Jury Evidence Recording System (JERS) Requirements; Patent Trial Questionnaire.pdf; ; ; ; U.S. District Judge Alan Albright (AU): Order Regarding Felony Revocation 2025 02 14 us-district-judge-alan-albright-aus; U.S. District Judge Alan Albright (AU): Standing Order on Pretrial Procedures and Requir

=== Jury Evidence Recording System (JERS) Requirements ===

Jury Evidence Recording System (JERS) Requirements Time Frame for Submitting Exhibits All files must be submitted based on the deadline set by the presiding Judge or CRD associated with your case. Your timeliness in submitting these files will assist the Court in preparing for the trial. Exhibits submitted that do not meet the Court’s requirements will be returned for correction. How to Submit Electronic Files All files must be provided on a single storage device such as a USB, CD or DVD. Requirements for Exhibit File Types All electronic evidence must be provided using the following formats: • • Documents and Photographs: .pdf, .jpg, .bmp, .tif, .gif Video and Audio Recordings: .avi, .wmv, .mpg, .mp3, .mp4, .wma, .wav, .3gpp VERY Important: The individual file size of documents (pdf) should not exceed 50 MB. The individual file size of audio and video should not exceed 500 MB. If possible, exhibits approaching or exceeding this size limit should be separated into multiple files. PDF documents can often be reduced significantly in size by using tools such as Adobe's "Reduce File Size" feature. Images can be significantly reduced in file size by lowering its resolution or dimensions, usually with minimal affect to viewing quality. Naming Your Files All file names MUST be named using the following naming convention. Not using this exact naming convention will cause problems in our office when uploading your exhibit files. The file name begins with the exhibit number, followed by an underscore to designate that the remaining text of the file name is the description of the exhibit. EXHIBIT Exhibit Number(underscore)Exhibit Description(.)File Exension Important Example: 1_Photograph of Gun.PDF Note: An underscore MUST be placed between the exhibit number and exhibit description. DO NOT use an underscore anywhere else in the exhibit file name. SUB EXHIBIT Exhibit Number(dash)Sub Letter(Underscore)Exhibit Description(.)File Extension Example: 1-A_Photograph of Gun Marked Up.pdf Note: For Sub Exhibits, place a dash between exhibit number and sub letter. The underscore is then placed after the sub letter. Examples of Valid Exhibit File Names: Exhibit 1.Photograph 1.A.Photograph – Marked Up 1-A_Photograph Marked.jpg Exhibit File Name 1_Photograph.jpg 2.2009 Tax Return 2.A. Schedule F 2.A1. Schedule F Marked Up 2-A1_Schedule F Marked Up.pdf 2.A2. Schedule F Revised 2.B. Schedule H 2-A2_Schedule F Revised.pd 2-B_Schedule H.pdf 2_2009 Tax Return.pdf 2-A_Schedule F.pdf 3.Camera Footage 3_Camera Footage.wmv JERS Orders Exhibits in the following manner Exhibit # Part 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A1 A2 AA1 AA2 AAA1 AAA2 B1 B2 Identifying Your Exhibits The exhibit number needs to be clearly displayed on the first page of each exhibit. i.e. “P 1” or “Plaintiff Exhibit 1” appended on the bottom right hand corner, either typed or written on the following label: Important i.e. “D 1” or “Defendant Exhibit 1” appended on the bottom right hand corner, either typed or written on the following label: i.e. “G 1” or “Government Exhibit 1” appended on the bottom right hand corner, either typed or written on the following label: i.e. “J 1” or “Joint Exhibit 1” appended on the bottom right hand corner, either typed or written on the following label: 12/13/17

=== Patent Trial Questionnaire.pdf ===

Juror Questionnaire Name: Age: Gender: Choose Birthplace: Education: Highest grade/degree completed: College or Vocational School: Major or Area(s) of Study: Choose an item. Employment: Choose an item. Occupation: If “Other”, please describe: Job Title: Describe Job Duties: Employer (current or most recent): Immediate Prior Job (if any): Have you ever worked in a position in which you supervised others? Select Have you ever served in the military? Select If yes, what branch, and what was the highest rank you achieved? N/A Marital Status: Choose item Spouse/Partner’s Occupation: Occupation(s) of other adults in your household: Number of children: Ages of children: Occupations of adult children: Where do you get most of your news? Select item Do you have special knowledge, training, education, or work experience in any of the following areas: Law, law firms, court system Computer hardware Electrical engineering Consumer electronics Cable television Patents, copyrights, or trademarks Software or App development Licensing Electronic streaming media Streaming media providers such as Netflix, Amazon, Google, etc. Have you ever heard of or are you familiar with either: MV3 Partners Select Roku, Inc. Select Have you or any of your family ever filed for a patent? Select If “Yes,” please describe what was covered by the patent and whether a patent was granted. Have you ever owned a business? Select If “Yes,” please indicate type of business and the years it was owned? Have you ever owned or operated a Roku streaming device (a Roku player or Roku TV)? Select Have you ever owned a streaming device (player or TV) other than a Roku device (for example, Google Chromecast, Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, etc.)? Select Have you ever owned a smart TV that includes built‐in apps (for example YouTube, Pandora, Hulu, etc.) that allow you to stream internet content onto your TV? Select Do you own a home theater or multi‐media system? Select If “Yes,” did you select and install the components, or did you hire someone else to select the components and setup the system? Have you ever served as a juror before? Select If “Yes,” were you the foreperson? Select Do you have an unusual hardship or other personal issue that would affect or prevent your ability to serve as a juror in a case scheduled for trial from July 30 to August 11, 2020 in Waco? Select If “Yes,” describe hardship: Email

=== General-Order-Regarding-Felony-Revocation-031821.pdf ===

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION GENERAL O R D E R Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 and 28 U.S. Code § 636, the undersigned directs that all felony cases involving the revocation or modification of probation or supervised release be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for the purpose of conducting relevant hearings and the preparation of a report and recommendation to the United States District Judge. SIGNED March 18, 2021. ____________________________________ ALAN D ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FILEDDEPUTY CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BY: ________________________________March 18, 2021Mark Borchardt

=== Proposed-Scheduling-Order-for-U.S.-District-Judge-Albright.pdf ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION Plaintiffs, v. Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § Case No. Jury Trial Demanded SCHEDULING ORDER On , the Court conducted a conference in the above entitled and numbered case. All parties appeared through counsel. As a result of such hearing, and pursuant to Rule 16, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court ORDERS that the following schedule will govern deadlines up to and including the trial of this matter: Date Event Discovery commences on all issues. All motions to amend pleadings or to add parties shall be filed on or before this date. Fact Discovery Deadline. Fact discovery must be completed by this date. Any fact discovery requests must be propounded so that the responses are due by this date. The parties asserting claims for relief shall submit a written offer of settlement to opposing parties on or before this date. All offers of settlement are to be private, not filed, and the Court is not to be advised of the same. The parties are further ORDERED to retain the written offers of settlement and responses as the Court will use these in assessing attorney’s fees and court costs at the conclusion of trial Each party shall complete and file the attached “Notice Concerning Reference to United States Magistrate Judge” Parties with burden of proof to designate Expert Witnesses and provide their expert witness reports, to include all information required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Each opposing party shall respond, in writing, to the written offer of settlement made by the parties asserting claims for relief by this date. All offers of settlement are to be private, not filed, and the Court is not to be advised of the same. The parties are further ORDERED to retain the written offers of settlement and responses as the Court will use these in assessing attorney’s fees and court costs at the conclusion of trial Parties shall designate Rebuttal Expert Witnesses on issues for which the parties do not bear the burden of proof, and provide their expert witness reports, to include all information required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Expert Discovery Deadline. Expert discovery must be completed by this date. Any objection to the reliability of an expert’s proposed testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 shall be made by motion, specifically stating the basis for the objection and identifying the objectionable testimony, not later than 14 days of receipt of the written report of the expert’s proposed testimony or not later than 14 days of the expert’s deposition, if a deposition is taken, whichever is later. The failure to strictly comply with this paragraph will be de e me d a waive r of any objection that could have been made pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 All dispositive motions shall be filed and served on all other parties on or before this date and shall be limited to 25 pages. Responses shall be filed and served on all other parties not later than 14 days after the service of the motion and shall be limited to 20 pages. Any replies shall be filed and served on all other parties not later than 7 days after the service of the response and shall be limited to 10 pages, but the Court need not wait for the reply before ruling on the motion. By this date the parties shall meet and confer to determine pre-trial deadlines, including, inter alia, exchange of exhibit lists, designations of and objections to deposition testimony, and exchange of demonstratives. By this date the parties shall exchange a proposed jury charge and questions for the jury. By this date the parties will also exchange draft Motions in Limine to determine which may be agreed. By this date the parties shall exchange any objections to the proposed jury charge, with supporting explanation and citation of controlling law. By this date the parties shall also submit to the Court their Motions in Limine. By this date the parties will submit to the Court their Joint Pre-Trial Order, including the identification of issues to be tried, identification of witnesses, trial schedule provisions, and all other pertinent information. By this date the parties will also submit to the Court their oppositions to Motions in Limine. Final Pre-Trial Conference. The parties shall provide to the Court an agreed jury charge with supported objections of each party, and proposed questions for the jury, at the final Pre-Trial Conference. The Court will attempt to schedule Jury Selection on a day during the week of . Otherwise, Jury Selection shall begin at 9:00 a.m. on ________________________. Jury Trial Commences SIGNED this day of _________________________, 20____. ALAN D. ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE AGREED: By: ____________________________ By: ___________________________ Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Defendants

