unable to travel from China to the United States due to the travel ban in place from the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff opposed the motion arguing the witnesses can testify remotely and that the motion is “speculative and premature given that conditions related to the COVID-19 pandemic continue to rapidly evolve.” In granting the motion, the Court indicated that it will enter a Third Amended Scheduling Order resetting the trial date and the remaining pretrial deadlines . . . [and b]arring extraordinary circumstances that the Court cannot currently foresee, this is the last continuance that will be granted.” (Case No. 3:19-cv-00385; October 6, 2020).

Southern District of Texas (Houston Division)

District Judge Andrew M. Edison

DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH et al v. Vigor USA, LLC – The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas’s Houston Division issued an Order setting the initial scheduling conference for 9:30 a.m. on June 17, 2021. The Court noted that as a general rule, it requires counsel to attend initial scheduling conferences in person, but given the COVID-19 pandemic’s “devastating impact on our society, that general rule is obviously suspended for the June 17, 2021 initial scheduling conferences.” The Court further indicated that “in an effort to maximize modern technology, [it] will conduct the pretrial conferences by videoconference using the platform Zoom.” The counsel for the parties were also advised that they are not required to wear “formal courtroom attire during the videoconference . . .however, [they are] required to wear clothes.” (Case No. 4:21-cv-00283; April 29, 2021).

Western District of Texas (Austin)

District Judge Robert Pitman

Amazon.com, Inc. v. Corydoras Technologies, LLC – The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Austin sua sponte issued a Second Amended Emergency Order In Light Of The COVID-19 Pandemic for all civil matters before Judge Pitman, “to facilitate the timely resolution of civil disputes while the Western District of Texas is closed as described in Chief Judge Orlando L. Garcia’s Supplemental Order on June 18, 2020: “[a]ll civil and criminal bench and jury trials scheduled to begin on any date from now through July 31, 2020, are continued, to a date to be reset by each Presiding Judge.” The Second Amended Emergency Order supplements the Court’s Amended Emergency Order in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic signed on April 17, 2020. For cases set for trial before the Western District reopens on August 3, 2020—or some later reopening date set by Chief Judge Garcia—the trial, final pretrial conference, and all pretrial filing deadlines have already been continued and the trial and final pretrial conference will be reset with the Court endeavoring “to prioritize those cases for resetting while bearing in mind that the parties may need time to (re)prepare for trial after a long period of stagnation.” For cases that have completed discovery and dispositive motions practice and currently have a trial date set for August 3, 2020 or later, the Court indicated that it cannot predict with certainty whether appointed trial dates will stand but will attempt to provide guidance as more information becomes available. The Court further indicated that, absent changed circumstances, all trial dates set for August 3, 2020 or later will remain on the Court’s calendar, but the Court may reevaluate the circumstances as the date of the trail nears and set a phone conference with the parties to discuss the feasibility of the trial date. (Case No. 1:19-cv-01095; June 23, 2020).

ARX Fit, LLC v. Outstrip Equipment, LLC, et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Western District of 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 Tech. Corp. 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).

Shenzhen Tange Li’An E-Commerce Co., Ltd. et al v. Drone Whirl LLC et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Austin denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction, in particular denying the motion for an ex parte TRO. The Court set a Hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction for July 24, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. (CDT), that will held by video conference in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Case No. 1:20-cv-00738; July 9, 2020).

Western District of Texas (Waco)

District Judge Alan D. Albright

Coil Chem LLC, et al. v. Durachem Prod. 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).

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. et al v. Meraki Integrated Circuit (Shenzhen) Technology, Ltd. et al. - The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Waco denied defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Claims I through VI from the First Amended Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), finding that defendant has not met its burden in showing that personal jurisdiction is improper. As part of its analysis, the Court addressed concerns raised by defendant regarding the burden imposed by subjecting a foreign company to United States law in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court noted that it has made several accommodations in light of the pandemic and that it is “cognizant of the realities this pandemic has brought around the world.”  It pointed to the March 12, 2020 Standing Order Regarding Coronavirus and Court Proceedings to explain that “[t]o the extent any parties have concerns regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court permits persons to appear at ‘hearing[s], deposition[s], mediation[s], or trial[s] . . . by teleconference, videoconference, or other method.’” The Court further indicated that “[a]s the circumstance surrounding the pandemic continue to fluctuate, [it] is willing and able to work with the parties should other concerns arise over the course of litigation.” (Case No. 6:20-cv-00876; September 1, 2021).

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).

District of Utah (Central Division—Salt Lake City)

Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett

Connor Sport Court International, LLC v. Shijiazhuang Enlio Sports Goods Co., Ltd. d/b/a Enlio Sports Goods – The U.S. District Court for the District of Utah’s Central Division in Salt Lake City granted plaintiff’s motion for alternative service of a Chinese defendant by sending a summons, the complaint, and a copy of the order to the email address identified in the motion. The plaintiff had previously been granted leave to serve the summons and complaint by email and personal service on Defendant’s assumed legal counsel in China, however plaintiff’s counsel was unable to serve as intended because, despite numerous delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it eventually learned that the presumed counsel for defendant could not be confirmed as counsel for defendant. (Case No. 2:18-cv-00778, presiding before District Judge David Barlow; February 24, 2021).

District Judge Dale A. Kimball

Neck Hammock, The v. Danezen.com et al. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Utah’s Central Division in Salt Lake City issued a Memorandum and  Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for improper service and lack of personal jurisdiction and granting Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Default.  The Court had held a hearing on the motions by Zoom video conferencing because of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Case No. 2:20-cv-00287; October 29, 2020).

District Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr.

