Biography; Exemption Order Regarding Cellular Telephones For Jurors; Revised Standing Order Regarding Motions to Modify/Amend Docket Control Orders; Standing Order Regarding Motions for Extensions of Time to Answer; Standing Order Regarding Social Security Transcripts; Exemption Order re Paper Copie

=== Exemption Order Regarding Cellular Telephones For Jurors ===

EXEMPTION ORDER RE CELLULAR TELEPHONES FOR JURORS In cases pending before the Honorable John D. Love, the persons that comprise the jury will be allowed to maintain possession of their cellular phones for the duration of the trial. The cellular phones must be either turned off or be set to vibrate only. If the cellular phone rings, or is observed being used, i.e., texting, taking pictures, etc., during the course of the trial, the court security officer will confiscate the phone until the end of that day and that jurors’ privilege may be revoked. . ___________________________________ JOHN D. LOVE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGESo ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th day of February, 2009.

=== Revised Standing Order Regarding Motions to Modify/Amend Docket Control Orders ===

REVISED “STANDING ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO MODIFY/AMEND DOCKET CONTROL ORDERS” In cases before the Honorable John D. Love, parties shall re-file a complete Proposed Docket Control Order in every instance where a motion to modify / amend a Docket Control Order is to be considered by the Court. The amended Docket Control Order shall incorporate the modified deadlines in addition to the deadlines that remain unchanged. Each proposed modified deadline should be entered above the corresponding current deadline, within the same cell as the corresponding current deadline. The modified deadline should be placed between brackets (i.e. “[“ and “]”), but should otherwise be in a font and format identical to the current deadline. For example: [Jan. 10, 2014] Jan. 1, 2014 Deadline to File Letter Brief for Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness. See the Court’s website for further information. . ___________________________________ JOHN D. LOVE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGESo ORDERED and SIGNED this 8th day of November, 2013.

=== Standing Order Regarding Motions for Extensions of Time to Answer ===

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO ANSWER The Court has seen an increasing number of unopposed motions for extensions of time to file answers in cases. These extensions often cause cases to languish on the Court’s docket for months and months before ever proceeding to scheduling conference.1 The Court seeks to efficiently resolve cases and get cases to trial as soon as possible. To further this goal, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants in every case shall first use the procedure set in place by Local Rule CV-12 regarding filing an Application for Extension of Time to Answer with the Clerk’s office rather than filing a Motion for Extension of Time: LOCAL RULE CV-12 Filing of Answers and Defenses An attorney may, by motion, request that the deadline be extended for a defendant to answer the complaint or file a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Unless otherwise ordered by the court, where the requested extension: (1) is not opposed; and (2) is not more than thirty days and does not result in an overall extension of the defendant’s deadline exceeding forty-five days, the request shall be by application to the clerk, not motion. The application shall be acted upon with dispatch by the clerk on the court’s behalf, and the deadline to answer or otherwise respond is stayed pending action by the clerk. The Court further ORDERS that no additional extensions of time will be granted after a party exhausts the forty-five day deadline absent a showing of good cause. 1 The initial scheduling/status conference is what ultimately sets the litigation schedule and starts the case moving forward. . ___________________________________ JOHN D. LOVE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGESo ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of February, 2013.

=== Standing Order Regarding Social Security Transcripts ===

ORDER REGARDING FILING OF SOCIAL SECURITY TRANSCRIPTS Title 42 U.S.C. §405(g) provides in pertinent part that “as part of the Commissioner’s answer, the Commissioner of Social Security shall file a certified copy of the transcript of the record including the evidence upon which the findings and decision complained of are based.” It is accordingly ORDERED that effective immediately, a certified copy of the transcript in Social Security cases shall be filed as an attachment to the Commissioner’s answer. . SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.So ORDERED and SIGNED this 16th day of October, 2015.

=== Exemption Order re Paper Copies ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION EXEMPTION ORDER TO LOCAL RULE CV-5(a)(9) REGARDING COURTESY PAPER COPIES OF ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS In cases pending before the Honorable John D. Love, the parties are exempt from complying with Local Rule CV-5(a)(9), which requires the filing party to provide the presiding judge with paper copies of all electronically-filed documents over ten (10) pages in length, including attachments. IT IS ORDERED that courtesy paper copies shall only be provided for filings that exceed 30 pages in length (including attachments), unless specifically requested by the undersigned. The moving party shall submit to the Court all of the briefing (including responses, replies, and appendices thereto) in a single binder,1 appropriately tabbed, upon the completion of briefing. In patent cases, the parties are further directed to refer to the Court’s Discovery Order and Docket Control Order for specific requirements related to dispositive motions and Markman briefing. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 20th day of October, 2015. 1 The Court encourages the parties to consolidate the courtesy copy as practically as possible. Additional binders are permitted, but need not be submitted if all briefing can fit into a single binder.