=== Standing-Order-Governing-Proceedings-Patent-Cases-01232024.pdf ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION STANDING ORDER GOVERNING PROCEEDINGS (OGP) 4.4—PATENT CASES This OGP governs proceedings in all patent cases pending before the undersigned or Judge Derek T. Gilliland and takes effect upon entry in all patent cases, except where noted. If there are conflicts between this OGP and prior versions in existing cases that the parties are unable to resolve, the parties are encouraged to contact the Court for guidance via email to the Court’s law clerk. Parties should generally email any inquiries to the Court’s law clerk. The Court’s voicemail is not checked regularly. Email is the preferred contact method. Parties should generally use the following email address that includes the Court’s law clerks for both Judge Albright and Judge Gilliland: TXWDml_LawClerks_WA_JudgeAlbright&[email protected]. Messages directed only to Judge Albright’s law clerks may be sent to: [email protected]. Messages directed only to Judge Gilliland’s law clerks may be sent to: [email protected]. I. NOTICE OF READINESS1 In all patent cases pending before the undersigned or Judge Gilliland, the parties are directed to jointly file the Case Readiness Status Report (“CRSR”) in the format attached as Appendix B: (a) within 7 days after the Defendant (or at least one Defendant among a group of related Defendants sued together) has responded to the initial pleadings in cases where there are no CRSR Related Cases, or (b) when there are CRSR Related Cases, within 7 days after the last Defendant (or last Defendant group when at least one Defendant among the group has responded) among the CRSR Related Cases has responded to the initial pleadings. The CRSR shall be filed in each case and identify all other CRSR Related Cases. For this Order, cases shall be considered CRSR Related Cases when they meet both criteria: (1) the cases are filed within 30 days after the first case is filed, and (2) the cases share at least one common asserted patent. The parties shall meet and confer before jointly filing the CRSR. Plaintiff shall have responsibility for filing the CRSR on time. If the parties have any pre-Markman issues needing resolution, the parties shall email the Court a joint submission of the parties’ positions after filing the CRSR so the Court can consider whether to hold a hearing to resolve these issues. If the 1 This supersedes the March 7, 2022 Standing Order Regarding Notice of Readiness for Patent Cases. OGP Version 4.4 1 parties do not have any pre-Markman issues needing resolution, then the parties need not email the CRSR to the Court. The Case Management Conference (“CMC”) shall be deemed to occur 14 days after the filing date of the CRSR. If the CRSRs in CRSR Related Cases are not all submitted on the same date, the CMC shall be deemed to occur 14 days after the last CRSR in those CRSR Related Cases is filed. The Court intends to coordinate the CRSR Related Cases on the same schedule with a single Markman hearing, so the parties should plan accordingly. In all cases, the Markman hearing shall be initially scheduled for 23 weeks after the CMC and should be included in the parties’ proposed Scheduling Order in accordance with this Order. II. GENERAL DEADLINES The following deadlines apply: 1. Patent cases shall be set for a Rule 16 CMC in accordance with the preceding section. 2. Not later than 7 days before the CMC. The plaintiff shall serve preliminary infringement contentions chart setting forth where in the accused product(s) each element of the asserted claim(s) are found. The plaintiff shall also identify the priority date (i.e., the earliest date of invention) for each asserted claim and produce: (1) all documents evidencing conception and reduction to practice for each claimed invention, and (2) a copy of the file history for each patent in suit. 3. Two weeks after the CMC. The parties shall file a motion to enter an agreed Scheduling Order that generally tracks the exemplary schedule attached as Exhibit A to this OGP, which should suit most cases. If the parties cannot agree, the parties shall submit a joint motion for entry of a Scheduling Order briefly setting forth their scheduling disagreement. Absent agreement of the parties, the plaintiff shall be responsible for the timely submission of this and other joint filings. When filing any Scheduling Order, the parties shall also jointly send an editable copy to the Court’s law clerk. 4. Seven weeks after the CMC. The defendant shall serve preliminary invalidity contentions in the form of (1) a chart setting forth where in the prior art references each element of the asserted claim(s) are found, (2) an identification of any limitations the defendant contends are indefinite or lack written description under § 112, and (3) an identification of any claims the defendant contends are directed to ineligible subject matter under § 101. The § 101 contention shall (1) identify the alleged abstract idea, law of nature, and/or natural phenomenon in each challenged claim; (2) identify each claim element alleged to be well-understood, routine, and/or conventional; and (3) to the extent not duplicative of §§ 102/103 prior art contentions, prior art for the contention that claim elements are well-understood, routine, and/or conventional. The defendant shall also produce (1) all prior art referenced in the invalidity contentions, and (2) technical OGP Version 4.4 2 documents, including software where applicable, sufficient to show the operation of the accused product(s).2 III. GENERAL DISCOVERY LIMITS Except with regard to venue, jurisdictional, and claim construction-related discovery, all other discovery shall be stayed until after the Markman hearing. Notwithstanding this general stay of discovery, the Court will permit limited discovery by agreement of the parties, or upon request, where exceptional circumstances warrant it. For example, if discovery outside the United States is contemplated via the Hague, the Court is inclined to allow such discovery to commence before the Markman hearing. Following the Markman hearing, the following discovery limits apply. The Court will consider reasonable requests to adjust these limits should circumstances warrant. 1. Interrogatories: 30 per side3 2. Requests for Admission: 45 per side 3. Requests for Production: 75 per side 4. Fact Depositions: 70 hours per side (for both party and non-party witnesses combined) 5. Expert Depositions: 7 hours per report4 Electronically Stored Information. As a preliminary matter, the Court will not require general search and production of email or other electronically stored information (ESI) related to email (such as metadata), absent a showing of good cause. If a party believes targeted email/ESI discovery is necessary, it shall propose a procedure identifying custodians and search terms it believes the opposing party should search. The opposing party can oppose or propose an alternate plan. If the parties cannot agree, they shall contact the Court in accordance with the procedures below, to discuss their respective positions. IV. DISCOVERY DISPUTES Standing Referral. Under Rule 1 of the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges, Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, discovery disputes in patent cases pending before the 2 To the extent it may promote early resolution, the Court encourages the parties to exchange license and sales information, but any such exchange is optional during the pre-Markman phase of the case. 3 A “side” shall mean the plaintiff (or related plaintiffs suing together) on the one hand, and the defendant (or related defendants sued together) on the other hand. If the Court consolidates related cases for pretrial purposes, with regard to calculating limits imposed by this OGP, a “side” shall be interpreted as if the cases were proceeding individually. For example, in consolidated cases the plaintiff may serve up to 30 interrogatories on each defendant, and each defendant may serve up to 30 interrogatories on the plaintiff. 4 For example, if a single technical expert submits reports on both infringement and invalidity, he or she may be deposed for up to 14 hours in total. OGP Version 4.4 3 undersigned are referred to United States Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland for a determination under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Procedure. A party may not file a Motion to Compel discovery unless: (1) lead counsel with decision making authority have met and conferred in good faith to try to resolve the dispute, and (2) the party has contacted the Court’s law clerk to summarize the dispute and the parties’ respective positions.5 When contacting the Court’s law clerk for discovery or procedural disputes, the following procedures shall apply. If the parties remain at an impasse after lead counsel have met and conferred, the requesting party shall email a summary of the issue(s) and specific relief requested to all counsel of record. The summary of the issue shall not exceed 500 words for one issue or a combined 1,000 words for multiple issues. The responding party has 3 business days6 thereafter to provide an email response, also not to exceed 500 words for one issue or a combined 1,000 words for multiple issues. The specific relief requested should propose the exact language to be issued in a court order for each part of every disputed issue. The specific relief requested does not count toward the word limits. The Court encourages the parties to provide their submission in a Word document in the following table format, which clearly identifies the disputed issues and specific relief requested. Example: Issue Requesting Party’s Position Responding Party’s Position RFP 1: All sale records of the Product. Responding Party didn’t produce anything. Responding Party keeps its sales records in a sales database. We found no sales records of the Product in the sales database. Relief: Order that “Responding Party must produce a copy of the sales database within 7 days.” Relief: Find that “no documents responsive to RFP 5 exist” and deny Requesting Party’s relief. ROG 5: Identify all employees who worked on the Product. Responding Party only identified a subset of the employees. Relief: Order that “Responding Party is compelled to fully respond to ROG 5 by identifying the names and locations of the remaining We identified the relevant employees. The other employees are not relevant, and it is too burdensome to identify every employee. Relief: Order that “Responding Party need not identify any other employees in response to ROG 5.” 5 The procedure outlined below is also the Court’s preferred mechanism for handling disputes regarding procedural matters such as extensions of time, excess pages, narrowing claims and prior art, amending invalidity and infringement contentions, etc. If the parties are unsure about whether a particular dispute should be handled by motion or discovery dispute procedure, they should contact the Court's clerks. 6 Business days exclude weekends and federal holidays. OGP Version 4.4 4 employees who worked on Product by [date].” Once the opposing party provides its response, the requesting party shall email the summaries of the issues to the Court’s law clerks for both Judge Albright and Judge Gilliland with opposing counsel copied. If a hearing is requested, the parties shall indicate in the email whether any confidential information will be presented. Thereafter, the Court will provide guidance to the parties regarding the dispute or arrange a Zoom or in-person hearing. Written Order.7 Within 7 days of the discovery hearing, the parties shall email a joint proposed order to the Court’s law clerk that includes the parties’ positions from their dispute chart, the parties’ requested relief, and the parties’ understanding of the Court’s ruling so that the arguments and outcome can be docketed. Parties shall send an editable version of the proposed order to the Court’s law clerk with any disputed language in red and blue text. Failure to provide a proposed written order for the docket results in waiver of the dispute for appeal. V. VENUE & JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY The Court hereby8 establishes the following presumptive limits on discovery related to venue and jurisdiction: each party is limited to 5 interrogatories, 10 Requests for Production, and 10 hours of deposition testimony. The time to respond to such discovery requests is reduced to 20 days. If a party believes these limits should be expanded, the party shall meet and confer with opposing counsel and, if an impasse is reached, the requesting party is directed to contact the Court’s law clerk for a telephonic hearing. Venue or jurisdictional discovery automatically opens upon the filing of an initial venue or jurisdictional motion and shall be completed no later than 10 weeks after the filing of such motion. Parties shall file a notice of venue or jurisdictional discovery if the discovery will delay a response to a transfer or jurisdictional motion. VI. MOTIONS FOR TRANSFER This section applies to all cases filed on or after March 7, 2022. Otherwise, the Second Amended Standing Order Regarding Motions for Inter-District Transfer controls earlier-filed cases. A motion to transfer anywhere shall be filed within 3 weeks after the CMC or within 8 weeks of receiving or waiving service of the complaint, whichever is later. Thereafter, a movant must show good cause for any delay and seek leave of court. The deadline for plaintiff’s response is 2 weeks after the completion of venue or jurisdictional discovery. The deadline for Defendant’s reply is 2 weeks after the filing of the response. 7 This supersedes the June 17, 2021 Standing Order for Discovery Hearings in Patent Cases. 8 This supersedes the June 8, 2021 Amended Standing Order Regarding Venue and Jurisdictional Discovery Limits for Patent Cases. OGP Version 4.4 5 The following page limits and briefing schedule apply to motions to transfer: 1. Opening – 15 pages 2. Response – 15 pages, due 14 days after the completion of venue or jurisdictional discovery, if such discovery is conducted; otherwise, 14 days after the Opening brief 3. Reply – 5 pages, due 14 days after the Response brief All parties who have filed a motion to transfer shall provide the Court with a status report indicating whether the motion has been fully briefed at each of the following times: 1) when the motion to transfer becomes ready for resolution,; 2) at 4 weeks before the Markman hearing date if the motion to transfer remains unripe for resolution; and 3) if there are multiple Markman hearings, the status report is due 6 weeks before the first scheduled Markman hearing. In addition, if by 1 week before the Markman hearing the Court has not ruled on any pending motion to transfer, the moving party is directed to email the Court’s law clerk (and the technical advisor, when appointed), and indicate that the motion to transfer is pending. If a motion to transfer remains pending, the Court will either promptly resolve the pending motion before the Markman hearing, or postpone the Markman hearing. Whenever a Markman hearing is postponed pursuant to this OGP (e.g., because the transfer motion has not yet ripened or only recently ripened), Fact Discovery will begin one day after the originally scheduled Markman hearing date. VII. MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENT FOR EARLY MOTIONS TO DISMISS INDIRECT AND WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT Any party seeking to dismiss claims of indirect or willful infringement before fact discovery must first meet and confer with the opposing party to discuss dismissing those allegations without prejudice, with leave to re-plead those allegations with specificity if supported by a good faith basis under Rule 11. Under this agreement, the patent owner may re-plead those allegations within three months after fact discovery opens, and the parties agree to permit fact discovery on indirect and willful infringement during those three months. The party moving to dismiss must attach a certification of compliance with this OGP to its motion to dismiss. An agreement to dismiss under this section shall be filed as a joint notice instead of