Standing Order Regarding Consolidated Cases; Standing Order Regarding Readiness for Scheduling Conference; Exemption Order Regarding Courtesy Paper Copies of Electronically-Filed Documents; Standing Order Regarding Proper Notification of Settlement to the Court; Standing Order Regarding Bill of Cost

=== Standing Order Regarding Consolidated Cases ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION STANDING ORDER REGARDING PRETRIAL PROCEDURES IN CONSOLIDATED CASES The Court ORDERS that in any case consolidated by the Court with one or more other cases, for pre-trial matters, the Parties shall file an exhibit to their Joint Pretrial Order setting forth a list identifying all docket entries from the lead case that relate to the specific member case which is proceeding to trial. All future submissions of proposed docket control orders in such consolidated cases, either initial or amended, shall include the following amended language (in bold, italicized font below) in the section thereof entitled “Joint Pretrial Order”: Joint Pretrial Order: In the contentions of the Parties included in the Joint Pretrial Order, the Plaintiff shall specify all allegedly infringed claims that will be asserted at trial. The Plaintiff shall also specify the nature of each theory of infringement, including under which subsections of 35 U.S.C. § 271 it alleges infringement, and whether the Plaintiff alleges divided infringement or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Each Defendant shall indicate the nature of each theory of invalidity, including invalidity for anticipation, obviousness, subject-matter eligibility, written description, enablement, or any other basis for invalidity. The Defendant shall also specify each prior art reference or combination of references upon which the Defendant shall rely at trial, with respect to each theory of invalidity. The contentions of the Parties may not be amended, supplemented, or dropped without leave of the Court based upon a showing of good cause. The Parties in a case which has been consolidated for pre-trial purposes and which is moving towards a separate trial on the merits (subsequent to pre-trial) shall file, as an exhibit to the parties’ Joint Pretrial Order, a list identifying all docket entries from the lead case that relate to the applicable member case. .____________________________________RODNEY GILSTRAPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESo ORDERED and SIGNED this 21st day of September, 2022.

=== Standing Order Regarding Readiness for Scheduling Conference ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION STANDING ORDER REGARDING READINESS FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE The Court ORDERS the Plaintiff in each civil case file a notice that the case is ready for scheduling conference when all of the Defendants have either answered or filed a motion to transfer or dismiss. The notice shall be filed within five days of the last remaining Defendant’s answer or motion. The notice shall include a list of any pending motions. For patent cases, the notice shall also include: (1) a list of any related cases previously filed in the Eastern District of Texas involving the same patent or patents; (2) the patent numbers for this case and any related case; and (3) the dates of any future Markman Hearing and/or Trial for related cases. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 20th day of December, 2011. ____________________________________ RODNEY GILSTRAP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

=== Exemption Order Regarding Courtesy Paper Copies of Electronically-Filed Documents ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION EXEMPTION ORDER TO LOCAL RULE CV-5(a)(9) RE COURTESY PAPER COPIES OF ELECTRONICALLY-FILED DOCUMENTS In cases pending before the Honorable Rodney Gilstrap, the parties are exempt from complying with Local Rule CV-5(a)(9) which requires the filing party to provide the presiding judge with paper copies of all electronically-filed documents over five pages in length. IT IS ORDERED that courtesy paper copies shall only be filed when specifically requested by the undersigned. . ____________________________________RODNEY GILSTRAPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.So ORDERED and SIGNED this 6th day of December, 2013.

=== Standing Order Regarding Proper Notification of Settlement to the Court ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS STANDING ORDER REGARDING PROPER NOTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT TO THE COURT WHEREAS, consistency and uniformity in both the form and substance of the method of notification used by parties to advise the Court when a matter has been settled and resolved is of material benefit to the Court and promotes the Court’s ability to monitor and manage its docket; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT promptly upon the settlement in principle of any case pending before this Court, whether such settlement is reached by formal mediation, privately between the parties or otherwise, the parties shall jointly file a motion with the Court styled as follows: Joint Motion To Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement. Such joint motion shall affirmatively state that all matters in controversy between the parties have been settled, in principle, and shall request that the Court stay for some specific and reasonable period of time the unreached deadlines contained in the Court’s Docket Control Order, or stay the entry of a Docket Control Order if one has yet to be entered, so that appropriate dismissal papers may be submitted. In most cases the Court will not afford more than thirty (30) days in which to submit dismissal papers but in exceptional cases the Court may grant a longer period for such submission. A motion indicating that the parties are communicating about settlement but one which stops short of an express indication that the matters in controversy have, in fact, settled will not ordinarily support or prompt from the Court an order staying the existing deadlines. Other filings (such as and for example only--a mere notice of settlement) shall not be adequate to comply with this order or to secure a stay of existing deadlines. Such noncompliant filings shall not support later requests to reset missed deadlines or otherwise amend the docket control order. . ____________________________________RODNEY GILSTRAPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.So ORDERED and SIGNED this 3rd day of June, 2014.