C.R. Bard, Inc., et al. v. Medical Components, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Utah’s Central Division in Salt Lake City granted the parties’ Joint Motion And Stipulation To Continue a hearing, currently scheduled for February 10, 2021, to a convenient time after counsel for defendant has recovered from COVID-19. The additional time was being sought to ensure defendant’s counsel, with one attorney recovering from COVID-19 and a principal attorney just diagnosed with COVID-19, could “focus on recovering and getting healthy and to present well-prepared arguments to the Court.” In a separate Order issued on February 11, 2021, the Court granted the  parties’ Stipulated Motion to Extend Certain Deadlines related to expert discovery, finding good cause for the requested extensions. (Case No. 2:17-cv-00754; February 3, 2021 and February 11, 2021).

Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg

C.R. Bard, Inc., et al. v. Medical Components, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Utah’s Central Division in Salt Lake City granted the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Extend Certain Deadlines with respect to claim construction and associated dispositive motions, finding good cause for the requested extensions based on the representation that one of defendant’s attorneys is recovering from COVID-19 and a different principal attorney was recently diagnosed with COVID-19. On June 2, 2021, the Court denied defendant’s Motion to Reopen Discovery for a Limited Time and to Amend Scheduling Order finding that it failed to show good cause.  As part of it analysis, the Court rejected defendant’s citation “generally to the COVID-19 pandemic to establish good cause.” The Court acknowledged that it has granted extensions to account for genuine litigation difficulties traceable to the COVID-19 pandemic, but noted that defendant provides no specific reason the COVID-19 pandemic warrants extension in this instance.  (Case No. 2:12-cv-00032, presiding before District Judge Robert J. Shelby; February 11, 2021 and June 2, 2021).

Simple Products Corporation v. Huang  – The U.S. District Court for the District of Utah’s Central Division in Salt Lake City granted plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File First Amended Complaint and seeking to add a Taiwanese corporation as defendant after new information came to light in a translated agreement indicating a claim to an ownership interest in the patent at issue. The Court found that the translated agreement constituted new information learned through discovery providing good cause for amendment after the deadline.  Although the Court indicated that the plaintiff did entirely explain why it waited more than a year to translate the agreement, “[n]or do general delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic explain [plaintiff’s] inaction during this entire period,” it found that plaintiff was reasonably diligent in filing its motion approximately a month and a half after learning the new information. (Case No. 2:19-cv-00317, presiding before District Judge David Barlow; June 1, 2021).

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)

Chief District Judge Mark S. Davis

Biedermann Technologies GmbH & Co. KG v. K2M, Inc. et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia’s Norfolk Division issued an Opinion and Order ruling on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. As part of its analysis of plaintiff’s motion regarding contractual estoppel, the Court stated that the critical fact for the purposes of resolving the motion is that defendant was acquired in November 2018, just days after the original complaint was served, and is now a subsidiary of the new parent entity. The Court noted that “the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly delayed the timeline of this case, as civil jury trials have been suspended in this District since March of last year and the parties have elected not to proceed to a bench trial”, however, while the facts regarding the degree of integration between the entities that existed during 2019 and early 2020 may have materially changed with the passage of time, any such change does not affect the outcome of the summary judgment motion. (Case No. 2:18-cv-00585; March 25, 2021).

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. On May 27, 2020 the Court granted the parties’ Second Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines and Reset Markman Hearing in Light of Travel Restrictions Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, extending all deadlines by an additional thirty (30) days. The parties were also instructed to submit an appropriately revised proposed Scheduling Order for the Court’s consideration.  An Amended Scheduling Order was issued on June 26, 2020. (Case No. 5:19-cv-00087, presiding before District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon; April 1, 2020, May 27, 2020 and June 26, 2020).

Western District of Washington (Seattle)

District Judge Richard A. Jones

National Products Inc. v. Innovative Intelligent Products, LLC d/b/a GPS Lockbox The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle granted in part defendant’s emergency motion to for a continuance of all outstanding court due dates for 180 days due to the passing of one of defendant’s two principals.  The defendant estimated that a continuance of 180 days was appropriated based on Washington estate and probate law, noting among other things that COVID-19-pandemic related delays “may add a week or two for the appointment of a personal representative.” After considering the arguments raised by the parties, the Court found good cause to continue the due dates set forth in the case schedule by 120 days.  (Case No. 2-20-cv-00428; February 23, 2021).

Treehouse Avatar LLC v. Valve Corp. – The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle granted in part defendant’s motion to vacate all deadlines in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, requesting to vacate the current trial date and all remaining case schedule deadlines and proposing resetting the case schedule once the Western District of Washington courthouse reopens. Anticipating a significant backlog of both criminal and civil cases when the courthouse reopens, with criminal matters taking precedence, the Court found good cause to strike the current January 19, 2021 trial date. However, the Court decided not vacate the case schedule but ordered the parties to meet and confer and propose a revised case schedule within ten days of the Order, extending the remaining pretrial deadlines. On September 25, 2020, the Court entered a joint Stipulated Motion extending the current case deadlines by approximately 45 days to allow the parties additional time to complete necessary fact discovery, including 13 outstanding fact depositions, before exchanging expert reports and conducting expert discovery. (Case No. 2-17-cv-01860; May 29, 2020 and September 25, 2020).

Senior District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein

Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc. et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle granted plaintiff’s request to transfer a Motion To Quash a third-party subpoena to the Northern District of California pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f), finding that exceptional circumstances warrant the transfer. As part of its analysis, the Court rejected an observation that the third party’s headquarters is located near the Court, noting that the third-party pointed “to no reason why the physical proximity of a courthouse makes a difference under the circumstances, since in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, both this Court and Magistrate Judge Illman have been conducting hearings telephonically.”   (Case No. 3-17-cv-05806; August 10, 2021).

back to top