as a motion. VIII. INTERIM PROTECTIVE ORDER The Court provides a Model Protective Order on its website. Pending entry of the final Protective Order, the Court issues the following interim Protective Order to govern the disclosure of confidential information: If any document or information produced in this matter is deemed confidential by the producing party and if the Court has not entered a protective order, until a protective order is issued by the Court, the document shall be marked “confidential” or with some other confidential designation (such as “Confidential – Outside Attorneys’ Eyes Only”) by the disclosing party and disclosure of the confidential document or information shall OGP Version 4.4 6 be limited to each party’s outside attorney(s) of record and the employees of such outside attorney(s). If a party is not represented by an outside attorney, disclosure of the confidential document or information shall be limited to one designated “in house” attorney, whose identity and job functions shall be disclosed to the producing party 5 days prior to any such disclosure, in order to permit any motion for protective order or other relief regarding such disclosure. The person(s) to whom disclosure of a confidential document or information is made under this OGP shall keep it confidential and use it only for purposes of litigating the case. IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Limits for Number of Claim Terms to be Construed Terms for Construction. Based on the Court’s experience, the Court believes that it should have presumed limits on the number of claim terms to be construed. The “presumed limit” is the maximum number of terms that each side may request the Court to construe without further leave of Court. If the Court grants leave for additional terms to be construed, depending on the complexity and number of terms, the Court may split the Markman hearing into multiple hearings. The presumed limits based on the number of patents-in-suit are as follows: 1-2 Patents 8 terms 3-5 Patents 10 terms More than 5 Patents 12 terms When the parties submit their joint claim construction statement, in addition to the term and the parties’ proposed constructions, the parties should indicate which party or side proposed that term, or if that was a joint proposal. Briefing Procedure and Page Limits The Court will require non-simultaneous Markman briefing with the following default page limits. When exceptional circumstances warrant, the Court will consider reasonable requests to adjust these limits. These page limits shall also apply collectively for coordinated and consolidated cases; however, the Court will consider reasonable requests to adjust page limits in consolidated cases where circumstances warrant. The Court has familiarity with the law of claim construction and encourages the parties to forego lengthy recitations of legal authorities and to instead focus on the substantive issues unique to each case. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, the default order of terms in the parties’ briefs shall be based on 1) the patent number (lowest to highest), the claim number (lowest to highest), and order of appearance within the lowest number patent and claim. An example order may be as follows: 1. 10,000,000 Patent, Claim 1, Term 1 OGP Version 4.4 7 2. 10,000,000 Patent, Claim 1, Term 2 (where Term 2 appears later in the claim than does Term 1) 3. 10,000,000 Patent, Claim 2, Term 3 (where Term 3 appears later in the claim than does Terms 2 and 3) 4. 10,000,001 Patent, Claim 1, Term 4 5. 10,000,001 Patent, Claim 3, Term 5 6. 10,000,002 Patent, Claim 2, Term 6 If the same or similar terms appear in multiple claims, those same or similar terms should be ordered according to the lowest patent number, lowest claim number, and order of appearance within the patent and claim. Brief Opening (Defendant) Response (Plaintiff) Reply (Defendant) Sur-Reply (Plaintiff) 1-2 Patents 20 pages 3-5 Patents 30 pages 20 pages 30 pages 10 pages 15 pages 10 pages 15 pages More than 5 Patents 30 pages, plus 5 additional pages for each patent over 5 up to a maximum of 45 pages 30 pages, plus 5 additional pages for each patent over 5 up to a maximum of 45 pages 15 pages, plus 2 additional pages for each patent over 5 up to a maximum of 21 pages 15 pages, plus 2 additional pages for each patent over 5 up to a maximum of 21 pages After briefing concludes, the parties shall file a Joint Claim Construction Statement and email an editable copy to the Court’s law clerks. Technology Tutorials and Conduct of the Markman Hearing Technology tutorials are optional, especially in cases where a technical advisor has been appointed. If the parties submit one, the tutorial should be in electronic form, with voiceovers, and submitted at least 10 days before the Markman hearing. In general, tutorials should be: (1) directed to the underlying technology (rather than argument related to infringement or validity), and (2) limited to 15 minutes per side. The tutorial will not be part of the record and the parties may not rely on or cite to the tutorial in other aspects of the litigation. OGP Version 4.4 8 The Court generally sets aside one hour for the Markman hearing; however, the Court is open to reserving more or less time, depending on the complexity of the case and input from the parties. As a general rule, the party opposing the Court’s preliminary construction shall go first. If both parties oppose the Court’s preliminary construction, the plaintiff shall typically go first. The Court will provide preliminary constructions to the parties ahead of the Markman hearing. At the Markman hearing, the Court encourages oral arguments that fine-tune the preliminary constructions over arguments repeated from the briefs. X. GENERAL ISSUES 1. The Court will entertain reasonable requests to streamline the case schedule and discovery. The Parties should contact the Court’s law clerk when a change might help streamline the case. 2. The Court is generally willing to extend the response to the Complaint up to 45 days if agreed by the parties. Extensions beyond 45 days from the original answer date are disfavored and require a motion. 3. Speaking objections during depositions are improper. Objections during depositions shall be stated concisely and in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner. Examples of permissible objections include: “Objection, leading,” “Objection, compound,” “Objection, vague.” Other than to evaluate privilege issues, counsel should not confer with a witness while a question is pending. Counsel may confer with witnesses during breaks in a deposition without waiving any otherwise applicable privilege. 4. Within 10 days of any new changes relevant to AO 120 (Report on the Filing or Determination of an Action Regarding a Patent or Trademark), the Plaintiff must update the form with any new changes to the case such as amended complaints or new claims. 5. Plaintiff must file a notice informing the Court when an IPR is filed, the expected time for an institution decision, and the expected time for a final written decision, within 2 weeks of the filing of the IPR. 6. After the trial date is set, the Court will not move the trial date except in extreme situations. If a party believes that the circumstances warrant continuing the trial date, the parties are directed to contact the Court’s law clerk. 7. Appendix C, Order on Motions in Limine (MILs), shall apply equally to all parties. In addition to the standard MILs, each party will be permitted to propose and argue (if opposed) up to five (5) of its own MILs at the Pretrial Conference. MILs outside these limits will not be considered. MILs that are multifarious so as to exceed the above limitations will also not be considered. MILs that simply restate the rules of evidence or other legal principles or that are more appropriately motions for summary judgment or Daubert motions are improper. OGP Version 4.4 9 8. The Court does not limit the number of motions for summary judgment (MSJs) or Daubert motions9 a party may file. However, absent leave of Court, the cumulative page limit for opening briefs for all MSJs is 40 pages per side, for all Daubert motions is 40 pages per side, and for all MILs is 15 pages per side. Each responsive MSJ, Daubert, and MIL brief is limited to the pages utilized in the opening brief or by the local rules, whichever is greater; and the cumulative pages for responsive briefs shall be no more than cumulative pages utilized in the opening briefs. Reply brief page limits shall be governed by the local rules, but in no event shall the cumulative pages of reply briefs exceed 20 pages per side for all MSJs, 20 pages per side for all Daubert motions, and 10 pages for all MILs. 9. The Court no longer requires physical copies of Markman briefs, summary judgment motions, and Daubert motions. Instead, the parties shall jointly contact the Court’s law clerk, at least ten days before the hearing, for a Box link to provide an electronic copy of the briefs,10 exhibits, and the optional technology tutorial.11 Absent agreement to the contrary, the plaintiff shall be responsible for providing the electronic copies via Box. For Markman briefs, the parties should also include a copy of all patents-in-suit and an editable copy of the Joint Claim Construction Statement. If the Court appoints a technical advisor, each party shall deliver the same to the technical advisor on a USB drive, also 10 days before the hearing. 10. When filing the Joint Claim Construction Statement, proposed Protective Order, or proposed Scheduling Order, the parties shall also email the Court’s law clerk a Word version of the filed documents. 11. For all non-dispositive motions, the parties shall submit a proposed Order. The proposed Order shall omit the word “Proposed” from the title. 12. For non-private remote hearings in front of Judge Albright, the public is allowed to attend via the call-in information below. However, the public shall not attempt to access video of those hearings and anyone found not to be in compliance is subject to sanctions by the Court. +16692545252,,1613131172#,,,,*120804# US (San Jose) +16468287666,,1613131172#,,,,*120804# US (New York) 13. Any party who intends to present confidential information in a remote hearing shall email and notify the Court’s law clerk to request a private Zoom setup that will not be publicly broadcasted. 14. When citing cases or exhibits in a motion, parties shall pin cite the relied-upon section of a case or exhibit. For any motion referencing an expert report (e.g., motions to strike, Daubert 9 This includes any motion filed after opening expert reports that seeks to strike or preclude the use of any part of an expert report for any reason, including procedural reasons. 10 But if the Court appoints a technical advisor for claim construction, the parties should not provide a copy of the Markman briefs to the Court. 11 The Court can no longer receive USB drives due to security concerns, but the technical advisors can. OGP Version 4.4 10 motions, and summary judgment motions), the Court requires full copies of the expert report attached as an exhibit. The Court encourages parties to highlight and/or annotate the relied- upon sections of exhibits or expert reports (e.g., patents, transcripts, contracts) to facilitate the Court’s analysis of the motion. A supporting declaration should identify if any exhibit is highlighted or annotated. 15. Parties shall promptly notify the Court if they reach a settlement in a case and request to stay any deadlines. 16. When filing a patent case, the Plaintiff shall file a “Notice of Related Cases” on the day of filing the patent case. For the Notice of Related Cases, cases shall be considered “related” when they share at least one common asserted patent.12 The Notice of Related Cases shall indicate the case caption, case number, and presiding Judge of any related case. 17. A pleading, motion, or other submission shall be typed or printed in 12-point or larger font (including footnotes), double-spaced, on paper sized 8½” x 11” with one-inch margins on all sides and shall be endorsed with the style of the case and the descriptive name of the document. Headings, footnotes, and quotations more than two lines long may be single- spaced. 18. With respect to calculating page limits for motions not otherwise addressed in this Order, such that Local Rule CV-7 applies, at least the following are examples of motions the Court considers to be “case management motions” where the 10-page limit shall apply: Motions to Stay, Motions for Continuance, and Motions to Amend Pleadings, Contentions, or Scheduling Orders. XI. TRIAL & POST-TRIAL ISSUES 1. Preliminary and Final Jury Instructions with disputed language must include citations to prior jury instructions given by this Court. Parties shall send an editable version of the proposed instructions to the Court’s law clerk with the disputed language in red and blue text. Instructions should exactly track the language of prior instructions to the extent possible. Language from the Court’s most recent Jury Instructions is preferred. 2. Parties shall file a joint proposed final judgement within 14 days of a jury verdict. If one party disputes the language of the order, then that party shall send an editable version of the proposed order to the Court’s law clerk with the disputed language in red and blue text. The Court discourages the parties from providing extensive substantive argument in the editable version of the proposed judgment. 3. On the same day that post-trial briefing is completed, the parties shall email the Court’s law clerks with a list of the pending motions and request a hearing, if desired. 12 The CRSR and Notice of Related Cases use different definitions. OGP Version 4.4 11 4. Prior to entering an order regarding post-trial bonds, parties are directed to reach out to the District Clerks Office to obtain specific information needed to complete the order. The Office can be reached at [email protected] or 254-750-1501. SIGNED this 23rd day of January, 2024. ALAN D ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE OGP Version 4.4 12 XII. APPENDIX A – EXEMPLARY SCHEDULE Deadline Item 8 weeks after receiving or waiving service of complaint or 3 weeks after the CMC, whichever is later. 7 days before CMC 2 weeks after CMC 7 weeks after CMC Deadline to file a motion to transfer. After this deadline, movants must seek leave of Court and show good cause for the delay. Plaintiff serves preliminary13 infringement contentions in the form of a chart setting forth where in the accused product(s) each element of the asserted claim(s) are found. Plaintiff shall also identify the earliest priority date (i.e., the earliest date of invention) for each asserted claim and produce: (1) all documents evidencing conception and reduction to practice for each claimed invention, and (2) a copy of the file history for each patent in suit. The Parties shall file a motion to enter an agreed Scheduling Order. If the parties cannot agree, the parties shall submit a separate Joint Motion for entry of Scheduling Order briefly setting forth their respective positions on items where they cannot agree. Absent agreement of the parties, the Plaintiff shall be responsible for the timely submission of this and other Joint filings. Defendant serves preliminary invalidity contentions in the form of (1) a chart setting forth where in the prior art references each element of the asserted claim(s) are found, (2) an identification of any limitations the Defendant contends are indefinite or lack written description under section 112, and (3) an identification of any claims the Defendant contends are directed to ineligible subject matter under section 101. Defendant shall also produce (1) all prior art referenced in the invalidity contentions, and (2) technical documents, including software where applicable, sufficient to show the operation of the accused product(s). 13 The parties may amend preliminary infringement contentions and preliminary invalidity contentions without leave of court so long as counsel certifies that it undertook reasonable efforts to prepare its preliminary contentions and the amendment is based on material identified after those preliminary contentions were served and should do so seasonably upon identifying any such material. Any amendment to add patent claims requires leave of court so that the Court can address any scheduling issues. OGP Version 4.4 13 9 weeks after CMC Parties exchange claim terms for construction. 