=== Standing Order Regarding Bill of Costs ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION STANDING ORDER REGARDING BILLS OF COSTS IT IS ORDERED that before any party files a Motion for Bill of Costs, they should submit their proposed bill of costs to opposing counsel for their review in light of the applicable law. Further, if there are any areas of disagreement the parties shall meet, confer, and be prepared to compromise, making every effort to submit an “agreed” bill of costs to the Court. The Court is confident that, through meeting, conferring, and compromising on these specific matters, the parties should be able to resolve these matters without having to impose upon the Court’s limited resources. However, if the parties have legitimate disputes on which they cannot agree, they shall file a motion—in accordance with Local Rule CV-54—indicating their areas of disagreement with specificity. In such case, the Court may elect to conduct a hearing on same at which time LEAD TRIAL COUNSEL will be ORDERED to appear and explain why these disputes and differences remain unresolved. APPLICABLE LAW Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), costs are to be awarded to the prevailing party as a matter of course, unless the Court directs otherwise. However, the provision of 28 U.S.C. §1920 limit the Court’s discretion in taxing costs against the unsuccessful litigant. See Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441-42 (1987). Although the prevailing party is entitled to its costs, the prevailing party must still demonstrate that its costs are recoverable under Fifth Circuit precedent, and the prevailing party should not burden the Court with costs that are clearly not recoverable under the law. The statute permits the following recoverable costs: (1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case; (3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses; (4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title; (6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title. 28 U.S.C. § 1920. A district court is permitted to decline to award costs listed in the statute, but may not award costs omitted from the statute. Crawford, 482 U.S. at 441-42. Fees of the clerk and marshal Private process server fees are not recoverable fees of the clerk and marshal under § 1920. Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael F., 118 F.3d 245, 257 (5th Cir. 1997)(“As there was nothing exceptional about the parties or the nature of this case, the district court should have denied these unnecessary private service costs.”). Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts Section 1920 was amended in 2008 to authorize recovery for “[f]ees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case.” The trial court has great discretion to tax the costs of taking, transcribing, and reproducing depositions that are “necessarily obtained for use in the case.” Fogleman v. ARAMCO, 920 F.2d 278, 285 (5th Cir. 1991); Nissho-Iwai Co. v. Occidental Crude Sales, 729 F.2d 1530, 1553 (5th Cir. 1984). Whether a deposition or copy was necessarily obtained for use in the case is a factual 2 determination to be made by the district court. Fogleman, 920 F.2d at 285-86 (citations omitted). The district court is accorded great latitude in this determination. Id. at 286. Costs should not be disallowed merely because the deposition was not ultimately used at trial or in connection with a dispositive motion. The costs of a deposition are allowed “if the taking of the deposition is shown to have been reasonably necessary in light of the facts known to counsel at the time it was taken.” Copper Liquor, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 684 F.2d 1087, 1099 (5th Cir. 1982), modified en banc, 701 F.2d 542 (5th Cir. 1983), overruled on other grounds by Int’l Woodworkers of Am. v. Champion Int’l Corp., 790 F.2d 1174 (5th Cir. 1986); see also Stearns Airport Equip. Co., v. FMC Corp., 170 F.3d 518, 536 (5th Cir. 1999). The 2008 amendment to this provision recognizes that costs may be taxed for “electronically recorded transcripts.” Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit has now implicitly recognized that costs may be allowed for video tapes of depositions. See S&D Trading Academy, LLC v. AAFIS, Inc., 336 Fed. Appx. 443, 450-52 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished); see also SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112493, at *9-10 (E.D. Tex. September 29, 2011) (taxing videotape deposition costs in light of the 2008 amendment and S&D Trading Academy). Recoverable costs related to depositions typically include, but are not limited to: reporter’s appearance fees, transcript costs, and videographer fees. However, incidental costs associated with depositions, such as the cost of expedited delivery charges, ASCII disks, and parking, are generally not recoverable See Harris Corp. v. Sanyo No. Am. Corp., 2002 WL 356755, at *3 (N.D. Tex. March 4, 2002); Canion v. United States, No. EP-03-CA-0347-FM, 2005 WL 2216881 at *3 (W.D. Tex. 2005). 3 Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies Costs of photocopies necessarily obtained for use in the litigation are recoverable upon proof of necessity. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4); Holmes v. Cessna Aircraft Co. 11 F.3d 63, 64 (5th Cir. 1994). The party seeking costs need not “identify every xerox copy made for use in the course of legal proceedings.” Fogleman, 920 F.2d at 286. However, it must demonstrate some connection between the costs incurred and the litigation. Id. The Court first determines whether the charges sought are reasonable in light of the litigation. Reasonable charges shall be allowed; however, non-specific copying and exemplification charges may be further reduced.1 Charges for multiple copies of documents, attorney correspondence, and other such items are not recoverable. Id. Electronic discovery costs are generally not allowed, including costs for document collection, document processing, and document hosting. Document scanning costs are allowed to the extent that they are reasonable and necessary for litigation. Electronic document conversion costs are allowed to the extent that they are necessary for use in the case. The Court’s model ESI Order designates TIFF as the default format for document production. Parties that agree to such an arrangement shall have agreed that the costs of converting native documents to TIFF are taxable under Rule 54. However, in the event that the parties agree that native document production is acceptable (i.e., no conversion is necessary), the costs associated with converting native documents to TIFF (or any other format) shall not be recoverable. See Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., No. 6:09-cv-446 (E.D. Tex. July 20, 2012). Miscellaneous fees 1 For instance, a charge labeled “copying” is non-specific, while a charge labeled “copying Project X source code” is considered specific. 4 Miscellaneous expenses such as postage, facsimiles, electronic legal research, and travel expenses are not recoverable under § 1920. See Home Depot U.S.A. v. Fed. Ins. Co., No. 4:02- CV-95, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5492, at *5 (E.D. Tex. 2003) (Davis, J.); see also Compton v. Taylor, No. H-05-4116, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43402 at *8 (S.D. Tex. 2006). Likewise, reimbursement for attorney travel and meals is not allowed. Coats v. Penrod Drilling Corp., 5 F.3d 877, 892 (5th Cir. 1993). In addition, the Fifth Circuit has expressly held that mediation fees are not recoverable. Mota v. Univ. of Tex. Houston Health Science Ctr., 261 F.3d 512, 530 (5th Cir. 2001). This standing order shall be effective as of the date of signature by the Court and until such time, if any, as it is amended or rescinded by subsequent order. 5 . ____________________________________RODNEY GILSTRAPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.So ORDERED and SIGNED this 2nd day of September, 2014.

=== Standing Order Regarding the Use of Live Testimony During Claim Construction Proceedings ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS STANDING ORDER REGARDING THE USE OF LIVE TESTIMONY DURING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDINGS IN CASES ASSIGNED TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP WHEREAS, with regard to future claim construction hearings before this Court, it is assumed that the majority of such hearings shall be focused solely on the intrinsic record and will not require the Court to make subsidiary factual findings related to such constructions; however, the Court recognizes that in some cases the Court may be called upon to go beyond the intrinsic record only and such efforts may, on occasion, require the Court to act as a fact finder regarding certain subsidiary facts. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT without prior leave of this Court permitting a party to call witnesses as a part of any claim construction hearing (in person or by deposition), such live testimony will not be permitted at claim construction hearings before this Court. Without such leave, witness testimony for the purposes of claim construction shall be submitted solely by way of exhibits, such as sworn declarations, attached to a party’s claim construction briefing. Leave to call live witnesses at claim construction hearings before this Court may be sought—by a party that has otherwise complied with the Court’s rules—by filing a motion supported by a clear showing of good cause presented in detail. Such motions must also be filed in a timely manner that do not work a surprise or hardship upon opposing parties, their counsel, or the Court. This Standing Order supplements but does not supersede the Rules of Practice for Patent Cases before the Eastern District of Texas and is not intended to alter the standard procedures for claim construction discovery. - 2 - . ____________________________________RODNEY GILSTRAPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th day of May, 2015.

=== Standing Order Requiring Notice of Relevant Determinations from Related Proceedings ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS STANDING ORDER REQUIRING NOTICE OF RELEVANT DETERMINATIONS FROM RELATED PROCEEDINGS IN CASES ASSIGNED TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP WHEREAS, a current and complete record is necessary to ensure the accuracy of this Court’s rulings; and WHEREAS, Counsel appearing before this Court, as officers of this Court, have an affirmative duty of Candor with the Court and opposing parties; NOW, THEREFORE, the Court recognizes that in certain cases, a party in a case presently before this Court may be a party to other proceedings elsewhere that are factually related to motions before this Court in the present case. Additionally, the Court recognizes that these other proceedings may result in determinations that are directly relevant to a motion before this Court. Consequently, IT IS ORDERED THAT, once a party in a case presently before this Court becomes aware of a determination elsewhere from a related proceeding by an adjudicating body that the party reasonably believes is materially relevant to a pending motion before this Court, that party shall promptly provide notice of such relevant determination and identification of the related motion(s) by filing a formal notice with the Court within three (3) days. By way of example only, and not limitation, should a party to a pending motion for stay before this Court that is based on a petition for Inter Partes Review, Covered Business Method Review, or Post Grant Review learn of a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) granting or denying the petition upon which the request for stay has been made, that party should notify this Court within three (3) days of learning of the same. This Standing Order supplements but does not supersede the Rules of Practice for Cases before the Eastern District of Texas. - 2 - . ____________________________________RODNEY GILSTRAPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.So ORDERED and SIGNED this 28th day of May, 2015.

