Scheduling/Case Management - Page 2

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 Joan B. Gottschall

Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A  – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago denied plaintiff’s ex parte motion to extend the temporary restraining order by 14 days because the record was inadequate to find good cause. The Court noted that “since plaintiff requests an ex parte extension, waiting for the hearing date appears to be unnecessary, particularly because all hearings are being conducted by remote electronic means due to the COVID-19 pandemic.”  (Case No. 1:20-cv-06718; December 3, 2020).

District Judge Virginia M. Kendall

Aido Mobility LLC v. Sephora USA, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago sua sponte ordered the May 21, 2020 status hearing reset for June 12, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., due to the Third Amended General Order 20-0012 in re: Coronavirus COVID-19 Public Emergency dated April 24, 2020. On April 1, 2020, the court sua sponte ordered the status hearing set for April 8, 2020 to be rescheduled for May 21, 2020. This order is in accordance with the Second Amended General Order 20-0012 issued by the court on March 30, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic:

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

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

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

District Judge John Z. Lee

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

District Judge Joan H. Lefkow

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

District Judge Martha M. Pacold

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

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

Chief District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

District Judge Manish S. Shah

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

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

District Judge Franklin U. Valderrama

Nordstrom Consulting, Inc. et al v. Innova Systems, Inc. et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago denied defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend their Counterclaim, without prejudice, stating that the “defendants cannot use the pandemic generally as a shield to hide their failure to act diligently.” Although the Court acknowledged that the pandemic caused litigation delays in March and April of 2020, the defendants failed to explain why they failed to file in the two months before the pandemic (when they were in the possession of the necessary information), or how the pandemic affected their ability to file their Motion for Leave to Amend between mid-March 2020 and May 28, 2020. (Case No. 1:18-cv-03011; November 6, 2020).

Northern District of Indiana (South Bend)

Magistrate Judge Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.

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

Southern District of Iowa (Des Moines)

Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer

Putco, Inc. v. Shenzhen Aurora Tech. Co., Ltd. – The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa in Des Moines denied plaintiff’s motion to deem its service of process of the Summons and Complaint effective, or to order that the foreign corporate Defendant accept service of process by its counsel in related cases. The Court did, however, find good cause to extend the time for Plaintiff to effectuate service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), in part because the plaintiff made good-faith attempts to serve the Defendant and “[c]omplications for completion of that service, caused by the need for personal service and due to the COVID-19 pandemic, are issues outside of Plaintiff’s control.” (Case No. 4:19-cv-00412, presiding before Chief Judge John A. Jarvey; June 5, 2020).

District of Kansas (Kansas City)

Senior Judge Kathryn H. Vratil 

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

District of Maine (Portland)

Chief Judge Jon D. Levy

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

District of Maryland (Baltimore)

District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher

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

District of Massachusetts (Boston)

District Judge Richard G. Stearns

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. athenahealth, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston denied plaintiff’s Motion to Compel seeking to compel defendant to produce its source code for review in Dallas, Texas, the location of its chosen technical expert, who for health reasons cannot travel to Boston due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The defendant argued “that the source code for its cloud services is the company's most valued ‘crown jewel’ and that it has always handled any disclosure of the code with the utmost precautions, and under current circumstances, cannot produce the code in Texas without taking undue risks.” The Court found that “[t]he parties' concerns are reasonable, and neither party should have to bear the cost of the pandemic more than the other.”  Therefore, the Court adopted the defendant’s proposal to stay the case until 2021.  (Case No. 1:19-cv-11278; July 29, 2020).

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Paychex, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, extending the closing dates for fact discovery and expert discovery and the date for filing dispositive and Daubert motions. The parties sought the extension due to “a number of factors, including witness availability and the time that [it] is taking non-parties to provide discovery, particularly under COVID-19 circumstances.”  (Case No. 1:19-cv-11272; August 9, 2020).

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. The Court reset the Markman Hearing, originally set for August 6, 2020, to now be held on August 5, 2020 and indicated that the hearing will be conducted by video conference. On September 21, 2020, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order, seeking to extend certain deadlines because the COVID-19 pandemic “complicated efforts to comply with the existing schedule.” According to the parties, “the proposed revised schedule addresses some of those complications, and provides the parties with the ability to craft their completion of discovery with the expected guidance of the Court’s rulings on the pending Motion to Dismiss, and Claim Construction order.” In addition the initial pretrial conference, originally set for June 23, 2021, was reset for September 17, 2021 at 2:30 p.m. (EDT). (Case No. 1:19-cv-11586; March 21, 2020,  June 4, 2020 and September 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).

Multimatic Inc. v. Edscha Automotive Michigan, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit denied defendant’s motion to extend by 90 days all case deadlines subsequent to the August 31, 2020 claim construction hearing, due to concerns over the ability to timely conclude fact discovery given restrictions imposed by private and public authorities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Although sympathetic, the Court did not find that good cause had been shown at this time for the lengthy extension sought, particularly because the soonest deadlines were more than four months away and “[m]uch may change between now and then, either for the worse, or, hopefully, for the better.” In particular, the Court was unable at this time “to detect an urgent need for a schedule adjustment or to predict with any certainty the extent of any adjournment that may be warranted.” (Case No. 2:19-cv-12598; May 28, 2020).

Eastern District Of Michigan (Flint)

District Judge 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 (Minneapolis)

Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois

Nitride Semiconductors Co., Ltd. v. Digi-Key Corporation – The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota in Minneapolis issued an order cancelling the in-person hearing on the defendant’s Motion to Modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order, scheduled for September 14, 2020, instead taking it under advisement based on the parties' written submissions. The Court indicated that it was taking “this step because of the parties' concerns over COVID-19 exposure during travel, and not because of risk of exposure during the motions hearing; the District of Minnesota has put physical barrier protections and published conduct protocols in place to minimize any risk of exposure in the Courthouses of the District of Minnesota.” (Case No. 0:17-cv-04359, presiding before Chief U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim; September 10, 2020).

District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz

QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions, LLC, et al. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota in Minneapolis granted declaratory judgment plaintiff’s Motion to extend the stay of the action pending resolution of Inter Partes Review at the PTO but denied its motion to dissolve the injunction that the Court previously entered on December 26, 2019.  In agreeing to extend the stay through the conclusion of the IPR process, the Court noted that “[i]n addition to the efficiencies to be gained by awaiting the outcome of the IPR process, the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on the Court’s operations means that, as a practical matter, it will likely be at least a year before the Court can resume lengthy civil jury trials.” The Court, however, did not see “good reason” to dissolve the previously entered injunction, in part, because the plaintiff had agreed to such concessions in originally seeking the stay, and “the Court has no practical ability to relieve [defendant] from the consequences of the stay” due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Case No. 0:17-cv-01969; July 7, 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 (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 of New Jersey (Trenton)

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).

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).

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).

Load More Cases

CadwaladerNews

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.