11 weeks after CMC Parties exchange proposed claim constructions. 12 weeks after CMC Parties disclose extrinsic evidence. The parties shall disclose any extrinsic evidence, including the identity of any expert witness they may rely upon with respect to claim construction or indefiniteness. With respect to any expert identified, the parties shall identify the scope of the topics for the witness’s expected testimony.14 With respect to items of extrinsic evidence, the parties shall identify each such item by production number or produce a copy of any such item if not previously produced. 13 weeks after CMC Deadline to meet and confer to narrow terms in dispute and exchange revised list of terms/constructions. 14 weeks after CMC Defendant files Opening claim construction brief, including any arguments that any claim terms are indefinite. 17 weeks after CMC Plaintiff files Responsive claim construction brief. 19 weeks after CMC Defendant files Reply claim construction brief. 19 weeks after CMC Parties to jointly email the law clerks (see OGP at 1) to confirm their Markman date and to notify if any venue or jurisdictional motions remain unripe for resolution. 21 weeks after CMC Plaintiff files a Sur-Reply claim construction brief. 3 business days after submission of sur-reply Parties submit Joint Claim Construction Statement and email the law clerks an editable copy. See General Issues Note #9 regarding providing copies of the briefing to the Court and the technical advisor (if appointed). 22 weeks after CMC (but at least 10 days before Markman hearing) Parties submit optional technical tutorials to the Court and technical advisor (if appointed). 14 Any party may utilize a rebuttal expert in response to a brief where expert testimony is relied upon by the other party. OGP Version 4.4 14 23 weeks after CMC (or as soon as practicable)15 Markman Hearing at 9:00 a.m. This date is a placeholder and the Court may adjust this date as the Markman hearing approaches. 1 business day after Markman hearing Fact Discovery opens; deadline to serve Initial Disclosures per Rule 26(a). 6 weeks after Markman hearing 8 weeks after Markman hearing Deadline to add parties. Deadline to serve Final Infringement and Invalidity Contentions. After this date, leave of Court is required for any amendment to infringement or invalidity contentions. This deadline does not relieve the parties of their obligation to seasonably amend if new information is identified after initial contentions. 16 weeks after Markman hearing Deadline to amend pleadings. A motion is not required unless the amendment adds patents or patent claims. (Note: This includes amendments in response to a 12(c) motion.) 26 weeks after Markman Deadline for the first of two meet and confers to discuss significantly narrowing the number of claims asserted and prior art references at issue. Unless the parties agree to the narrowing, they are ordered to contact the Court’s law clerk to arrange a teleconference with the Court to resolve the disputed issues. 30 weeks after Markman hearing 31 weeks after Markman hearing 35 weeks after Markman hearing 38 weeks after Markman hearing 39 weeks after Markman hearing Close of Fact Discovery. Opening Expert Reports. Rebuttal Expert Reports. Close of Expert Discovery. Deadline for the second of two meet and confers to discuss narrowing the number of claims asserted and prior art references at issue to triable limits. If it helps the parties determine these limits, the parties are encouraged to contact 15 All deadlines hereafter follow the original Markman hearing date and do not change if the Court delays the Markman hearing. OGP Version 4.4 15 the Court’s law clerk for an estimate of the amount of trial time anticipated per side. The parties shall file a Joint Report within 5 business days regarding the results of the meet and confer. 40 weeks after Markman hearing Dispositive motion deadline and Daubert motion deadline. See General Issues Note #9 regarding providing copies of the briefing to the Court and the technical advisor (if appointed). 42 weeks after Markman hearing 44 weeks after Markman hearing 45 weeks after Markman hearing 46 weeks after Markman hearing 47 weeks after Markman hearing Deadline for parties desiring to consent to trial before the magistrate judge to submit Form AO 85, “Notice, Consent, And Reference Of A Civil Action To A Magistrate Judge,” available at https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/civil- forms/notice-consent-and-reference-civil-action-magistrate- judge. Serve Pretrial Disclosures (jury instructions, exhibits lists, witness lists, deposition designations). Serve objections to pretrial disclosures/rebuttal disclosures. Serve objections to rebuttal disclosures; file motions in limine. File Joint Pretrial Order and Pretrial Submissions (jury instructions, exhibits lists, witness lists, deposition designations); file oppositions to motions in limine From this date onwards, the parties are obligated to notify the Court of any changes to the asserted patents or claims. Such notification shall be filed on the docket within seven (7) days of the change and shall include a complete listing of all asserted patents and claims. If a change to the asserted patents or claims requires leave of court (for example, if a party is moving for leave to assert additional claims), notification shall not be required until the Court grants leave, at which point the notification must be filed within seven (7) days. File Notice of Request for Daily Transcript or Real Time Reporting. If a daily transcript or real time reporting of court proceedings is requested for trial, the party or parties making said request shall file a notice with the Court and email the Court Reporter, Kristie Davis at [email protected] Deadline to file replies to motions in limine. OGP Version 4.4 16 48 weeks after Markman hearing Deadline to meet and confer regarding remaining objections and disputes on motions in limine. 8 weeks before trial 3 business days before Final Pretrial Conference. 49 weeks after Markman hearing (or as soon as practicable) 52 weeks after Markman hearing (or as soon as practicable)16 Parties to jointly email the Court’s law clerk (See OGP at 1) to confirm their pretrial conference and trial dates. File joint notice identifying remaining objections to pretrial disclosures and disputes on motions in limine. Final Pretrial Conference. Held in person unless otherwise requested. Jury Selection/Trial. 16 If the actual trial date materially differs from the Court’s default schedule, the Court will consider reasonable amendments to the case schedule post-Markman that are consistent with the Court’s default deadlines in light of the actual trial date. OGP Version 4.4 17 XIII. APPENDIX B – EXEMPLARY CASE READINESS STATUS REPORT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION [Plaintiff], Plaintiff v. [Defendant], Defendant Case No. 6:21-cv-00000-ADA JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CASE READINESS STATUS REPORT Plaintiff [names] and Defendant [name(s)], hereby provide the following status report. SCHEDULE A scheduling order [has been proposed and awaits entry by the Court, has been issued by the Court, or has not yet been filed]. [Indicate if a Markman date has been set, proposed, or not yet proposed.] [Indicate if a trial date has been set, proposed, or not yet proposed.] FILING AND EXTENSIONS Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed on [filing date]. There have been [one/two] extension[s] for a total of __ days. RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT [Indicate if/when the Defendant(s) responded to the Complaint, whether it was an Answer or Motion, and whether any counterclaims were filed other than counterclaims for non- infringement or invalidity] OGP Version 4.4 18 [Identify all pending motions] PENDING MOTIONS RELATED CASES IN THIS JUDICIAL DISTRICT [Identify all related cases in this Judicial District, including any other cases where a common patent is asserted] IPR, CBM, AND OTHER PGR FILINGS [There are no known IPR, CBM, or other PGR filings.] [Or] [ALT: IPR2021-00000 was filed on ____ and docketed on ____. An institution decision is expected on or before ___. A Final Written decision is expected on or before _____.] NUMBER OF ASSERTED PATENTS AND CLAIMS Plaintiff has asserted [Num Patents] patent[s] and a total of [Num Claims] claims. The asserted patent(s) are U.S. Patent Nos. ____. [If a Plaintiff has already served Preliminary Infringement Contentions (“PICs”), note the date of service. Note: Per the Court’s Order Governing Proceeding, Plaintiff must serve PICs no later than 7 days before the CMC] APPOINTMENT OF TECHNICAL ADVISOR [Indicate if the Parties request, oppose, or defer to the Court on whether to appoint a technical advisor to the case to assist the Court with claim construction or other technical issues] MEET AND CONFER STATUS Plaintiff and Defendant met and conferred. [The Parties have no pre-Markman issues to raise at the CMC.] or [The Parties identified the following pre-Markman issues to raise at the CMC [list].] OGP Version 4.4 19 Dated: ___________ Respectfully Submitted /s/ OGP Version 4.4 20 XIV. APPENDIX C – STANDARD MOTIONS IN LIMINE ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION PLAINTIFF, v. DEFENDANT, Plaintiff Defendant § § § § § § § § § W-2X-CV-XXX-ADA ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE The Court issues this Order sua sponte. To allow for reasonable and relevant limine practice as part of the Pretrial Conference, the Court imposes the following set of standard limine rulings to be applied mutually to both parties. In addition to these limine orders, each party will be permitted to propose and argue (if opposed) up to five (5) of its own motions in limine at the Pretrial Conference. Limine motions outside these limits will not be considered. Limine motions that are multifarious so as to exceed the above limitations will also not be considered. MILs that simply restate the rules of evidence or other legal principles or that are more appropriately motions for summary judgment or Daubert motions are improper. It is therefore ORDERED that the Parties, their witnesses, and counsel shall not raise, discuss, or argue the following before the venire panel or the jury without prior leave of the Court: Court MIL No. 1: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument regarding pretrial proceedings or issues including but not limited to discovery disputes or dispositive motion practice. Court MIL No. 2: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument that raises religious or political beliefs, OGP Version 4.4 21 race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, or health (including but not limited to vaccination status) of a party, witness, attorney, or law firm. Court MIL No. 3: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument concerning any party’s overall financial size, wealth, or executive compensation. Court MIL No. 4: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument regarding prior art that is not disclosed in a specific combination set forth in any party’s expert report or invalidity contentions. Court MIL No. 5: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument before the jury that relates only to equitable defenses or counterclaims (i.e., evidence that does not also serve another evidentiary purpose relevant to jury issues). Court MIL No. 6: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument concerning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, inter partes review, the Smith-Leahy America Invents Act, or any alternative structure that does not relate directly to an Article III trial in a district court. Court MIL No. 7: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument suggesting that there is anything legally improper in filing a patent application or writing patent claims to cover an adverse party’s product. Court MIL No. 8: The parties shall be precluded from introducing any argument, evidence, insinuation, reference, or assertion regarding a witness’ choice to testify in his or her native or chosen language (being any language other than English). testimony, Court MIL No. 9: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument referring to any other person or entity as “greedy,” “corrupt,” “evil,” or “dishonest,” or using any other pejorative term. The parties shall also be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument that characterizes any other person or entity’s actions as “stealing,” “copying,” OGP Version 4.4 22 “misappropriating,” “pirating,” “trespassing,” or any similar terms. Court MIL No. 10: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument bolstering or disparaging the U.S. Patent Office, its examiners, or the process for prosecuting patent applications or granting patents in the United States. This does not preclude factual evidence as to the operations of the USPTO. Court MIL No. 11: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument referring to any other person or entity in disparaging ways, such as a “patent troll,” “pirate,” “bounty hunter,” “bandit,” “playing lottery,” “shell company,” “shakedown artist,” “patent assertion entity,” or any such similar terms. Use of the term “non-practicing entity” is permitted. lawsuit the Court MIL No. 12: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument regarding funding of the litigation or regarding any comment on attorney-fee compensation including amounts or structure. Court MIL No. 13: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument regarding either party’s other litigations or arbitrations, including parallel proceedings in any other court, tribunal, or forum, including ADR proceedings. Court MIL No. 14: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument regarding the size of the parties’ law firms or the number of attorneys representing the parties. Court MIL No. 15: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument regarding the fact that testimony or opinions offered by any expert may have been criticized, excluded, or found to be unreliable in any other forum. Court MIL No. 16: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument referring to the role or presence in the courtroom of jury consultants or shadow jurors, or the use of OGP Version 4.4 23 focus groups or mock proceedings to assist with trial preparation, jury selection, or trial. Court MIL No. 17: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument relating the Court’s Claim Construction Order other than the Court’s actual adopted constructions, including the Court’s reasoning or the parties’ agreements. to Court MIL No. 18: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument for purposes of non-infringement comparing the accused product or method to the preferred embodiments, the specification, or any non-accused product or method. Court MIL No. 19: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument suggesting that a verdict in one party’s favor would impact the cost of goods or services or would have other commercial impacts. Court MIL No. 20: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument suggesting that the Western District of Texas is an improper or inconvenient venue in which to try this case. Court MIL No. 21: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument suggesting that the other party had an affirmative duty to seek opinion of counsel, and/or any inference that may be drawn as to what the contents of such an opinion would have been. Court MIL No. 22: Neither party will ask questions or make statements to invoke a privileged or protected answer, including any materials that are privileged, or that have been presented outside of the jury to establish/prevent a finding of privilege. Court MIL No. 23: No expert witness may testify to expert opinions outside the established parameters of her/his expert report, and counsel shall not raise such an objection for strategic or other non-meritorious purposes. OGP Version 4.4 24