=== Standing Order Regarding Motions Under 35USC101 and Accompanying Certifications ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS STANDING ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 AND ACCOMPANYING CERTIFICATIONS IN CASES ASSIGNED TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP WHEREAS, this Court recognizes that claim construction may be appropriate in properly deciding issues under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in certain cases and such may not be appropriate in other cases; and WHEREAS, the Court, in seeking to efficiently manage its docket, believes such efficiency is enhanced by early input as to the propriety or lack thereof regarding claim construction prior to consideration of such motions; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT parties seeking to file pre-Markman hearing dispositive motions under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (that is: prior to entry of the Court’s claim construction order) shall include, as a part of such motions, the following certification, completed and signed as follows and as may be appropriate in such case: CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S 35 U.S.C. § 101 MOTION PRACTICE ORDER _____ The parties agree that prior claim construction is not needed to inform the Court’s analysis as to patentability. _____ The parties disagree on whether prior claim construction is not needed to inform the Court’s analysis as to patentability. /S/ Lead Counsel for Movant The meet and confer process required in advance of properly making the above certification to the Court shall require one-on-one communication. As used herein, the term “one-on-one” communication shall mean that lead counsel for both sides shall diligently communicate orally and directly with each other (in person or telephonically) with no others advising, interjecting, or otherwise participating in such communication. The requirement that lead counsel meet and confer “one-on-one” is intended to avoid an ineffective meet-and-confer process and to heighten the level of seriousness and attention devoted to this process. To the extent such certification reflects disagreement, the parties shall submit a joint letter containing not more than two (2) pages from each side (four pages total) to the Court within ten (10) days from the filing of the § 101 motion, setting forth their respective specifics surrounding such disagreement, including, in particular, any claim terms that the respondent believes need to be construed, why such is needed, and what intrinsic references support such position. Nothing included in such joint letter shall bind the parties as to the § 101 motion, future claim construction, or any other proceeding before the Court. The Court shall exercise its inherent power to manage its docket by considering the parties’ positions in this regard as it schedules and takes up such § 101 motions. Nothing herein shall necessitate advance leave of court to file such § 101 motions; but rather, compliance with this certification process is required as set forth above. The clerk shall reject the filing of such pre-Markman motions when this certification process has not been met. These requirements do not apply to § 101 motions filed after the entry of a claim construction order. This Standing Order supplements but does not supersede the Rules of Practice for Cases before the Eastern District of Texas; however, this order does replace that portion of current docket control orders which previously required leave of court to file a § 101 motion in advance of claim construction. - 2 - - 3 - . ____________________________________RODNEY GILSTRAPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.So ORDERED and SIGNED this 10th day of November, 2015.

=== Standing Order Regarding Dismissal Papers in Connection with Settlement ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS STANDING ORDER REGARDING DISMISSAL PAPERS IN CONNECTION WITH SETTLEMENT IN CASES ASSIGNED TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP WHEREAS, uniformity in both the form and substance of the ways and means employed by parties to notify the Court of an agreed upon dismissal is of material benefit to the Court and enhances the Court’s ability to better monitor and manage its docket; and NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT, once parties in a case have resolved their disputes and the parties have filed a Motion to Stay and Notice of Settlement as provided for in the standing orders of this Court and thereafter, the parties are at the stage of filing the appropriate dismissal papers, the parties shall file such dismissal papers styled as one of the following: 1) a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), with an accompanying proposed Order; or 2) a Stipulation of Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), signed by all parties who have appeared; or 3) a Notice of Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)¸ in which the plaintiff affirmatively represents that the defendant has not served upon the plaintiff either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Such parties shall not, under any circumstances, file their attempt at dismissal styled merely as a “Notice.” Should the parties elect, within the applicable circumstances, to seek dismissal in any manner other than (1) above [a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2)], they shall simultaneously deliver a courtesy copy of their filing to the Chambers of this Court. Attempts at dismissal by means of a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) shall not require that a courtesy copy be delivered to Chambers. This Standing Order supplements but does not supersede the Rules of Practice for Cases before the Eastern District of Texas. - 2 - So Ordered thisFeb 19, 2016

=== Standing Order Regarding Mock Juries for Cases ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS STANDING ORDER REGARDING MOCK JURIES FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP AND JUDGE ROY S. PAYNE WHEREAS: The venire for the trial of civil and criminal cases is drawn from the counties comprising the particular division for the Eastern District of Texas in which the cases are pending; and WHEREAS: The parties to such cases, primarily complex civil cases, routinely conduct mock trials, focus groups, or similar studies in preparation for the trials of such cases; and WHEREAS: Participation in such studies increases the risk that otherwise qualified venire members will be disqualified from jury service either through participation in such studies or other extrajudicial knowledge concerning the facts of the case or the law to be applied; and WHEREAS: Such risk threatens the administration of justice. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: That in all cases assigned to United States District Judge Rodney Gilstrap or United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne, the Court strongly discourages the parties from conducting mock jury trials, focus groups, or other similar studies in which any mock jurors or similar participants reside in the division where the case is pending. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That is cases in which such a study has been conducted, the following procedures shall apply: The party or parties who commission the study shall retain, to the extent practicable, the name and address of each participant in the study. If the case is not disposed of by settlement or otherwise, the party or parties who commissioned the study shall advise all other parties to the case, as well as the court, in writing, that such a study occurred. Such notice shall be provided at least ten (10) days before the pre-trial conference. Upon receipt of any jury list, the party or parties who commissioned the study shall immediately cross-reference the jury list with the identities of the participants and advise all other parties to the case and the court of any prospective juror who participated in any study. Before jury selection, the party or parties who commissioned the study shall provide the names and addresses of all participants in the study to the court in camera. This Order shall apply to all cases assigned to either United States District Judge Rodney Gilstrap or United State Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne regardless of the division within this district in which such cases were originally filed. . ____________________________________RODNEY GILSTRAPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.So ORDERED and SIGNED this 3rd day of February, 2012.