=== Standing Order Regarding Letter Brief and Briefing Procedures For Early Markman Hearing/Summary Judgment Of Noninfringement ===

STANDING ORDER REGARDING LETTER BRIEF AND BRIEFING PROCEDURES FOR EARLY MARKMAN HEARING/SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON- INFRINGEMENT REQUESTS One of the Court’s goals is, as much as possible, to decrease litigation costs for the parties. To that end, and to sharpen the Court’s focus on the dispositive or most important issues, the Court will permit Defendant to submit, if desired, a request to construe no more than three “case dispositive” claim terms in a letter brief. The letter brief shall explain the Defendant’s proposed constructions of the term(s) and why such a construction will dispose of the case. The letter brief is due no later than 145 days before the Markman hearing. 1 Opening letter briefs and responsive letter briefs shall be no longer than 5 pages. Reply briefs shall be no longer than 3 pages. Letter briefs shall be filed without exhibits. Good cause must be shown to submit letter briefs after the deadline outlined above. The Court may decide the question on the submissions or hold a hearing or telephone conference to hear arguments and determine whether the filing of any brief will be permitted. Should Defendant’s request be granted, parties shall provide, no later than 100 days before the Markman hearing, the name, address, phone number, and curriculum vitae for up to three agreed technical advisors and information regarding the nominees’ availability for the Markman hearing or a statement that they could not reach an agreement as to any potential technical advisor. If the parties cannot agree on a technical advisor, they shall not submit any proposed technical advisors to the Court. If Defendant’s request is granted, the briefing schedule for claim construction/summary judgment is as follows: Combined Motion for Summary Judgment 1 See the Court’s website for response and reply deadlines. and claim construction brief: 95 days before Markman Response: Reply: 80 days before Markman 73 days before Markman The opening and response briefs shall not exceed 15 pages, respectively. Any replies shall not exceed 5 pages. Parties should note that there is no need for experts during this stage of the litigation. The goal here is to determine whether the case can be resolved without the need of extensive expert involvement. Deadlines for expert opinions and reports remain in place as indicated by the Docket Control Order. After the briefing period has concluded, the Court will then hold an early Markman hearing on the identified case dispositive terms. If the case is not resolved following the Court’s claim construction summary judgment rulings, a Markman hearing, as set forth in the Docket Control Order or at the patent status conference, will occur as scheduled. 2 . ___________________________________ JOHN D. LOVE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGESo ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of January, 2012.

=== Standing Order on Sealing Documents and Information ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION STANDING ORDER ON SEALING DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION Courts have long recognized that the public has a common law right of access to judicial proceedings and records. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 599, 597 (1978); S.E.C. v. Van Waeyenberghe et al., 990 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Holy Land Found. For Relief & Dev., 624 F.3d 685, 690 (5th Cir. 2010) (there is a “strong presumption that all trial proceedings should be subject to scrutiny by the public.”). It is the Court’s duty to balance the public’s common law right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 602; Belo Broad. Corp. v. Clark, 654 F.2d 423, 429 (5th Cir. 1981). In accordance with these guidelines, it is hereby ORDERED that the following procedures shall be followed when seeking to seal information from the public: A. Sealed Filings Any party who wishes to file a sealed document must comply with the requirements of Local Rule CV-5(a)(7). Pursuant to L.R. CV-5(a)(7)(B), the sealed filing must include a certificate of service by counsel that clearly identifies either (1) a corresponding motion to file under seal; or, (2) if no motion to seal has been filed, the specific order of the Court that provides the authorization to file under seal. Simply stating that a motion is being filed under seal pursuant to the Court’s Protective Order is insufficient. Parties must specifically identify the order granting authority to file under seal by Docket Number and point to the specific provisions (page or paragraph numbers) that provide for the sealing of the document in question. Attachment of Sealed Documents The attachment of a single document or multiple documents that need to be filed under seal does not provide a basis to seal the entire filing. A party seeking to attach a document or documents that contain proprietary information to be sealed must separately file those documents and include a certificate of service that complies with L.R. CV-5(a)(7). B. Sealing the Courtroom Requests to seal the courtroom and/or the record during a hearing or trial MUST be made before the public disclosure of the information. In making a request to seal, the requesting party must demonstrate: (1) that the information sought to be protected is of such a sensitive nature that its disclosure creates a risk of harm that outweighs the strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial proceedings; and (2) that the parties have met and conferred in good faith concerning the manner in which the sensitive information will be presented at the hearing or at trial, with the goal of minimizing the need to seal the record and/or the courtroom. Except for requests to redact information referenced in Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2(a), requests to seal, redact, or otherwise protect information after its public disclosure at a hearing or trial must, in addition to the previous requirements, show good cause as to why the motion was not made in advance of the disclosure. Parties seeking redaction of a transcript must comply with the timing requirements set forth in Local Rule CV-5.2. The terms of this Standing Order shall immediately apply to and supplement all active civil cases currently pending before the undersigned or that may otherwise be assigned to the undersigned thereafter. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 21st day of February, 2017.