=== U.S. District Judge Alan Albright (AU): Order Regarding Felony Revocation 2025 02 14 us-district-judge-alan-albright-aus ===

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION GENERAL O R D E R Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 and 28 U.S. Code § 636, the undersigned directs that all felony cases involving the revocation or modification of probation or supervised release be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for the purpose of conducting relevant hearings and the preparation of a report and recommendation to the United States District Judge. SIGNED this 13th day of February, 2025. ALAN D ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FILEDDEPUTY CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BY: ________________________________February 13, 2025A D

=== U.S. District Judge Alan Albright (AU): Standing Order on Pretrial Procedures and Requirements in Civil Cases 2025 02 14 ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION STANDING ORDER ON PRETRIAL PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS IN CIVIL CASES IT IS ORDERED the parties in civil cases shall comply with the following pretrial procedures and requirements: A. Joint Pretrial Order 1. The joint pretrial order, including all required attachments, shall be filed on or before the date set forth in the scheduling order. Within one week after the filing of the joint pretrial order, any objections to the proposed exhibits, witnesses, or jury charge shall be filed, as directed in the scheduling order. 2. Counsel shall confer concerning the contents of the joint pretrial order well in advance of the due date. Joint pretrial orders shall be signed by all counsel. In the event the parties cannot agree to a joint submission on any component of the pretrial order set forth in (d), a party shall submit a separate document with their proposal as part of the joint pretrial order. 3. Failure to appear and/or timely file the joint pretrial order will subject counsel and his or her client to sanctions, including dismissal for want of prosecution and/or other appropriate judgment. 4. The Joint Pretrial Order shall contain the following as separate attachments: appearance of counsel, joint statement of the case, contentions of the parties, exhibits/exhibit list, witness/witness list, agreed jury charge (or agreed charge with disputed language notated as directed by this Order), proposed voir dire questions (if applicable), memoranda on disputed issues of law (if applicable), and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (if applicable). B. Required Attachments to the Joint Pretrial Order 1. Exhibit List and Exhibits a. Counsel for each party shall assemble all documents, photographs, or other materials expected to be used at trial. Plaintiff’s exhibits shall be marked using yellow labels as “Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1,” et seq., and Defendant’s exhibits shall be marked using blue labels in a similar manner. Such documents or copies shall be made available to opposing counsel on or before the date the joint pretrial order is due. This rule does not apply to 1 FILEDDEPUTY CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BY: ________________________________February 13, 2025A D rebuttal exhibits or those the use of which cannot be anticipated. The court encourages counsel to agree upon joint exhibits to avoid duplication. b. If joint exhibits are agreed upon, they shall each be identified as such and marked with the case name, case number, and exhibit number as “Joint Exhibit 1,” et seq. If no agreement can be reached, the offering party shall mark his or her own exhibits with the party’s name, case number, and exhibit number on each exhibit to be offered. c. The pages within each exhibit shall be consecutively paginated. d. Counsel requiring authentication of an exhibit shall notify offering counsel in writing within fourteen (14) days after the exhibit is produced or made available for examination. Failure to do so may be deemed by the Court to be an admission of authenticity. e. The Joint Pretrial Order shall be formatted in accordance with the local rules. f. Counsel shall attach the list(s) of all exhibits to be offered to the joint pretrial order. 2. Witness Lists a. Counsel shall attach to the joint pretrial order copies of each party’s witness list, listing the witnesses in the order in which they will be called and stating the estimated time for examination. Within one week after the filing of the joint pretrial order, any objections to the proposed witnesses shall be filed as directed in the scheduling order. Any objections to a witness’s proposed testimony will be ruled upon at the final pretrial conference if not already determined. 3. Digital Submissions a. Counsel shall submit an editable, digital version of exhibit lists, witness lists, and objections in Microsoft Word format and a copy of the exhibits in PDF to the court via email to TXWDml_LawClerks_JudgeAlbright @txwd.uscourts.gov. b. Parties shall read the Jury Evidence Recording System (JERS) Requirements on the Court’s website. 2 4. Demonstrative Evidence a. In the event parties intend to use demonstrative evidence during trial, counsel shall contact the law clerk assigned to the case in order to determine logistics and any logistical and safety concerns associated said exhibit. C. Additional Attachments Required For Jury Trials 1. Agreed Jury Charge a. Two (2) versions of an agreed jury charge, including proposed jury instructions, definitions, and interrogatories, shall be attached to the joint pretrial order and filed. b. One version shall be marked “requested” and shall include citation of authority for each proposed instruction in the charge. c. The other version shall be marked “charge and interrogatories,” and counsel shall omit from it all citations and authorities while adding a line for the jury foreperson’s initials and date. d. The court expects the parties to resolve their differences concerning the jury charge. If the parties cannot agree on a particular instruction or issue, however, such disagreement and alternate requests shall be noted on the joint jury charge. The plaintiff’s version of the disputed charge will be in RED text, while the Defendant’s version will be in BLUE text. A dispute concerning the jury charge, if any, will be resolved at the final pretrial conference or at a charge conference. e. In addition to the versions of the jury charge that shall be attached to the joint pretrial order and filed and the color-coded disputed charge, counsel shall submit an editable, digital version of the jury charge(s) in Microsoft Word to the court via e-mail to TXWDml_LawClerks_JudgeAlbright @txwd.uscourts.gov. f. Within one week after the filing of the joint pretrial order, any objections to the proposed jury charge shall be filed as directed in the scheduling order. 2. Pretrial Conference a. The Court will resolve all pending motions at the Pretrial Conference. 3 3. Proposed Questions for Voir Dire Examination a. A copy of each party’s proposed questions for the judge to use in voir dire examination shall be attached to the joint pretrial order. 4. Memoranda of Law on Disputed Issues of Law a. If the parties dispute any issues of law, each party shall attach to the joint pretrial order a memorandum addressing those issues. 5. Pending Motions a. Two weeks before the Pretrial Conference, the parties shall jointly send a courtesy email to [email protected] providing the clerks with a list of all pending motions by docket number and movant. The parties shall indicate next to each pending motion whether oral argument is requested. 6. Motions in Limine a. A copy of each party’s Motion in Limine shall be attached to the joint pretrial order. Any Motions in Limine will be addressed at the final pretrial conference or immediately before the start of trial. b. Two weeks before the Pretrial Conference, the parties shall jointly email to [email protected] a text-editable chart listing each Motion in Limine with space beside each Motion in Limine for the Judge to write in each ruling. The chart shall first list all of Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine, followed by Defendant’s Motions in Limine. After the Pretrial Conference, the parties shall jointly email their understandings of the rulings to the law clerks. D. Additional Documents Required For Non-Jury Trials 1. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be in a form suitable for ruling from the bench after closing arguments. Counsel shall separate agreed findings and conclusions from those that are in dispute. Conclusions of law shall cite supporting authority. Each party shall submit proposed final findings of fact and conclusions of law via email, in Microsoft Word format, to [email protected], at least three days before the final pretrial conference. 2. After the non-jury trial, counsel shall submit proposed final findings of fact and conclusions of law, with record citations supporting each finding of fact and conclusion of law, as applicable. Each party shall submit proposed final 4 findings of fact and conclusions of law via email, in Microsoft Word format, to [email protected]. E. Copies of Exhibits During Jury Trials 1. The Court (Judge, law clerk, and court reporter) generally do not need personal copies of exhibits. Instead, the parties should only provide the Judge and law clerk copies of an exhibit that forms the basis for a dispute if the Court needs to examine the contents to resolve the dispute. F. Instructions for Remote Testimony 1. Parties may have witnesses remotely testify using Zoom Webinars in Austin District Courtroom #5. The parties shall make advanced arrangements with the Courtroom Deputy to coordinate any remote testimony, including requesting access information from the Courtroom Deputy. 2. General participants of the webinar cannot talk, show their webcam, or screen share evidence unless whitelisted as a panelist. Trial parties that are requesting remote testimony via Zoom must communicate this request and send a list of people’s names and email addresses to the Courtroom Deputy to be whitelisted as a panelist. This list should include anybody that will be giving remote testimony over Zoom and anyone screen sharing evidence in the courtroom. 3. If a remote witness gives any confidential testimony, then a private zoom link shall be used for the entirety of the testimony. The parties will need to inform the Courtroom Deputy which witnesses will give confidential testimony and request a private Zoom meeting for these witnesses. The private Zoom meeting will not be shared with the public. There is no need to whitelist anybody for the private zoom meetings. 4. Parties should review the Courtroom Technology Guidance – U.S. District Court (uscourts.gov) for guidance on equipment to bring. The parties may direct any questions to the Courtroom Deputy, who will forward any questions to the appropriate IT staff. 5. Parties are encouraged to arrange a time to test their equipment and plan for contingencies. G. JERS (Jury Evidence Recording System) 1. The Court uses a software application called JERS (Jury Evidence Recording System). When the attorneys present evidence using the courtroom equipment, the Court uses this application to capture and release the admitted evidence to the jury. The parties shall refer to the JERS Exhibit Batch Import Requirements on the Court’s website and may email the Courtroom Deputy with any questions about the JERS system. 5 2. The Court will use the JERS exhibit system regardless of the number of exhibits per side. The parties shall keep a physical backup copy of admitted exhibits and provided it to the Court only if the Court encounters technical difficulties with the JERS system. 3. All exhibit files must be uploaded to the Box.com links provided by the Courtroom Deputy. The parties may obtain contact information for the Courtroom Deputy by reaching out to the Court’s law clerks. 4. All electronic evidence must be provided using the following formats: a. Documents and Photographs: .pdf, .jpg, .bmp, .tif, .gif b. Video and Audio Recordings: .avi, .wmv, .mpg, .mp3, .mp4, .wma, .wav, .3gpp 5. JERS has the following file size limits: a. Individual file size of documents (pdf) should not exceed 50 MB. b. Individual files size of audio and video should not exceed 500 MB. Exhibits approaching or exceeding this size limit must be separated into multiple files. PDF documents can often be reduced in size by using tools such as Adobe’s “Reduce File Size” feature. Images can be significantly reduced in file size by lowering resolution, or dimensions. Parties should meet and confer if file size reduction techniques will raise issues with evidence admissibility. 6. All exhibit files must be named using the JERS naming conventions: [ExhibitNumber]_[ExhibitDescription].[FileExtension] Example: 1_PhotoOf789patent.PDF H. Admitting Evidence at Trial 1. The Court will not pre-admit evidence before trial. A party seeking to admit evidence shall prove up and offer the evidence for admission during trial. SIGNED this 13th day of February, 2025. ALAN D. ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6

=== U.S. District Judge Alan Albright (AU): Standing Order Regarding Filing Documents Under Seal and Redacted Public Version ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION STANDING ORDER REGARDING FILING DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL AND REDACTED PUBLIC VERSIONS This Order applies to all patent cases pending before the undersigned. As a public forum, the Court has a policy of providing to the public full access to documents filed with the Court. Because parties in patent cases routinely file confidential information, this Order grants leave for any party to file materials containing confidential information under seal. Parties need not file a separate motion for leave. The filing party shall file a publicly available, redacted version of any motion or pleading filed under seal within seven days. The parties need not file redacted versions of exhibits to such documents. Exhibits that are nonconfidential in their entirety should not be filed under seal at all. The parties shall coordinate to make sure that the publicly available version redacts information that any party deems confidential. Redactions should be targeted to redact only that information. The publicly available version shall be labeled “PUBLIC VERSION.” Cooperating to file the publicly available version shall not be deemed as agreeing that the redacted information is confidential. The Court will enter a sealed order to resolve a motion if either party filed its briefing under seal. The movant shall email a redacted version of the Court’s sealed order for publication within seven days after the Court enters the sealed order. The movant shall email the redacted, public version to the Court’s law clerk ([email protected]). SIGNED this 13th day of February, 2025. ALAN D ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FILEDDEPUTY CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BY: ________________________________February 13, 2025A D

=== U.S. District Judge Alan Albright (AU): Standing Order Regarding Joint or Unopposed Request to Change Deadlines 2025 09 ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION STANDING ORDER REGARDING JOINT OR UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO CHANGE DEADLINES In all cases pending before the undersigned, henceforth, the Court automatically grants any request to extend a deadline or to amend a scheduling order, provided that (1) such request is unopposed or agreed to between the parties, (2) such request does not change the date of any hearing, trial, or other Court date, (3) such request does not extend any deadline of a final submission that affects the Court’s ability to hold a scheduled hearing, trial, or Court event, and (4) such request does not extend the deadline to answer or otherwise respond to a complaint more than 45 days from the original answer date. Extensions for final submission deadlines at least one month before a scheduled hearing, trial, or Court event will not affect the Court. The parties are ORDERED to file any such request as a notice or stipulation to the Court, instead of a motion. This Order amends and supersedes the Court’s previous Standing Order Regarding Joint or Unopposed Request to Change Deadlines dated April 21, 2025. SIGNED this 17th day of September, 2025. ALAN D ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

=== U.S. District Judge Alan Albright (AU): Magistrate Referral Order 2025 12 16 us-district-judge-alan-albright-austin aust ===

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION IN RE: COURT DOCKET MANAGEMENT FOR AUSTIN DIVISION § § § § § § § MAGISTRATE REFERRAL ORDER Under Rule 1 of the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges, Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall refer all civil matters assigned to the Honorable Alan D Albright to a United States Magistrate Judge for the Austin Division, allocated pursuant to the Clerk of the Court’s standard procedure, except the following: • Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 and 2255; • Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, except for immigration habeas petitions with a nature of suit code 463; • Cases brought by detainees and prisoners under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 430 U.S. 388 (1971); • Cases brought under 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (patent cases); • Cases designated as “830 Patent” and “835 Patent (ANDA)”; and • Cases that include ex parte applications for temporary restraining orders. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall refer all criminal matters for the Austin Division assigned to the Honorable Alan D Albright to a United States Magistrate Judge for the Austin Division, allocated pursuant to the Clerk of the Court’s standard procedure. The matters are referred for disposition of all non-dispositive pretrial matters as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and for findings and recommendations on all case-dispositive motions as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). SIGNED this 16th day of December, 2025. 2

=== U.S. District Judge Alan Albright (AU): Proposed Scheduling Order (Adobe Acrobat) 2025 02 14 austin division-standing-or ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION Plaintiffs, v. Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § Case No. Jury Trial Demanded SCHEDULING ORDER On , the Court conducted a conference in the above entitled and numbered case. All parties appeared through counsel. As a result of such hearing, and pursuant to Rule 16, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court ORDERS that the following schedule will govern deadlines up to and including the trial of this matter: Date Event Discovery commences on all issues. All motions to amend pleadings or to add parties shall be filed on or before this date. Fact Discovery Deadline. Fact discovery must be completed by this date. Any fact discovery requests must be propounded so that the responses are due by this date. The parties asserting claims for relief shall submit a written offer of settlement to opposing parties on or before this date. All offers of settlement are to be private, not filed, and the Court is not to be advised of the same. The parties are further ORDERED to retain the written offers of settlement and responses as the Court will use these in assessing attorney’s fees and court costs at the conclusion of trial FILEDDEPUTY CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BY: ________________________________February 13, 2025A D Each party shall complete and file the attached “Notice Concerning Reference to United States Magistrate Judge” Parties with burden of proof to designate Expert Witnesses and provide their expert witness reports, to include all information required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Each opposing party shall respond, in writing, to the written offer of settlement made by the parties asserting claims for relief by this date. All offers of settlement are to be private, not filed, and the Court is not to be advised of the same. The parties are further ORDERED to retain the written offers of settlement and responses as the Court will use these in assessing attorney’s fees and court costs at the conclusion of trial Parties shall designate Rebuttal Expert Witnesses on issues for which the parties do not bear the burden of proof, and provide their expert witness reports, to include all information required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Expert Discovery Deadline. Expert discovery must be completed by this date. Any objection to the reliability of an expert’s proposed testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 shall be made by motion, specifically stating the basis for the objection and identifying the objectionable testimony, not later than 14 days of receipt of the written report of the expert’s proposed testimony or not later than 14 days of the expert’s deposition, if a deposition is taken, whichever is later. The failure to strictly comply with this paragraph will be de e me d a waive r of any objection that could have been made pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 All dispositive motions shall be filed and served on all other parties on or before this date and shall be limited to 25 pages. Responses shall be filed and served on all other parties not later than 14 days after the service of the motion and shall be limited to 20 pages. Any replies shall be filed and served on all other parties not later than 7 days after the service of the response and shall be limited to 10 pages, but the Court need not wait for the reply before ruling on the motion. By this date the parties shall meet and confer to determine pre-trial deadlines, including, inter alia, exchange of exhibit lists, designations of and objections to deposition testimony, and exchange of demonstratives. By this date the parties shall exchange a proposed jury charge and questions for the jury. By this date the parties will also exchange draft Motions in Limine to determine which may be agreed. By this date the parties shall exchange any objections to the proposed jury charge, with supporting explanation and citation of controlling law. By this date the parties shall also submit to the Court their Motions in Limine. By this date the parties will submit to the Court their Joint Pre-Trial Order, including the identification of issues to be tried, identification of witnesses, trial schedule provisions, and all other pertinent information. By this date the parties will also submit to the Court their oppositions to Motions in Limine. Final Pre-Trial Conference. The parties shall provide to the Court an agreed jury charge with supported objections of each party, and proposed questions for the jury, at the final Pre-Trial Conference. The Court will attempt to schedule Jury Selection on a day during the week of . Otherwise, Jury Selection shall begin at 9:00 a.m. on ________________________. Jury Trial Commences SIGNED this day of _________________________, 20____. ALAN D. ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE AGREED: By: ____________________________ By: ___________________________ Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Defendants