=== Standing Order Regarding Meet and Confer Obligations Relating to Discovery Disputes ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS REGARDING CASES ASSIGNED TO U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP AND U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III STANDING ORDER REGARDING “MEET AND CONFER” OBLIGATIONS RELATING TO DISCOVERY DISPUTES1 WHEREAS, consistency and uniformity in both the form and substance of the methods and procedures used by counsel to meet and confer during discovery disputes is a meritorious goal; WHEREAS, reasonable planning and steps by counsel to efficiently and effectively meet and confer as to discovery disputes in advance of the time for seeking direct intervention by the Court to maximize the best use of the Court's limited resources is an additional meritorious goal; and WHEREAS, such conduct, and this order for the implementation of the same, fall squarely within the Court's inherent power to manage its docket and oversee the fair presentation of evidence at all stages of the litigation process; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. An opposed discovery related motion, or any response thereto, shall not exceed 7 pages. Attachments to a discovery related motion, or a response thereto, shall not exceed 5 pages. No further briefing is allowed absent a request or order from the Court. 2. Prior to filing any discovery related motion, the parties must fully comply with the substantive and procedural conference requirements of Local Rule CV-7(h) and (i). Within 72 hours of the Court setting any discovery motion for a hearing, each party's lead attorney (see Local Rule CV-11(a and local counsel shall meet and confer in person or by telephone, without the involvement or participation of other attorneys, in an effort to resolve the dispute without Court intervention. 3. Counsel shall promptly notify the Court of the results of that meeting by filing a joint report of no more than 2 pages. Such joint report shall be filed by the earlier of 48 hours following that meeting or 24 hours before said hearing. Unless excused by the Court, each party's lead attorney shall attend any discovery motion hearing set by the Court (though the lead attorney is not required to argue the motion). 4. Any change to a party's lead attorney designation must be accomplished by motion and order. The terms of this Standing Order shall immediately apply to and amend all active civil cases currently pending before the undersigned or that may otherwise be assigned to the undersigned hereafter. ____________________________________________ Robert W. Schroeder III 1 Commentary Background In-person lead and local counsel conference requirements for discovery disputes have been employed periodically in the Eastern District by judges in the Marshall, Texarkana, and Tyler divisions for over a decade. The in-person requirements were premised on the goal of resolving avoidable discovery disputes by insuring that the most experienced and objective members of the litigation teams personally discussed potential solutions, and the relative significance of any discovery related dispute, before taxing the resources of the court with motion practice. The in- person requirements have been imposed in addition to the conference requirements contained in the local rules. Experience with the in-person conference requirement has shown that while it sometimes works as intended, it has equally produced unintended consequences. First, in cases involving geographically diverse counsel, the in-person requirements inject significant costs and delay bringing necessary discovery disputes to the court. These costs and delays include attorney time and travel expenses often borne by the client and significant time delays occasioned by the need to coordinate the schedules of multiple attorneys to be present at a designated conference location. Second, because of the costs and time involved to hold an in-person conference, some parties improperly use the conference .____________________________________RODNEY GILSTRAPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESo ORDERED and SIGNED this 11th day of March, 2020. requirement as a shield to avoid confronting legitimate discovery deficiencies raised by an opponent. Third, because the in-person requirement mandates the physical presence of lead counsel, some parties improperly manipulate lead attorney designations. These manipulations include failing to formally identify a lead attorney as required by Local Rule CV-11(a), identifying an attorney who in reality is not the party's lead attorney as lead attorney, identifying multiple or "co-lead" attorneys in violation of Local Rule CV-11(a)'s requirement that “a” lead attorney be identified, or changing the lead attorney designation solely for in-person conference scheduling purposes. Fourth, because the in-person requirement also calls for the physical presence of local counsel, some parties discharge or delay retaining local counsel in support of arguments that any in-person conference should occur at a more favorable location. Additionally, local counsel are often forced into costly and unnecessary travel to accommodate distant conference locations. Finally, because of the difficulty scheduling in-person conferences, some parties attempt to inject disputes never previously raised when an in-person conference occurs, or deviate from traditional understandings of what is or is not a discovery dispute to either avoid or trigger the in-person conference requirement. Alternatives to the In-Person Conference Requirement for Discovery Disputes Alternatives to the in-person conference requirement exist and have proven effective in practice. These alternatives serve the same goal as the in-person conference requirement - resolving avoidable discovery disputes - and do so without many of the unintended consequences discussed above. These alternatives include: 1) requiring multiple conferences without a requirement that the conferences occur in-person; 2) requiring a summary written submission of discovery disputes to the court before and/or in lieu of full briefing (see Judge Illston's Nov. 10, 2015 Standing Order, N.D. Cal.); 3) requiring telephonic discovery dispute hearings based on succinct written reports after the conference process yields an impasse (see Judge Pender's Standing Order Section 5.4, International Trade Commission); or 4) requiring a second conference and report from lead counsel within 72 hours of any discovery motion being set for hearing (see Judge Love and Mitchell's Patent Discovery Order Forms, E.D. Tex.). The court believes the above order will avoid the unintended consequences that have developed around the in- person requirement by replacing that requirement with a process that experience suggests may be more effective at resolving avoidable discovery disputes and reducing their burden on the court when necessary. First, the order still requires a personal conference between lead and local counsel before the filing of any discovery related motion, drawing on the enhanced discovery dispute conference requirements currently contained in Local Rules CV-7(h) and (i). If unresolved by the conference process, the order implements summary written submission of the discovery dispute to the court by limiting any motion or response to no more than 7 pages of briefing and 5 pages of attachments (all of which must comply with the spacing and type requirements of the Local Rules). Based on the summary motion and response, the court may resolve the dispute, request additional or more fulsome briefing, set a telephonic hearing, or set an in-person hearing. Should the court choose to set the motion for hearing, within 72 hours each party's lead attorney and local counsel must confer again, without the involvement or participation of other attorneys, in an effort to resolve the dispute without court intervention and then file a joint report. This second conference is limited to only lead and local counsel to encourage a frank exchange by those hopefully best equipped to judge the both the merits and practical necessity of the dispute. This limitation on participants avoids the sort of one-upmanship sometimes exhibited by junior attorneys seeking to impress their superiors at the expense of efficient dispute resolution. This process also ensures that the court may reliably assign ultimate responsibility to the lead attorney for the outcome of the conference efforts. Finally, the lead attorneys must then attend the hearing, should it occur. The order addresses the manipulations of lead attorney designations by expressly incorporating Local Rule CV-11(a)'s requirement that "a", singular, lead attorney must be designated upon a party's first appearance, and then adding the additional requirement that changes to the lead attorney designation must be accomplished by motion and order. This process should make questionable lead attorney designations apparent to the court, without burdening the ability to make legitimate changes to the designation when necessary.

=== Standing Order Regarding Research as to Potential Jurors ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS STANDING ORDER REGARDING RESEARCH AS TO POTENTIAL JURORS IN ALL CASES ASSIGNED TO U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP In preparation for voir dire, the Court will direct the Clerk’s office to provide a list of potential jurors to counsel that will form the venire in each case. Guided by the rules of this Court, guidance from the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, and applicable rules governing counsel’s ethical obligations, it is ORDERED that the following shall apply regarding the parties’ investigation of potential jurors in any case assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap: 1. All attorneys, parties, and their respective employees and agents, including jury consultants, are prohibited from communicating with or causing another to communicate with in any way, directly or indirectly (including through any non-lawyers or lawyers, connected to the case or not), any juror or potential juror or family members of such individuals, except in the course of official proceedings in this case. See Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct R. 3.06(b), reprinted in Tex. Gov’t Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. G, app. A (West 2013) (Tex. State Bar R. art. 10, § 9). 2. All attorneys, parties, and their respective employees and agents, including jury consultants, are prohibited from conducting or causing another to conduct a “vexatious or harassing” investigation of any juror or potential juror. See Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct R. 3.06(a)(1). 3. All attorneys, parties, and their respective employees and agents, including jury consultants, are prohibited from personally or through another sending an access request to the electronic social media (“ESM”) platform of any juror or potential juror, including for example a Facebook friend request or an Instagram request to “Follow” that juror. Other forms of ESM include, but are not limited to LinkedIn and Twitter. See ABA Standing Comm. on Ethics and Prof’l Responsibility, Formal Op. 466 (2014). However, for purposes of clarity, the Court informs all attorneys, parties, and their respective employees and agents, including jury consultants, that they are not prohibited from conducting or causing another to conduct any type of online investigation merely because a juror or potential juror may become aware that his or her ESM is being reviewed. For example, lawyers are not prohibited from reviewing the LinkedIn accounts of jurors or potential jurors even if network settings would alert that juror or potential juror to the fact that a lawyer from the case has reviewed his or her LinkedIn account. As the ABA Standing Comm. on Ethics and Prof’l Responsibility, Formal Op. 466 (2014) has made clear in this situation: This Committee concludes that a lawyer who uses a shared ESM platform to passively view juror ESM under these circumstances does not communicate with the juror. The lawyer is not communicating with the juror; the ESM service is communicating with the juror based on a technical feature of the ESM. This is akin to a neighbor’s recognizing a lawyer’s car driving down the juror’s street and telling the juror that the lawyer had been seen driving down the street. Formal Op. 466 at Page 5. 4. The Court recognizes the critical role that informed jury selection plays in any jury trial. The Court recognizes the duty imposed on diligent parties to secure as much useful information as possible about venire members, acting within the ethical and legal parameters of our profession. In today’s evolving digital world additional guidance from the Court is given to better inform counsel as to such parameters in an effort to more accurately delineate the line between prospective jurors’ private and public information. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that counsel in every case shall ensure that the following are made aware of this Order and its prohibitions not later than 30 days prior to jury selection: 2 A. Other attorneys in their respective firms or who may be assisting them or consulting with them on a case; B. Their employees and agents, including jury consultants; C. Their clients in the case, and for corporate or other business institutions, the general counsel and the corporate representatives or entity representatives involved in the case. A violation of this Order may result in sanctions by the Court and/or such other action as the Court deems just and proper. 3 . ____________________________________RODNEY GILSTRAPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.So ORDERED and SIGNED this 25th day of January, 2017.