=== Standing Order for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) ===

STANDING ORDER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY ACTIONS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) This standing order governs all actions filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and assigned to the undersigned. The parties shall comply with the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In addition, briefing filed before the court shall include the following: A statement of the exact issues presented for review, set forth in separate a. numbered paragraphs. A statement of the case. This statement should indicate, briefly, the course b. of the proceeding and its disposition at the administrative level and should set forth a general statement of the facts. This statement of the facts shall include plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience; an outline of the medical evidence; and a brief summary of other evidence of record. Each statement of fact shall be supported by a reference to the page in the record where the evidence may be found. c. An argument. The argument may be preceded by a summary. The argument shall be divided into sections separately treating each issue and must set forth the contentions of plaintiff with respect to the issues presented and reasons therefor. Each contention must be supported by specific reference to the portion of the record relied upon and by citations to statutes, regulations, and cases supporting plaintiff’s position. Cases from other districts and circuits should be cited only in conjunction with relevant cases from this jurisdiction or if authority on point from this jurisdiction does not exist. Citations to unreported district court opinions must be accompanied by a copy of the opinion. If plaintiff has moved for remand to the Secretary for further proceedings, the argument in support thereof must set forth good cause for remand. Furthermore, if the remand is for the purpose of taking additional evidence, such evidence must be attached to the brief, or, if such evidence is in the form of a consultation examination sought at government expense, plaintiff must make a proffer of the nature of the evidence anticipated to be obtained. A short conclusion stating the relief sought. The issues before the court are d. limited to the exact issues properly raised in the briefs. Any issue raised in the briefs but not discussed at oral argument, if one is held, will be deemed abandoned. e. Individually numbered pages. 1