=== U.S. District Judge Alan Albright (AU): Standing Order Governing Proceedings (OGP) – Patent Cases 2025 03 05 austin divi ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION STANDING ORDER GOVERNING PROCEEDINGS (OGP)—PATENT CASES This OGP governs proceedings in all patent cases pending before the undersigned or referred magistrate judge and takes effect upon entry in all patent cases, except where noted. If there are conflicts between this OGP and prior versions in existing cases that the parties are unable to resolve, the parties are encouraged to contact the Court for guidance via email to the Court’s law clerk. Parties should generally email any inquiries to the Court’s law clerk. The Court’s voicemail is not checked regularly. Email is the preferred contact method. Messages directed only to Judge Albright’s law clerks may be sent to: [email protected]. I. NOTICE OF READINESS In all patent cases pending before the undersigned or referred magistrate judge, the parties are directed to jointly file the Case Readiness Status Report (“CRSR”) in the format attached as Appendix B: (a) within 7 days after the Defendant (or at least one Defendant among a group of related Defendants sued together) has responded to the initial pleadings in cases where there are no CRSR Related Cases, or (b) when there are CRSR Related Cases, within 7 days after the last Defendant (or last Defendant group when at least one Defendant among the group has responded) among the CRSR Related Cases has responded to the initial pleadings. The CRSR shall be filed in each case and identify all other CRSR Related Cases. For this Order, cases shall be considered CRSR Related Cases when they meet both criteria: (1) the cases are filed within 30 days after the first case is filed, and (2) the cases share at least one common asserted patent. The parties shall meet and confer before jointly filing the CRSR. Plaintiff shall have responsibility for filing the CRSR on time. If the parties have any pre-Markman issues needing resolution, the parties shall email the Court a joint submission of the parties’ positions after filing the CRSR so the Court can consider whether to hold a hearing to resolve these issues. If the parties do not have any pre-Markman issues needing resolution, then the parties need not email the CRSR to the Court. The Case Management Conference (“CMC”) shall be deemed to occur 14 days after the filing date of the CRSR. If the CRSRs in CRSR Related Cases are not all submitted on the same date, the CMC shall be deemed to occur 14 days after the last CRSR in those CRSR Related Cases is filed. The Court intends to coordinate the CRSR Related Cases on the same schedule with a single Markman hearing, so the parties should plan accordingly. In all cases, the Markman hearing shall be initially scheduled for 23 weeks after the CMC and should be included in the parties’ proposed Scheduling Order in accordance with this Order. OGP Version 1 Austin 1 FILEDDEPUTY CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BY: ________________________________March 05, 2025Alicia Davis II. GENERAL DEADLINES The following deadlines apply: 1. Patent cases shall be set for a Rule 16 CMC in accordance with the preceding section. 2. Not later than 7 days before the CMC. The plaintiff shall serve preliminary infringement contentions chart setting forth where in the accused product(s) each element of the asserted claim(s) are found. The plaintiff shall also identify the priority date (i.e., the earliest date of invention) for each asserted claim and produce: (1) all documents evidencing conception and reduction to practice for each claimed invention, and (2) a copy of the file history for each patent in suit. 3. Two weeks after the CMC. The parties shall file a motion to enter an agreed Scheduling Order that generally tracks the exemplary schedule attached as Exhibit A to this OGP, which should suit most cases. If the parties cannot agree, the parties shall submit a joint motion for entry of a Scheduling Order briefly setting forth their scheduling disagreement. Absent agreement of the parties, the plaintiff shall be responsible for the timely submission of this and other joint filings. When filing any Scheduling Order, the parties shall also jointly send an editable copy to the Court’s law clerk. 4. Seven weeks after the CMC. The defendant shall serve preliminary invalidity contentions in the form of (1) a chart setting forth where in the prior art references each element of the asserted claim(s) are found, (2) an identification of any limitations the defendant contends are indefinite or lack written description under § 112, and (3) an identification of any claims the defendant contends are directed to ineligible subject matter under § 101. The § 101 contention shall (1) identify the alleged abstract idea, law of nature, and/or natural phenomenon in each challenged claim; (2) identify each claim element alleged to be well- understood, routine, and/or conventional; and (3) to the extent not duplicative of §§ 102/103 prior art contentions, prior art for the contention that claim elements are well- understood, routine, and/or conventional. The defendant shall also produce (1) all prior art referenced in the invalidity contentions, and (2) technical documents, including software where applicable, sufficient to show the operation of the accused product(s).1 III. GENERAL DISCOVERY LIMITS Except with regard to venue, jurisdictional, and claim construction-related discovery, all other discovery shall be stayed until after the Markman hearing. Notwithstanding this general stay of discovery, the Court will permit limited discovery by agreement of the parties, or upon request, where exceptional circumstances warrant it. For example, if discovery outside the United States is contemplated via the Hague, the Court is inclined to allow such discovery to commence before the Markman hearing. Following the Markman hearing, the following discovery limits apply. The Court will consider reasonable requests to adjust these limits should circumstances warrant. 1 To the extent it may promote early resolution, the Court encourages the parties to exchange license and sales information, but any such exchange is optional during the pre-Markman phase of the case. OGP Version 1 Austin 2 1. Interrogatories: 30 per side2 2. Requests for Admission: 45 per side 3. Requests for Production: 75 per side 4. Fact Depositions: 70 hours per side (for both party and non-party witnesses combined) 5. Expert Depositions: 7 hours per report3 Electronically Stored Information. As a preliminary matter, the Court will not require general search and production of email or other electronically stored information (ESI) related to email (such as metadata), absent a showing of good cause. If a party believes targeted email/ESI discovery is necessary, it shall propose a procedure identifying custodians and search terms it believes the opposing party should search. The opposing party can oppose or propose an alternate plan. If the parties cannot agree, they shall contact the Court in accordance with the procedures below, to discuss their respective positions. IV. DISCOVERY DISPUTES Referral to United States Magistrate Judge. The Court may, pursuant to Rule 1 of the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges, Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, refer discovery disputes in patent cases pending before the undersigned to a United States Magistrate Judge for a determination under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Messages directed only to Judge Hightower’s chambers may be sent to: [email protected] Messages directed only to Judge Howell’s chambers may be sent to: [email protected] Messages directed only to Judge Lane’s chambers may be sent to: [email protected] 2 A “side” shall mean the plaintiff (or related plaintiffs suing together) on the one hand, and the defendant (or related defendants sued together) on the other hand. If the Court consolidates related cases for pretrial purposes, with regard to calculating limits imposed by this OGP, a “side” shall be interpreted as if the cases were proceeding individually. For example, in consolidated cases the plaintiff may serve up to 30 interrogatories on each defendant, and each defendant may serve up to 30 interrogatories on the plaintiff. 3 For example, if a single technical expert submits reports on both infringement and invalidity, he or she may be deposed for up to 14 hours in total. OGP Version 1 Austin 3 Procedure. A party may not file a Motion to Compel discovery unless: (1) lead counsel with decision making authority have met and conferred in good faith to try to resolve the dispute, and (2) the party has contacted the Court’s law clerk to summarize the dispute and the parties’ respective positions.4 When contacting the Court’s law clerk for discovery or procedural disputes, the following procedures shall apply. If the parties remain at an impasse after lead counsel have first met and conferred,5 the requesting party shall then email a summary of the issue(s) and specific relief requested to all counsel of record. The summary of the issue shall not exceed 500 words for one issue or a combined 1,000 words for multiple issues. The responding party has 3 business days6 thereafter to provide an email response, also not to exceed 500 words for one issue or a combined 1,000 words for multiple issues. The specific relief requested should propose the exact language to be issued in a court order for each part of every disputed issue. The specific relief requested does not count toward the word limits. The Court encourages the parties to provide their submission in a Word document in the following table format, which clearly identifies the disputed issues and specific relief requested. Example: Issue RFP 1: All sale records of the Product. Requesting Party’s Position Responding Party didn’t produce anything. Responding Party keeps its sales records in a sales database. ROG 5: Identify all employees who worked on the Product. Relief: Order that “Responding Party must produce a copy of the sales database within 7 days.” Responding Party only identified a subset of the employees. Relief: Order that “Responding Party is compelled to fully respond to ROG 5 by identifying the names and locations of the remaining employees who worked on Product by [date].” Responding Party’s Position We found no sales records of the Product in the sales database. Relief: Find that “no documents responsive to RFP 5 exist” and deny Requesting Party’s relief. We identified the relevant employees. The other employees are not relevant, and it is too burdensome to identify every employee. Relief: Order that “Responding Party need not identify any other employees in response to ROG 5.” 4 The procedure outlined below is also the Court’s preferred mechanism for handling disputes regarding procedural matters such as extensions of time, excess pages, narrowing claims and prior art, amending invalidity and infringement contentions, etc. If the parties are unsure about whether a particular dispute should be handled by motion or discovery dispute procedure, they should contact the Court's clerks. 5 A “meet and confer” requires a personal conference, by telephone or video conference technology, between lead counsel with decision making authority wherein the participants attempt to resolve their differing views before contacting the Court. Correspondence, such as e-mail, is insufficient. 6 Business days exclude weekends and federal holidays. OGP Version 1 Austin 4 Once the opposing party provides its response, the requesting party shall immediately email the summaries of the issues to the Court’s law clerks for both Judge Albright and the referred Magistrate Judge, if any, with opposing counsel copied. If a hearing is requested, the parties shall indicate in the email whether any confidential information will be presented. Thereafter, the Court will provide guidance to the parties regarding the dispute or arrange a Zoom or in-person hearing. Written Order. Within 7 days of the discovery hearing, the parties shall email a joint proposed order to the Court’s law clerk that includes the parties’ positions from their dispute chart, the parties’ requested relief, and the parties’ understanding of the Court’s ruling so that the arguments and outcome can be docketed. Parties shall send an editable version of the proposed order to the Court’s law clerk with any disputed language in red and blue text. Failure to provide a proposed written order for the docket results in waiver of the dispute for appeal. V. VENUE & JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY The Court hereby establishes the following presumptive limits on discovery related to venue and jurisdiction: each party is limited to 5 interrogatories, 10 Requests for Production, and 10 hours of deposition testimony. The time to respond to such discovery requests is reduced to 20 days. If a party believes these limits should be expanded, the party shall meet and confer with opposing counsel and, if an impasse is reached, the requesting party is directed to contact the Court’s law clerk for a telephonic hearing. Venue or jurisdictional discovery automatically opens upon the filing of an initial venue or jurisdictional motion and shall be completed no later than 10 weeks after the filing of such motion. The responding party shall file a notice of venue or jurisdictional discovery if the discovery will delay a response to a transfer or jurisdictional motion. VI. MOTIONS FOR TRANSFER A motion to transfer anywhere shall be filed within 3 weeks after the CMC or within 8 weeks of receiving or waiving service of the complaint, whichever is later. Thereafter, a movant must show good cause for any delay and seek leave of court. The deadline for plaintiff’s response is 2 weeks after the completion of venue or jurisdictional discovery. The deadline for Defendant’s reply is 2 weeks after the filing of the response. The following page limits and briefing schedule apply to motions to transfer: 1. Opening – 15 pages 2. Response – 15 pages, due 14 days after the completion of venue or jurisdictional discovery, if such discovery is conducted; otherwise, 14 days after the Opening brief 3. Reply – 5 pages, due 14 days after the Response brief All parties who have filed a motion to transfer shall provide the Court with a status report indicating whether the motion has been fully briefed at each of the following times: 1) when the motion to transfer becomes ready for resolution,; 2) at 4 weeks before the Markman hearing date OGP Version 1 Austin 5 if the motion to transfer remains unripe for resolution; and 3) if there are multiple Markman hearings, the status report is due 6 weeks before the first scheduled Markman hearing. In addition, if by 1 week before the Markman hearing the Court has not ruled on any pending motion to transfer, the moving party is directed to email the Court’s law clerk (and the technical advisor, when appointed), and indicate that the motion to transfer is pending. If a motion to transfer remains pending, the Court will either promptly resolve the pending motion before the Markman hearing, or postpone the Markman hearing. Whenever a Markman hearing is postponed pursuant to this OGP (e.g., because the transfer motion has not yet ripened or only recently ripened), Fact Discovery will begin one day after the originally scheduled Markman hearing date. VII. MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENTS FOR EARLY MOTIONS TO DISMISS INDIRECT AND WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT Any party seeking to dismiss claims of indirect or willful infringement before fact discovery must first meet and confer with the opposing party to discuss dismissing those allegations without prejudice, with leave to re-plead those allegations with specificity if supported by a good faith basis under Rule 11. Under this agreement, the patent owner may re-plead those allegations within three months after fact discovery opens, and the parties agree to permit fact discovery on indirect and willful infringement during those three months. The party moving to dismiss must attach a certification of