=== Standing Order Regarding Participation of Local Counsel in Mediation Efforts ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS REGARDING CASES ASSIGNED TO CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP STANDING ORDER REGARDING PARTICIPATION OF LOCAL COUNSEL IN MEDIATION EFFORTS WHEREAS, Alternative Dispute Resolution in general and mediation in particular are recognized by the Court as beneficial and efficient in civil litigation of all types; and WHEREAS, it is this Court’s longstanding policy and practice to require active mediation in all civil cases at such times as scheduled by the court and prior to trial; and WHEREAS, mediation is materially more likely to be successful if (in cases in which local counsel have appeared) such efforts actively and substantially involve local counsel; and WHEREAS, the Court views the active and material participation of local counsel in all phases of trial practice in civil cases as beneficial and efficient, and commends such to all parties appearing before it, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT: In all civil cases in which local counsel appear of record prior to mediation being undertaken, local counsel shall be physically present at and materially involved in the mediation process at all times and stages. Any court appointed mediator who learns that local counsel have not so been used, shall report the same to the Court, and such conduct shall be presumed by this Court to evidence a failure to mediate in good faith as required by this District’s Court Annexed Mediation Plan (see: http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/?q=court-annexed-mediation-plan) and may subject any offending party and counsel to sanctions as the Court deems just and proper. The terms of this Standing Order shall immediately apply to all active civil cases currently pending before the undersigned or that may be assigned to the undersigned hereafter. . ____________________________________RODNEY GILSTRAPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of April, 2018.

=== Standing Order Regarding Subject Matter Eligibility Contentions ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS STANDING ORDER REGARDING SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY CONTENTIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASES ASSIGNED TO CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP (a) No later than 45 days after receiving service of the “Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions,” each party alleging that any asserted claim does not qualify as patent- eligible subject matter (“Challenged Claim”) shall serve on all parties its “Eligibility Contentions,” which must contain the following information: (1) A chart identifying each exception to eligibility (e.g., abstract idea, law of nature, and natural phenomenon) to which each Challenged Claim is directed and the factual and legal basis therefor. The chart shall also identify whether one or more of the Challenged Claims are representative of any other Challenged Claims. (2) A chart identifying the following: (A) A description of the industry, at the relevant time, in which the Challenged Claims are alleged to be well understood, routine, and conventional, and the factual and legal basis therefor; (B) A description of how each element of each Challenged Claim, both individually and in combination with the other elements of that claim, was: (i) well understood; (ii) routine; and (iii) conventional, in the relevant industry at the relevant time, and the legal and factual basis therefor. (3) A chart identifying any other factual or legal basis for how the Challenged Claims are otherwise ineligible for patent protection. (b) With the “Eligibility Contentions,” the party alleging that any Challenged Claim does not qualify as patent-eligible subject matter must produce or make available for inspection and copying all materials upon which that party seeks to rely. Each patent shall be identified by its number, country of origin, and date of issue. Each publication must be identified by its title and where feasible, date of publication, author, and publisher. Evidence of public usage or sales shall be identified by specifying the item offered for sale or publicly used, or information known, the date the offer or use took place or the information became known, and the identity of the person or entity which made the use or which made and received the offer, or the person or entity which made the information known and to whom it was made known. All other materials that are alleged to show that the invention set forth in the Challenged Claims was otherwise available to the public, shall be identified by specifying the form and nature of the materials, the manner in which the materials were made public, and the date on which the materials were made public. To the extent any of the aforementioned materials are not in English, an English translation of the portion(s) relied upon must be produced. (c) Each party’s “Eligibility Contentions,” shall be deemed to be that party’s final contentions, except as set forth below. Not later than 50 days after service by the Court of its Claim Construction Ruling, each party may serve “Amended Eligibility Contentions” without leave of court, if: (1) a party claiming patent infringement has served “Amended Infringement Contentions” pursuant to P.R. 3-6(a), or (2) the party challenging subject-matter eligibility believes in good faith that the Court’s Claim Construction Ruling so requires. (d) Amendment or supplementation of any “Eligibility Contentions,” other than as expressly permitted in section (c) of this Order, shall be made only upon leave of the Court, which shall not be granted except upon a showing of good cause. (e) Unless otherwise expressly ordered in cases now pending, this Standing Order shall apply to all patent infringement cases filed before the Court on or after this date. 2 .____________________________________RODNEY GILSTRAPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESo ORDERED and SIGNED this 25th day of July, 2019.