=== Standing Order on Disclosure and Certification Requirements for Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION STANDING ORDER ON DISCLOSURE AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Recently, the court has seen an increasing number of filings that rely on generative artificial intelligence for drafting, citations, and legal authority. While generative artificial intelligence can be a helpful tool in the legal landscape, especially for pro se litigants who often lack the resources to effectively prosecute and/or defend their interests, these tools can—and often times do— produce fake legal authority. As this court and others in the district have observed, “Many harms flow from the submission of fake opinions.” Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 1:23- cv-281, 2024 WL 4882651, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2024) (citing Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443, 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2023 . These harms include: The opposing party wastes time and money in exposing the deception. The Court’s time is taken from other important endeavors. The client may be deprived of arguments based on authentic judicial precedents. There is potential harm to the reputation of judges and courts whose names are falsely invoked as authors of the bogus opinions and to the reputation of a party attributed with fictional conduct. It promotes cynicism about the legal profession and the American judicial system. And a future litigant may be tempted to defy a judicial ruling by disingenuously claiming doubt about its authenticity. Mata, 678 F. Supp. 3d at 448–49. Because of these risks, the Eastern District of Texas’s local rules explicitly caution attorneys and pro se litigants that generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools may produce factual and legal inaccuracies.1 See also L.R. CV-11(g) (imposing similar AI standards on filings by pro 1 Local Rule AT-3(m) provides: “If the lawyer, in the exercise of his or her professional legal judgment, believes that the client is best served by the use of technology (e.g., ChatGPT, Google Bard, Bing AI Chat, or generative artificial intelligence services), then the lawyer is cautioned that certain technologies may produce factually or legally inaccurate content and should never replace the lawyer's most important asset—the exercise of independent legal judgment. If a lawyer chooses to employ technology in representing a client, the lawyer continues to be bound by the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, Local Rule AT-3, and all other applicable standards of practice and must review and verify any computer-generated content to ensure that it complies with all such standards.” 1 se litigants). Given the recent rise of filings in this court that have improperly utilized generative artificial intelligence, the court now finds it necessary to impose additional requirements on attorneys and pro se litigants when they file documents with the court that have been assisted by generative artificial intelligence. It is hereby ORDERED that the following procedures shall be followed when an attorney or pro se litigant submits a filing to this court: 1. Certification Requirement Consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), and the certifications required thereunder, any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, must include with all filings a “Certificate of Generative Artificial Intelligence Usage” that discloses: (1) “generative artificial intelligence”2 was used (or not used); (2) the specific tool the party used; (3) how the party used the tool in preparing the relevant document; and (4) that the party certifies they have checked the accuracy of any portion of the document drafted or assisted by the tool, including all factual and procedural background, citations, and legal authority. The court presumes that a party who files a document that does not contain this certification certifies that no part of the document was prepared using generative artificial intelligence. 2. Responsibility If generative artificial intelligence is utilized in the preparation of any documents filed with the court, the attorney or pro se litigant will be held responsible for the contents thereof under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and applicable rules of professional conduct and attorney discipline. 3. Possibility of Sanctions If the court has good reason to suspect that a filing has relied on generative artificial intelligence in violation of this Standing Order, and the party has not reasonably dispelled of the court’s concerns, such violation may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 2 “Generative artificial intelligence” means a computer tool (whether referred to as “generative artificial intelligence” or by another name) that is capable of generating new content (e.g., images, text, etc.) in response to a submitted prompt and/or query by learning from a large reference database of examples. This term also encompasses computer tools that are substantially similar to the computer tools encompassed by the above definition, but differ in some unique way. 2 including the possibility of dismissal of the responsible party’s case, document, or pleading without prejudice for failure to comply with this standing order. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of April, 2025. 3

=== Exhibit List ===

Exhibit List Sample and Guidelines Below is a sample format of an exhibit list for Judge John D. Love. Parties are free to generate and format their exhibit lists in a manner convenient to them, but the list shall contain at least the minimum information set forth below. The exhibit list shall contain all exhibits that the parties intend to offer for admission into evidence. Those exhibits should be appropriately labeled as Plaintiff’s or Defendant’s exhibits, e.g., PX-1, DX-1. Any exhibits that have been produced by bates number must also include the bates number. Any physical exhibits that the parties intend to offer into evidence should also be listed and designated as such, e.g., PPX-1, DPX-1. This list shall also include any documents or things the parties intend to use for demonstrative purposes. These are items that will not be entered into evidence, but will be used in the course of trial for demonstrative purposes and must be disclosed.1 They should be labeled and designated as such, e.g., PDX-1, DDX-1. (Sample) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION Plaintiff v. Defendant Plaintiff’s Attorney(s): Case No. 6:XX-XXX PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT LIST JOHN D. LOVE Judge Presiding Jury Trial/Hearing Date(s): Defendant’s Attorney(s): Court Reporter: Description Bates No. Will Use May Use Courtroom Deputy: Sharon Baum Likely Won’t Use Objection Admitted Date Witness Exhibit No. PX-1 PX-2 000-0001 U.S. Patent No. 0,000,000 E-mail from John Smith to Jane Do Product Brochure 000-0003 000-0002 PX-3 PDX-1 Claim Chart PPX-1 Accused Product X X X X X 1 The parties are not required to have prepared or exchanged demonstratives at this time; however, the list should include placeholders for all intended demonstratives. To the extent a demonstrative has been prepared, or the party is aware of its intent to use a particular document for demonstrative purposes only, those items should be exchanged, appropriately identified, and included in the exhibit list. The Court will order the exchange of all demonstratives at a time closer to trial.

=== Witness List ===

IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER [MARSHALL] DIVISION Plaintiff VS Defendants § § § § § § § § CASE NO._______________ WITNESS LIST (Sample) PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL WITNESS LIST Plaintiff, _________, pursuant to the Court’s Docket Control Order entered in this case, files this Trial Witness List for identification and categorization of trial witnesses. At this time, Plaintiff identifies the following witnesses for trial: (A) W ILL CALL (B) M AY CALL (cid:47) (C) MAY, BUT PROBABLY WILL NOT CALL (cid:47) (cid:47) W ITNESS Expert Jane Doe John Doe 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.