compliance with this OGP to its motion to dismiss. An agreement to dismiss under this section shall be filed as a joint notice instead of as a motion. VIII. INTERIM PROTECTIVE ORDER The Court provides a Model Protective Order on its website. Pending entry of the final Protective Order, the Court issues the following interim Protective Order to govern the disclosure of confidential information: If any document or information produced in this matter is deemed confidential by the producing party and if the Court has not entered a protective order, until a protective order is issued by the Court, the document shall be marked “confidential” or with some other confidential designation (such as “Confidential – Outside Attorneys’ Eyes Only”) by the disclosing party and disclosure of the confidential document or information shall be limited to each party’s outside attorney(s) of record and the employees of such outside attorney(s). If a party is not represented by an outside attorney, disclosure of the confidential document or information shall be limited to one designated “in house” attorney, whose identity and job functions shall be disclosed to the producing party 5 days prior to any such disclosure, in order to permit any motion for protective order or other relief regarding such disclosure. The person(s) to whom disclosure of a confidential document or information is made under this OGP shall keep it confidential and use it only for purposes of litigating the case. OGP Version 1 Austin 6 IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Limits for Number of Claim Terms to be Construed Terms for Construction. Based on the Court’s experience, the Court believes that it should have presumed limits on the number of claim terms to be construed. The “presumed limit” is the maximum number of terms that each side may request the Court to construe without further leave of Court. If the Court grants leave for additional terms to be construed, depending on the complexity and number of terms, the Court may split the Markman hearing into multiple hearings. The presumed limits based on the number of patents-in-suit are as follows: 1-2 Patents 8 terms 3-5 Patents 10 terms More than 5 Patents 12 terms When the parties submit their joint claim construction statement, in addition to the term and the parties’ proposed constructions, the parties should indicate which party or side proposed that term, or if that was a joint proposal. Briefing Procedure and Page Limits The Court will require non-simultaneous Markman briefing with the following default page limits. When exceptional circumstances warrant, the Court will consider reasonable requests to adjust these limits. These page limits shall also apply collectively for coordinated and consolidated cases; however, the Court will consider reasonable requests to adjust page limits in consolidated cases where circumstances warrant. The Court has familiarity with the law of claim construction and encourages the parties to forego lengthy recitations of legal authorities and to instead focus on the substantive issues unique to each case. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, the default order of terms in the parties’ briefs shall be based on 1) the patent number (lowest to highest), the claim number (lowest to highest), and order of appearance within the lowest number patent and claim. An example order may be as follows: 1. 10,000,000 Patent, Claim 1, Term 1 2. 10,000,000 Patent, Claim 1, Term 2 (where Term 2 appears later in the claim than does Term 1) 3. 10,000,000 Patent, Claim 2, Term 3 (where Term 3 appears later in the claim than does Terms 2 and 3) 4. 10,000,001 Patent, Claim 1, Term 4 5. 10,000,001 Patent, Claim 3, Term 5 6. 10,000,002 Patent, Claim 2, Term 6 If the same or similar terms appear in multiple claims, those same or similar terms should be ordered according to the lowest patent number, lowest claim number, and order of appearance within the patent and claim. OGP Version 1 Austin 7 Brief 1-2 Patents 3-5 Patents Opening (Defendant) 20 pages 30 pages Response (Plaintiff) 20 pages 30 pages Reply (Defendant) 10 pages 15 pages Sur-Reply (Plaintiff) 10 pages 15 pages More than 5 Patents 30 pages, plus 5 additional pages for each patent over 5 up to a maximum of 45 pages 30 pages, plus 5 additional pages for each patent over 5 up to a maximum of 45 pages 15 pages, plus 2 additional pages for each patent over 5 up to a maximum of 21 pages 15 pages, plus 2 additional pages for each patent over 5 up to a maximum of 21 pages After briefing concludes, the parties shall file a Joint Claim Construction Statement and email an editable copy to the Court’s law clerks. Technology Tutorials and Conduct of the Markman Hearing Technology tutorials are optional, especially in cases where a technical advisor has been appointed. If the parties submit one, the tutorial should be in electronic form, with voiceovers, and submitted at least 10 days before the Markman hearing. In general, tutorials should be: (1) directed to the underlying technology (rather than argument related to infringement or validity), and (2) limited to 15 minutes per side. The tutorial will not be part of the record and the parties may not rely on or cite the tutorial in other aspects of the litigation. The Court generally sets aside one hour for the Markman hearing; however, the Court is open to reserving more or less time, depending on the complexity of the case and input from the parties. As a general rule, the party opposing the Court’s preliminary construction shall go first. If both parties oppose the Court’s preliminary construction, the plaintiff shall typically go first. The Court will provide preliminary constructions to the parties ahead of the Markman hearing. At the Markman hearing, the Court encourages oral arguments that fine-tune the preliminary constructions over arguments repeated from the briefs. OGP Version 1 Austin 8 X. GENERAL ISSUES 1. The Court will entertain reasonable requests to streamline the case schedule and discovery. The Parties should contact the Court’s law clerk when a change might help streamline the case. 2. The Court is generally willing to extend the response to the Complaint up to 45 days if agreed by the parties. Extensions beyond 45 days from the original answer date are disfavored and require a motion. 3. Speaking objections during depositions are improper. Objections during depositions shall be stated concisely and in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner. Other than to evaluate privilege issues, counsel should not confer with a witness while a question is pending. Counsel may confer with witnesses during breaks in a deposition without waiving any otherwise applicable privilege. 4. Within 10 days of any new changes relevant to AO 120 (Report on the Filing or Determination of an Action Regarding a Patent or Trademark), the Plaintiff must update the form with any new changes to the case such as amended complaints or new claims. 5. Plaintiff must file a notice informing the Court when an IPR is filed, the expected time for an institution decision, and the expected time for a final written decision, within 2 weeks of the filing of the IPR. 6. After the trial date is set, the Court will not move the trial date except in extreme situations. If a party believes that the circumstances warrant continuing the trial date, the parties are directed to contact the Court’s law clerk. 7. Appendix C, Order on Motions in Limine (MILs), shall apply equally to all parties. In addition to the standard MILs, each party will be permitted to propose and argue (if opposed) up to five (5) of its own MILs at the Pretrial Conference. MILs outside these limits will not be considered. MILs that are multifarious so as to exceed the above limitations will also not be considered. MILs that simply restate the rules of evidence or other legal principles or that are more appropriately motions for summary judgment or Daubert motions are improper. 8. The Court does not limit the number of motions for summary judgment (MSJs) or Daubert motions7 a party may file. However, absent leave of Court, the cumulative page limit for opening briefs for all MSJs is 40 pages per side,8 for all Daubert motions is 40 pages per side, and for all MILs is 15 pages per side. Each responsive MSJ, Daubert, and MIL brief is limited to the pages utilized in the opening brief or by the local rules, whichever is greater; and the cumulative pages for responsive briefs shall be no more than cumulative 7 This includes any motion filed after opening expert reports that seeks to strike or preclude the use of any part of an expert report for any reason, including procedural reasons. 8 MSJs based on 35 U.S.C. § 101 do not count against the page limits for summary judgment motions. OGP Version 1 Austin 9 pages utilized in the opening briefs. Reply brief page limits shall be governed by the local rules, but in no event shall the cumulative pages of reply briefs exceed 20 pages per side for all MSJs, 20 pages per side for all Daubert motions, and 10 pages for all MILs. 9. The Court no longer requires physical copies of Markman briefs, summary judgment motions, and Daubert motions. If a technical advisor has been appointed, the parties shall jointly contact the Court’s law clerks, at least ten days before the hearing, for a Box link to provide an electronic copy of the briefs, exhibits, and the optional technology tutorial. Otherwise, the parties shall jointly contact the Court’s law clerks for a Box link only if the parties wish to submit the optional technology tutorial. Absent agreement to the contrary, the plaintiff shall be responsible for providing the electronic copies via Box. For Markman briefs, the parties should also include a copy of all patents-in-suit and an editable copy of the Joint Claim Construction Statement. 10. When filing the Joint Claim Construction Statement, proposed Protective Order, or proposed Scheduling Order, the parties shall also email the Court’s law clerk a Word version of the filed documents. 11. For all non-dispositive motions, the parties shall submit a proposed Order. The proposed Order shall omit the word “Proposed” from the title. 12. For non-private remote hearings in front of Judge Albright, the public is allowed to attend via the call-in information below. However, the public shall not attempt to access video of those hearings, and anyone found not to be in compliance is subject to sanctions by the Court. +16692545252,,1613131172#,,,,*120804# US (San Jose) +16468287666,,1613131172#,,,,*120804# US (New York 13. Any party who intends to present confidential information in a remote hearing shall email and notify the Court’s law clerk to request a private Zoom setup that will not be publicly broadcasted. 14. When citing cases or exhibits in a motion, parties shall pin cite the relied-upon section of a case or exhibit. For any motion referencing an expert report (e.g., motions to strike, Daubert motions, and summary judgment motions), the Court requires full copies of the expert report attached as an exhibit. The Court strongly encourages parties to highlight and/or annotate the relied-upon sections of exhibits or expert reports (e.g., patents, transcripts, contracts) to facilitate the Court’s analysis of the motion. A supporting declaration should identify if any exhibit is highlighted or annotated. 15. Parties shall promptly notify the Court if they reach a settlement in a case and request to stay any deadlines. 16. When filing a patent case, the Plaintiff shall file a “Notice of Related Cases” on the day of filing the patent case. For the Notice of Related Cases, cases shall be considered “related” OGP Version 1 Austin 10 when they share at least one common asserted patent.9 The Notice of Related Cases shall indicate the case caption, case number, and presiding Judge of any related case. 17. A pleading, motion, or other submission shall be typed or printed in 12-point or larger font (including footnotes), double-spaced, on paper sized 8½” x 11” with one-inch margins on all sides and shall be endorsed with the style of the case and the descriptive name of the document. Headings, footnotes, and quotations more than two lines long may be single- spaced. 18. With respect to calculating page limits for motions not otherwise addressed in this Order, such that Local Rule CV-7 applies, at least the following are examples of motions the Court considers to be “case management motions” where the 10-page limit shall apply: Motions to Stay, Motions for Continuance, and Motions to Amend Pleadings, Contentions, or Scheduling Orders. XI. TRIAL & POST-TRIAL ISSUES 1. Preliminary and Final Jury Instructions with disputed language must include citations to prior jury instructions given by this Court. Parties shall send an editable version of the proposed instructions to the Court’s law clerk with the disputed language in red and blue text. Instructions should exactly track the language of prior instructions to the extent possible. Language from the Court’s most recent Jury Instructions is preferred. 2. Parties shall file a joint proposed final judgement within 14 days of a jury verdict. If one party disputes the language of the order, then that party shall send an editable version of the proposed order to the Court’s law clerk with the disputed language in red and blue text. The Court discourages the parties from providing extensive substantive argument in the editable version of the proposed judgment. 3. On the same day that post-trial briefing is completed, the parties shall email the Court’s law clerks with a list of the pending motions and request a hearing, if desired. 4. Prior to entering an order regarding post-trial bonds, parties are directed to reach out to the District Clerks Office to obtain specific information needed to complete the order. The Office can be reached at [email protected] or 512- 916-5896. SIGNED this 5th day of March, 2025. 9 The CRSR and Notice of Related Cases use different definitions. OGP Version 1 Austin 11 XII. APPENDIX A – EXEMPLARY SCHEDULE Deadline Item 8 weeks after receiving or waiving service of complaint, or 3 weeks after the CMC, whichever is later. 7 days before CMC 2 weeks after CMC 7 weeks after CMC 9 weeks after CMC Deadline to file a motion for transfer. After this deadline, movants must seek leave of Court and show good cause for the delay. Plaintiff serves preliminary10 infringement contentions in the form of a chart setting forth where in the accused product(s) each element of the asserted claim(s) are found. Plaintiff shall also identify the earliest priority date (i.e., the earliest date of invention) for each asserted claim and produce: (1) all documents evidencing conception and reduction to practice for each claimed invention, and (2) a copy of the file history for each patent in suit. The Parties shall file a motion to enter an agreed Scheduling Order. If the parties cannot agree, the parties shall submit a separate Joint Motion for entry of Scheduling Order briefly setting forth their respective positions on items where they cannot agree. Absent agreement of the parties, the Plaintiff shall be responsible for the timely submission of this and other Joint filings. Defendant serves preliminary invalidity contentions in the form of (1) a chart setting forth where in the prior art references each element of the asserted claim(s) are found, (2) an identification of any limitations the Defendant contends are indefinite or lack written description under section 112, and (3) an identification of any claims the Defendant contends are directed to ineligible subject matter under section 101. Defendant shall also produce (1) all prior art referenced in the invalidity contentions, and (2) technical documents, including software where applicable, sufficient to show the operation of the accused product(s). Parties exchange claim terms for construction. 11 weeks after CMC Parties exchange proposed claim constructions. 