=== Standing Order Regarding Use of Juror Questionnaires in Advance of Voir Dire ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS REGARDING CIVIL CASES ASSIGNED TO CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP STANDING ORDER REGARDING USE OF JUROR QUESTIONNAIRES IN ADVANCE OF VOIR DIRE WHEREAS, the use of written questionnaires by venire panel members in advance of voir dire is a positive and useful tool in pursuing the goal of securing uniformly fair and impartial jurors to serve in jury trials, and WHEREAS, the Court has a direct interest in seeing that such questionnaires elicit useful and appropriate information through reasonable ways and means employed by parties in selecting juries, while avoiding irrelevant, offensive or overly invasive inquiries, and WHEREAS, a uniform approach to generating and implementing juror questionnaires will further such interests in a manner that maximizes judicial resources; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1) Juror questionnaires shall substantially follow the template set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. 2) Such template allows for four categories of inquiry: General Questions; Patent Questions; Case Specific Questions; and Last Question and Signature. 3) Each questionnaire shall, unless otherwise approved by the Court, contain all the General Questions shown in the attached template in the form and wording presented therein. 4) Each questionnaire to be used in any civil case that includes allegations of patent infringement shall, unless otherwise approved by the Court, contain all the Patent Questions shown in the attached template in the form and wording presented therein. The Patent Questions shall follow the General Questions. 5) Each questionnaire may include Case Specific Questions tailored to the particular case at hand. The Case Specific Questions shown in the attached template shall serve as a general guide and example of the type of case specific questions that may be included in any questionnaire. 6) Each questionnaire shall, unless otherwise approved by the Court, contain the Last Question and Signature as shown in the attached template in the form and wording presented therein. Such shall be the last included component of any questionnaire. 7) Parties desiring to avail themselves of the benefits of using a juror questionnaire shall contact the Deputy Clerk in Charge for the Division where the case is pending in advance of the venire panel being summoned and in time to allow the Deputy Clerk in Charge for such Division to print and include such questionnaires in the mailing of summons for jury service. Failure to fully accommodate the deadlines and directives of the Deputy Clerk in Charge shall forfeit any party’s opportunity to employ a juror questionnaire. 8) Proposed juror questionnaires shall be delivered to the Deputy Clerk in Charge at the time and date as provided in the then-operative Docket Control Order in each case. Should any Docket Control Order not otherwise specify a date by which a questionnaire is to be submitted, then such questionnaire shall be delivered to the Deputy Clerk in Charge at least four weeks prior to jury selection. 9) The Court shall be free, without consulting with the parties or counsel, to edit, alter, change, or delete any or all of such proposed juror questionnaire when the Court deems all or any portion thereof to be irrelevant, improper, or overly invasive. The Court may order any questionnaire to be rewritten and resubmitted in any way, and the Court may prevent the use of any questionnaire at all when the Court believes the ends of justice so require. The Court may, at its sole discretion, combine questionnaires for any cases set concurrently for a given trial setting in the interest of efficiency. 10) Upon receipt of completed questionnaires from the venire members, the Deputy Clerk in Charge shall make copies of such completed questionnaires available to counsel for the parties not later than 2:00 pm central time on the Thursday prior to jury selection on the following Monday. If any jury is selected on a day other than a Monday, a similar amount of time shall be set by the Deputy Clerk in Charge for the release of such completed questionnaires to counsel. Completed questionnaires received by the Clerk after such time shall be provided to counsel as the Clerk’s schedule permits. 11) All completed questionnaires provided to counsel shall be CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT TO ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY. Such questionnaires shall be subject to any protective order then in place in such case. No information of any type from any completed questionnaire shall be copied, kept or retained in any manner by counsel, those acting in concert with counsel (including jury consultants), or the parties. All printed copies of such questionnaires made available to counsel shall be returned to the Deputy Clerk in Charge not later than 4:00 pm on the date when the jury is selected. 12) To avoid any doubt and to facilitate full and candid answers to such questionnaires from venire members, no information from any questionnaire shall be retained in any manner by anyone after jury selection is complete or after announcement of a settlement in a case in which juror questionnaires have been furnished to counsel, whichever occurs first. 13) This Order shall be effective immediately and shall supersede any prior orders addressing the above matters. ..____________________________________RODNEY GILSTRAPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESo ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of March, 2021. EXHIBIT A JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE Instructions Dear Prospective Juror: An important part of any trial is the jury selection process. During jury selection, the judge and the lawyers for the parties will ask all of the prospective jurors questions. These questions are necessary to ensure that those selected to serve on the jury are representative of our community at large, and can be fair and impartial judges of the facts. Giving complete and candid answers on this questionnaire and during jury selection is an important step for ensuring a fair and impartial trial, and is one of your important duties as a prospective juror. What follows is a brief questionnaire. Please answer each question as completely and accurately as you reasonably can. Your answers will help reduce the amount of time needed to complete the jury selection process. If there is not sufficient space provided for you to complete your answer, please use the blank space on this page to complete your answer. The information provided by you will be treated as confidential and used only for purposes of jury selection in this case. Do not discuss either the questions or your answers with anyone, not even your family or friends. If you do not understand a particular question, please write “I DO NOT UNDERSTAND” next to the question and it will be explained to you in Court. Keep in mind there are no “right” or “wrong” answers, only complete and incomplete answers. Complete answers are far more helpful than incomplete answers because they make additional questioning unnecessary. Therefore, they shorten the time it takes to select a jury once you arrive at the Courthouse. We thank you for your cooperation and your service as a prospective juror. JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE OFFICIAL USE ONLY: DO NOT MODIFY THIS BOX GENERAL QUESTIONS 1. JUROR NAME: AGE: 2. Where do you now work and what is your job? If unemployed/retired, answer for last job held: 3. What previous jobs have you held? 4. What is the last or highest level of school you completed? If college, please list field of study and any degree(s) received: In what area(s) have you received special education or training? 5. 6. What is your marital status? Divorced Widowed/widower If married/cohabitating, what is your spouse/partner’s occupation? ____________ NO If YES, list which branch, when you served and 7. Have you ever served in the military? Never married Cohabitating Married YES last rank attained: 8. Regarding lawsuits (other than a divorce), have you been a [Check all that apply]: Plaintiff Please explain: Defendant Witness Unsure Never been involved in a lawsuit 9. Do you have strong opinions about lawsuits and the people who bring them? Unsure IF YES, please describe:______________________________________________________________________ YES NO 10. Have you ever served on a jury? YES NO If YES: a. What kind(s) of case(s)? __________________________________________________________________ b. What was the jury’s verdict? c. Were you the foreperson? 11. Have you ever worked for the government (local, state, or federal)? □ YES □ NO YES NO IF YES, please describe: ______________________________________________________________________ 12. Please list your social, political, civic or religious organizations, clubs, groups, or other affiliations: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 13. Have you held any positions of leadership in these organizations? What role? ____________________ 14. Have you, or an immediate family member, ever worked for a law firm? YES NO IF YES, please describe: _____________________________________________________________________ 15. Have you or an immediate family member ever owned a small business? YES NO IF YES, please describe: _____________________________________________________________________ 16. Have you or an immediate family member ever been an officer, director, or member of a corporation, partnership, or limited liability company? □ YES □ NO IF YES, please describe: _____________________________________________________________________ 17. Where do you get most of your news? (circle all that apply) Newspaper (which ones?):________________ YouTube (which channels)?: ____________________________ Facebook, Twitter, Instagram Radio or Podcasts (what programs)?: ____________________ Friends/Family/Word of mouth Magazines: TIME, Newsweek, U.S. News Other Sources: ___________________________________ TV: CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, PBS, OAN, Newsmax, Other 18. Do you believe that individuals or small businesses have little chance of protecting their interests when they conflict with powerful groups or large corporations? Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree No Opinion CONFIDENTIAL JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE PATENT QUESTIONS 19. Have you or anyone you know ever invented, patented or designed anything? YES NO If YES: a. Who invented, patented, or designed it? __________________________________________________ b. What was patented, invented, or designed? _______________________________________________ 20. Have you, or someone close to you, ever had any dealings with the United States Patent and YES YES Trademark Office (USPTO)? 21. Have you ever applied for a patent? 22. Has anyone you know ever applied for a patent? 23. Have you or anyone close to you ever worked at a job where you or they were involved in the NO NO Unsure YES NO development or marketing of new products? YES NO Unsure CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS [EXEMPLARY] 1. Have you, or an immediate family member, ever worked in the healthcare industry? YES NO IF YES, please explain: 2. Have you received treatment with any product sold by Viveve, ThermiGen, or ThermiAesthetics? YES NO IF YES, please explain: 3. Have you heard of any of the following systems or treatments? (check if YES) ThermiVa® ThermiRF® Viveve® System Geneveve® Treatment 4. Are you familiar with Viveve, ThermiGen, or ThermiAesthetics? YES NO IF YES, please explain: 5. Have you, or anyone close to you, ever worked for or had any business dealings with any of the following companies: (circle if applicable) a.KIPB LLC (formerly known as KAIST IP US LLC) b.Samsung Electronics c.GlobalFoundries d.Qualcomm Inc. If you answered YES to any of the above, please explain: YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO 6. In general, what is your opinion of Samsung’s brand and products? Very positive Somewhat positive 7. Do you own any Samsung products? 8. Do you have any opinions regarding any other company listed on this form? YES NO Neutral YES Somewhat negative NO If YES, please explain: Very negative No Opinion If YES, please explain: FINAL QUESTION AND SIGNATURE 9. Is there anything else you feel the Court and the parties should know about you and your ability to be a fair and impartial juror? YES NO If YES, please explain:___________________________________________________________________ Prospective Juror Signature ______________________________Date: ______ CONFIDENTIAL JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE

=== Amended Standing Order on Number and Use of Exhibits ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION , Plaintiff, v. , Defendant. § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:-CV-00-JRG STANDING ORDER ON THE NUMBER AND USE OF PRE-ADMITTED EXHIBITS IN CIVIL CASES ASSIGNED TO CHIEF JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP This Order is effective upon filing and supersedes the previous Standing Order on Number and Use of Exhibits. Too often in today’s practice the Court finds itself confronted with hundreds or even thousands of proposed exhibits at the pretrial conference. It appears that each side designates every possible document as an exhibit to ensure it does not overlook something important. While of some comfort to the designating party, such practice is overly burdensome to the Court and to the party obligated to review the documents for objection. To provide for a more realistic and efficient means of resolving disputes regarding exhibits to be pre-admitted in advance of trial, the Court imposes the following limits on the presentation of exhibits at trial: (1) In cases involving allegations of patent infringement and/or breach of FRAND obligations, as well as declaratory judgment actions which relate to the same, the parties may jointly prepare and present a Joint Exhibit List containing no more than seventy-five (75) exhibits which have been agreed upon by both parties as being pre-admitted exhibits at trial. Additionally, each party may serve and present its own Party Exhibit List containing no more than thirty (30) additional exhibits. (2) In all other civil cases, the parties may jointly prepare and present a Joint Exhibit List containing no more than sixty (60) exhibits which have been agreed upon by both parties as being pre-admitted exhibits at trial. Additionally, each party may serve and present its own Party Exhibit List containing no more than twenty-five (25) additional exhibits. All items on the Joint Exhibit List shall be pre-admitted. The Court will only consider objections raised regarding exhibits on the opposed Party Exhibit Lists and will rule, as a part of the pretrial process, on such objections. Any items from a Party Exhibit List which are not objected to shall be pre-admitted. Any item from a Party Exhibit List where an objection has been overruled shall be pre-admitted. Any item from a Party Exhibit List where an objection has been sustained will be excluded and shall not be pre-admitted. The parties’ presentation of exhibits at trial will be limited to those exhibits contained in the Joint Exhibit List and each Parties’ Exhibit List which have been pre-admitted during the pretrial process. Only pre-admitted exhibits may be presented at trial. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and to assuage the parties’ concerns that something vital might be overlooked as a part of this practice, if a party inadvertently omits a relevant document from its Party Exhibit List, it may move to admit the omitted document into evidence at trial until the close of evidence upon a showing of good cause. However, no party shall seek the admission of more than four (4) omitted documents at trial, and no omitted document shall be raised or mentioned in the presence of the venire panel or the jury prior to its admission by the Court. Any party objecting to the admission of the omitted document will be heard by the Court outside the presence of the jury. .____________________________________RODNEY GILSTRAPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESo ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of August, 2023.

=== Second Amended Patent Standing Order on Motions in Limine ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION , v. , Plaintiff, Defendant. § § § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2: -CV-00-JRG SECOND AMENDED STANDING ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE IN CASES INVOLVING ALLEGATIONS OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND/OR BREACH OF FRAND OBLIGATIONS, AS WELL AS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTIONS WHICH RELATE TO THE SAME This Order is effective upon filing and supersedes any previous Order as to the same topic. The Court imposes the following set of standard limine rulings to be applied to all parties. In addition to these limine orders, each side1 will be permitted to propose and argue up to, but not more than, five (5) of each side’s own motions in limine at the Pretrial Conference.2 I. STANDARD LIMINE ORDERS It is 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, dispositive motion practice, or 1 The term “side” as used herein shall mean all parties named as or otherwise aligned with the plaintiff or the defendant. For example, if a case has three named defendants and an intervenor principally aligned with one or more of the named defendants, all such entities/persons shall collectively be deemed one “side” for purposes of this Order. 2 This Order anticipates up to five (5) limine matters per side being submitted to the Court. Without leave, the parties shall not file any additional agreed limine matters with the Court. Barring an express order of the Court, the standard limine orders herein and up to five (5) opposed party limine motions per side shall constitute the universe of limine orders in any case. dropped claims or defenses. 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 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 issues or defenses (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 2 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 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 infringement or 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. 3 Court MIL No. 20: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument suggesting that the Eastern 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 shall ask questions or make statements to invoke a privileged or protected answer. 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. Court MIL No. 24: Neither party shall reference the presence or absence of any party’s corporate representative, employee, or other witness. Court MIL No. 25: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument suggesting that the opposing party failed to call any witness. The parties shall also be precluded from making any mention or statement of probable testimony of a witness who is absent, unavailable, or will not be called or allowed to testify live or by deposition in this case. In short, neither party shall “try the empty chair.” Court MIL No. 26: Neither party shall reference the presiding judicial officer in any hearing or proceeding by name. All references to the rulings, orders, or policies of the Court shall only be attributed to the Court institutionally but not to any judge or justice by name or individual identity. Court MIL No. 27: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument concerning any indemnification agreement, obligation, and/or request for indemnification. Court MIL No. 28: The parties shall be precluded from introducing any evidence, testimony, or argument, from any source, disparaging this Court, any judicial officer thereof, this Division, this District, or any portion or subdivision of the Judicial branch of the United States of America. 4 .____________________________________RODNEY GILSTRAPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESo ORDERED and SIGNED this 23rd day of December, 2025.

=== First Amended Non-Patent Standing Order on Motions in Limine ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION , v. , Plaintiff, Defendant. § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2: -CV-00-JRG FIRST AMENDED STANDING ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE IN NON-PATENT CIVIL CASES This Order is effective upon filing. The Court imposes the following set of standard limine rulings to be applied to all parties in every non-patent civil action. In addition to these limine orders, each side1 will be permitted to propose and argue (if opposed)2 up to, but not more than, five (5) of each sides’ own motions in limine at the Pretrial Conference. I. STANDARD LIMINE ORDERS It is 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, dispositive motion practice, or dropped claims or defenses. 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 not limited to vaccination status) of a party, witness, attorney, or law firm. 1 The term “side” as used herein shall mean all parties named as or otherwise aligned with the plaintiff or the defendant. For example, if a case has three named defendants and an intervenor principally aligned with one or more of the named defendants, all such entities/persons shall collectively be deemed one “side” for purposes of this Order. 2 This Order anticipates only opposed limine matters being submitted to the Court. Any agreed limine matter should be preserved through a filed stipulation acknowledging the Court’s power to enforce the same. Without leave, any such limine stipulation must be filed not later than 48 hours prior to the beginning of the pre-trial conference. 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 before the jury that relates only to equitable issues or defenses (i.e., evidence that does not also serve another evidentiary purpose relevant to jury issues). Court MIL No. 5: 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. 6: 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. Court MIL No. 7: 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. 8: 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. 9: 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. 10: 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. 11: 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. 12: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument suggesting that the Eastern District of Texas is an improper or inconvenient venue in which to try this case. 2 Court MIL No. 13: 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. 14: No party shall ask questions or make statements to invoke a privileged or protected answer. Court MIL No. 15: 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. Court MIL No. 16: No party shall reference the presence or absence of any party’s corporate representative, employee, or other witness. Court MIL No. 17: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument suggesting that the opposing party failed to call any witness. The parties shall also be precluded from making any mention or statement of probable testimony of a witness who is absent, unavailable, or will not be called or allowed to testify live or by deposition in this case. In short, no party shall “try the empty chair.” Court MIL No. 18: No party shall reference the presiding judicial officer by name in any hearing or proceeding. All references to the rulings, orders, or policies of the Court shall only be attributed to the Court institutionally but not to any judicial officer by name or individual identity. Court MIL No. 19: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument concerning any indemnification agreement, obligation, and/or request for indemnification. 3 .____________________________________RODNEY GILSTRAPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESo ORDERED and SIGNED this 22nd day of August, 2025.