10 The parties may amend preliminary infringement contentions and preliminary invalidity contentions without leave of court so long as counsel certifies that it undertook reasonable efforts to prepare its preliminary contentions and that the amendment is based on material identified after those preliminary contentions were served and should do so seasonably upon identifying any such material. Any amendment to add patent claims requires leave of court so that the Court can address any scheduling issues. OGP Version 1 Austin 12 Deadline 12 weeks after CMC 13 weeks after CMC 14 weeks after CMC Item Parties disclose extrinsic evidence. The parties shall disclose any extrinsic evidence, including the identity of any expert witness they may rely upon with respect to claim construction or indefiniteness. With respect to any expert identified, the parties shall identify the scope of the topics for the witness’s expected testimony.11 With respect to items of extrinsic evidence, the parties shall identify each such item by production number or produce a copy of any such item if not previously produced. Deadline to meet and confer to narrow terms in dispute and exchange revised list of terms/constructions. Defendant files Opening claim construction brief, including any arguments that any claim terms are indefinite. 17 weeks after CMC Plaintiff files Responsive claim construction brief. 19 weeks after CMC Defendant files Reply claim construction brief. 21 weeks after CMC Parties to jointly email the law clerks to confirm their Markman date and to notify if any venue or jurisdictional motions remain unripe for resolution. Plaintiff files Sur-Reply claim construction brief. 3 business days after submission of sur-reply Parties submit Joint Claim Construction Statement and email the law clerks an editable copy. 22 weeks after CMC (but at least 10 days before Markman hearing) 23 weeks after CMC (or as soon as practicable)12 See General Issues Note #9 regarding providing copies of the briefing to the technical advisor (if appointed). Parties submit optional technical tutorials to the Court and technical adviser (if appointed). Markman Hearing at 9:00 a.m. This date is a placeholder and the Court may adjust this date as the Markman hearing approaches. 1 business day after Markman hearing Fact Discovery opens; deadline to serve Initial Disclosures per Rule 26(a). 6 weeks after Markman hearing Deadline to add parties. 11 Any party may utilize a rebuttal expert in response to a brief where expert testimony is relied upon by the other party. 12 All deadlines hereafter follow the original Markman hearing date and do not change if the Court delays the Markman hearing. OGP Version 1 Austin 13 Deadline Item 8 weeks after Markman hearing 16 weeks after Markman hearing 26 weeks after Markman hearing 30 weeks after Markman hearing 31 weeks after Markman hearing 35 weeks after Markman hearing 38 weeks after Markman hearing 39 weeks after Markman hearing 40 weeks after Markman hearing 42 weeks after Markman hearing 44 weeks after Markman hearing Deadline to serve Final Infringement and Invalidity Contentions. After this date, leave of Court is required for any amendment to Infringement or Invalidity contentions. This deadline does not relieve the Parties of their obligation to seasonably amend if new information is identified after initial contentions. Deadline to amend pleadings. A motion is not required unless the amendment adds patents or patent claims. (Note: This includes amendments in response to a 12(c) motion.). Deadline for the first of two meet and confers to discuss significantly narrowing the number of claims asserted and prior art references at issue. Unless the parties agree to the narrowing, they are ordered to contact the Court to arrange a teleconference with the Court to resolve the disputed issues. Close of Fact Discovery Opening Expert Reports. Rebuttal Expert Reports. Close of Expert Discovery. Deadline for the second of two meet and confers to discuss narrowing the number of claims asserted and prior art references at issue to triable limits. If it helps the parties determine these limits, the parties are encouraged to contact the Court for an estimate of the amount of trial time anticipated per side. The parties shall file a Joint Report within 5 business days regarding the results of the meet and confer. Dispositive motion deadline and Daubert motion deadline. See OGP Note #9 regarding providing copies to the Court and technical advisor (if appointed). Deadline for parties desiring to consent to trial before the magistrate judge to submit Form AO 85, “Notice, Consent, And Reference Of A Civil Action To A Magistrate Judge,” available at https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/civil-forms/notice-consent- and-reference-civil-action-magistrate-judge. Serve Pretrial Disclosures (jury instructions, exhibits lists, witness lists, deposition designations). Serve objections to pretrial disclosures/rebuttal disclosures. OGP Version 1 Austin 14 Deadline Item 45 weeks after Markman hearing 46 weeks after Markman hearing 47 weeks after Markman hearing Serve objections to rebuttal disclosures; file motions in limine. File Joint Pretrial Order and Pretrial Submissions (jury instructions, exhibits lists, witness lists, discovery and deposition designations); file oppositions to motions in limine. From this date onwards, the parties are obligated to notify the Court of any changes to the asserted patents or claims. Such notification shall be filed on the docket within seven (7) days of the change and shall include a complete listing of all asserted patents and claims. If a change to the asserted patents or claims requires leave of court (for example, if a party is moving for leave to assert additional claims), notification shall not be required until the Court grants leave, at which point the notification must be filed within seven (7) days. File Notice of Request for Daily Transcript or Real Time Reporting. If a daily transcript or real time reporting of court proceedings is requested for trial, the party or parties making said request shall file a notice with the Court and email the Court Reporter, Kristie Davis at [email protected] Deadline to file replies to motions in limine. 48 weeks after Markman hearing Deadline to meet and confer regarding remaining objections and disputes on motions in limine. 8 weeks before trial Parties to jointly email the Court’s law clerk to confirm their pretrial conference and trial dates. 3 business days before Final Pretrial Conference File joint notice identifying remaining objections to pretrial disclosures and disputes on motions in limine. 49 weeks after Markman hearing (or as soon as practicable) 52 weeks after Markman hearing (or as soon as practicable)13 Final Pretrial Conference. Held in person unless otherwise requested. Jury Selection/Trial. 13 If the actual trial date materially differs from the Court’s default schedule, the Court will consider reasonable amendments to the case schedule post-Markman that are consistent with the Court’s default deadlines in light of the actual trial date. OGP Version 1 Austin 15 XIII. APPENDIX B – EXEMPLARY CASE READINESS STATUS REPORT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION [PLAINTIFF], Plaintiff, v. [DEFENDANT], Defendant. Case No. 1:25-cv-00000-ADA JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CASE READINESS STATUS REPORT Plaintiff [names] and Defendant [name(s)], hereby provide the following status report. SCHEDULE A scheduling order [has been proposed and awaits entry by the Court, has been issued by the Court, or has not yet been filed]. [Indicate if a Markman date has been set, proposed, or not yet proposed.] [Indicate if a trial date has been set, proposed, or not yet proposed.] FILING AND EXTENSIONS Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed on [filing date]. There have been [one/two] extension[s] for a total of __ days. RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT [Indicate if/when the Defendant(s) responded to the Complaint, whether it was an Answer or Motion, and whether any counterclaims were filed other than counterclaims for non- infringement or invalidity] OGP Version 1 Austin 16 PENDING MOTIONS [Identify all pending motions] RELATED CASES IN THIS JUDICIAL DISTRICT [Identify all related cases in this Judicial District, including any other cases where a common patent is asserted] IPR, CBM, AND OTHER PGR FILINGS [There are no known IPR, CBM, or other PGR filings.] [Or] [ALT: IPR2021-00000 was filed on ____ and docketed on ____. An institution decision is expected on or before ___. A Final Written decision is expected on or before _____.] NUMBER OF ASSERTED PATENTS AND CLAIMS Plaintiff has asserted [Num Patents] patent[s] and a total of [Num Claims] claims. The asserted patent(s) are U.S. Patent Nos. ____. [If a Plaintiff has already served Preliminary Infringement Contentions (“PICs”), note the date of service. Note: Per the Court’s Order Governing Proceeding, Plaintiff must serve PICs no later than 7 days before the CMC] APPOINTMENT OF TECHNICAL ADVISOR [Indicate if the Parties request, oppose, or defer to the Court on whether to appoint a technical advisor to the case to assist the Court with claim construction or other technical issues] MEET AND CONFER STATUS Plaintiff and Defendant met and conferred. [The Parties have no pre-Markman issues to raise at the CMC.] or [The Parties identified the following pre-Markman issues to raise at the CMC [list].] OGP Version 1 Austin 17 Dated: _______________ Respectfully Submitted /s/ OGP Version 1 Austin 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION PLAINTIFF, v. DEFENDANT, Plaintiff, Defendant. § § § § § § § § § § Case No. W-2X-CV-XXXXX-ADA ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE The Court issues this Order sua sponte. To allow for reasonable and relevant limine practice as part of the Pretrial Conference, the Court imposes the following set of standard limine rulings to be applied mutually to both parties. In addition to these limine orders, each party will be permitted to propose and argue (if opposed) up to five (5) of its own motions in limine at the Pretrial Conference. Limine motions outside these limits will not be considered. Limine motions that are multifarious so as to exceed the above limitations will also not be considered. MILs that simply restate the rules of evidence or other legal principles or that are more appropriately motions for summary judgment or Daubert motions are improper. It is therefore ORDERED that the Parties, their witnesses, and counsel shall not raise, discuss, or argue the following before the venire panel or the jury without prior leave of the Court: Court MIL No. 1: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument regarding pretrial proceedings or issues including but not limited to discovery disputes or dispositive motion practice. Court MIL No. 2: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument that raises religious or political beliefs, race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, or health (including but OGP Version 1 Austin 19 not limited to vaccination status) of a party, witness, attorney, or law firm. Court MIL No. 3: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument concerning any party’s overall financial size, wealth, or executive compensation. Court MIL No. 4: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument regarding prior art that is not disclosed in a specific combination set forth in any party’s expert report or invalidity contentions. Court MIL No. 5: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument before the jury that relates only to equitable defenses or counterclaims (i.e., evidence that does not also serve another evidentiary purpose relevant to jury issues). Court MIL No. 6: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument concerning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, inter partes review, the Smith-Leahy America Invents Act, or any alternative structure that does not relate directly to an Article III trial in a district court. Court MIL No. 7: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument suggesting that there is anything legally improper in filing a patent application or writing patent claims to cover an adverse party’s product. Court MIL No. 8: The parties shall be precluded from introducing any argument, evidence, testimony, insinuation, reference, or assertion regarding a witness’ choice to testify in his or her native or chosen language (being any language other than English). Court MIL No. 9: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument referring to any other person or entity as “greedy,” “corrupt,” “evil,” or “dishonest,” or using any other pejorative term. The parties shall also be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument that characterizes any other person or entity’s actions as “stealing,” “copying,” “misappropriating,” “pirating,” “trespassing,” or any similar terms. Court MIL No. 10: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument bolstering or disparaging the U.S. Patent Office, its examiners, or the process for prosecuting patent applications or granting patents in the United States. This does not preclude factual evidence as to the operations of the USPTO. OGP Version 1 Austin 20 Court MIL No. 11: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument referring to any other person or entity in disparaging ways, such as a “patent troll,” “pirate,” “bounty hunter,” “bandit,” “playing the lawsuit lottery,” “shell company,” “shakedown artist,” “patent assertion entity,” or any such similar terms. Use of the term “non-practicing entity” is permitted. Court MIL No. 12: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument regarding funding of the litigation or regarding any comment on attorney-fee compensation including amounts or structure. Court MIL No. 13: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument regarding either party’s other litigations or arbitrations, including parallel proceedings in any other court, tribunal, or forum, including ADR proceedings. Court MIL No. 14: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument regarding the size of the parties’ law firms or the number of attorneys representing the parties. Court MIL No. 15: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument regarding the fact that testimony or opinions offered by any expert may have been criticized, excluded, or found to be unreliable in any other forum. Court MIL No. 16: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument referring to the role or presence in the courtroom of jury consultants or shadow jurors, or the use of focus groups or mock proceedings to assist with trial preparation, jury selection, or trial. Court MIL No. 17: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument relating to the Court’s Claim Construction Order other than the Court’s actual adopted constructions, including the Court’s reasoning or the parties’ agreements. Court MIL No. 18: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument for purposes of non-infringement comparing the accused product or method to the preferred embodiments, the specification, or any non-accused product or method. Court MIL No. 19: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument suggesting that a verdict in one party’s favor would OGP Version 1 Austin 21 impact the cost of goods or services or would have other commercial impacts. Court MIL No. 20: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument suggesting that the Western District of Texas is an improper or inconvenient venue in which to try this case. Court MIL No. 21: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument suggesting that the other party had an affirmative duty to seek opinion of counsel, and/or any inference that may be drawn as to what the contents of such an opinion would have been. Court MIL No. 22: Neither party will ask questions or make statements to invoke a privileged or protected answer, including any materials that are privileged, or that have been presented outside of the jury to establish/prevent a finding of privilege. Court MIL No. 23: No expert witness may testify to expert opinions outside the established parameters of her/his expert report, and counsel shall not raise such an objection for strategic or other non-meritorious purposes. OGP Version 1 Austin 22