=== Standing Order Regarding Number of Motions to Strike ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS [MARSHALL / TEXARKANA] DIVISION , v. , Plaintiff, Defendant. § § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:-CV-00-JRG STANDING ORDER ON THE NUMBER OF MOTIONS TO STRIKE EXPERT TESTIMONY (INCLUDING DAUBERT MOTIONS) FILED IN CIVIL CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP IN THE MARSHALL AND TEXARKANA DIVISIONS This Standing Order is effective upon filing. In light of the fact that parties frequently seek guidance regarding the number of motions to strike, Daubert motions, motions to exclude, and motions—however styled or titled—that reflect a party’s efforts to challenge any expert witness’s opinions or methodology in whole or in part (hereafter collectively referred to as “Motion(s) to Strike”) filed in any civil action, the Court finds that guidance is needed on the number of Motions to Strike a party may file. It is ORDERED that a party may only file one (1) Motion to Strike per expert witness, notwithstanding the number of reports the expert witness may generate and serve. Such single Motion to Strike may challenge all or any part of any report generated and served by such expert witness.1 If a party wishes to file more than one Motion to Strike per expert, it must first meet-and- confer with opposing counsel in accordance with L.R. CV-7(h). If opposing counsel opposes the 1 Allowing separate and serial motions to strike on any or all reports an expert might generate would make the page limits imposed on such motions, in effect, a nullity, and it would unfairly increase the workload imposed on the opposing party and the Court. request, the requesting party may file an opposed motion seeking leave of the Court to exceed the limits imposed by this Standing Order. More specifically, the requesting party may file a three (3) page motion with the Court at least two weeks before the Motions to Strike are due under the Docket Control Order setting forth its basis to exceed the limits set forth in this Standing Order. The opposing party may then file a response that is no more than three (3) pages long which is due at least one week before the Motions to Strike are due. If opposing counsel does not oppose the request, the requesting party must still obtain leave of court via an unopposed motion to exceed the limits laid out in this Standing Order which the Court will consider and act upon as the particular facts and circumstances in the case warrant. Any such motion is due at least two weeks before the Motions to Strike are due. 2 .____________________________________RODNEY GILSTRAPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESo ORDERED and SIGNED this 25th day of August, 2023.

=== Standing Order Regarding Page Limits for Motions to Strike ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS REGARDING CASES ASSIGNED TO U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP STANDING ORDER REGARDING TOTAL PAGE LIMITS FOR DAUBERT MOTIONS AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE1 The Court imposes the following page limits on Motions to Strike: a. A Motion to Strike shall not exceed twelve pages, excluding attachments, unless leave of court is first obtained. Likewise, responses to such motions shall not exceed twelve pages, excluding attachments, unless leave of court is obtained first. Any reply or sur-reply brief to a Motion to Strike shall not exceed five pages, excluding attachments. b. If a side files more than one Motion to Strike, that side’s Motions to Strike shall not exceed 24 pages collectively, excluding attachments. Responses to such motions shall not exceed 24 pages collectively, excluding attachments. Reply briefs shall not exceed ten pages collectively, excluding attachments, and sur- reply briefs shall not exceed ten pages collectively, excluding attachments. The terms of this Standing Order shall immediately apply to and amend all active civil cases currently pending before the undersigned with dispositive motions filed on or after March 1, 2026. 1 Commentary For the purposes of this Standing Order, the term “Motions to Strike” includes Daubert motions, motions to exclude, and any other motions—however styled or titled—that reflect a party’s efforts to challenge any expert witness’s: (1) opinions or methodology, in whole or in part; (2) conclusions reached; or (3) materials they have relied upon. The Court adopts this Standing Order to provide for a more realistic and efficient means of resolving disputes regarding expert witnesses testifying at trial. Too often in today’s practice, the Court finds itself confronted with hundreds of pages of briefing related to expert witness testimony. Often, each side moves to strike every possible opinion of an expert to ensure it does not overlook something important. However, such practice is overly burdensome on the Court and on the side obligated to review and respond to such briefing. The page limits imposed in this Standing Order are applied to each side at trial (and not each party in the case). Since Motions to Strike ultimately affect the testimony elicited at trial, the Court believes that the page limits are best enforced on a per-side basis. .____________________________________RODNEY GILSTRAPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESo ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of January, 2026.

=== Referral Order RG-72-3 Civil Actions Assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap ===

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Referral Order RG 72 3 Civil Actions Assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap ‐ ‐ Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 and Local Rule CV-72, it is ORDERED: CASES REFERRED: 1. 66% of all civil actions filed in the Marshall Division that are assigned to the undersigned District Judge are hereby referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Roy Payne for all pretrial proceedings. 2. 100% of all civil actions filed in the Texarkana Division that are assigned to the undersigned District Judge are hereby referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge James Boone Baxter for all pretrial proceedings. PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS: 3. The magistrate judges listed above will handle all pretrial proceedings in cases referred under Paragraphs 1 through 2. This shall include: a. b. To hear and determine all matters within the magistrate judge’s dispositive jurisdiction; To proceed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and (C) concerning matters excepted from the magistrate judge’s dispositive jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A); and c. After the magistrate judge has conducted the pretrial conference, in those cases in which the parties have not consented to trial before the magistrate judge, the magistrate judge shall issue a report to the undersigned indicating that the case is ready for jury selection and trial. Upon receipt of the report, the referral under Paragraphs 1 through 2 shall be withdrawn, and the case shall be returned to the undersigned for all further proceedings and entry of judgment. CONSENT: 4. Upon receipt of signed consent forms by all parties, the case shall be reassigned to the magistrate judge, who will conduct all proceedings, including jury and non-jury trials and order the entry of judgment. 1 REFERRAL PROCEDURE: In the event of recusal or other disqualification of the magistrate judge in a case referred and 5. assigned under this order, the case shall return automatically to the docket of the undersigned, subject to further orders of the court. 6. Case referrals pursuant to Paragraphs 1 through 2, case reassignments under Paragraph 4, and withdrawals of referrals under Paragraphs 3 and 5 shall be effected automatically under this order. Absent special circumstances, case-specific orders of reference, reassignment, and withdrawals shall not be entered. 7. This order does not affect General Orders 05-4, 05-5, 05-6 and 05-7 or other established procedures for referral to magistrate judges of special category cases (e.g., preliminary motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel in Title VII cases, prisoner cases, matters on the miscellaneous docket, etc.) Nothing herein shall preclude reference of additional matters to the magistrate judge or the 8. withdrawal of references in cases subject to this order whenever appropriate. This referral order supersedes its predecessor, Referral Order RG-72-2. 2 .____________________________________RODNEY GILSTRAPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESo ORDERED and SIGNED this 19th day of September, 2022.

=== Referral Order RG-72-2 Civil Actions Assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap ===

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Referral Order RG 72 2 Civil Actions Assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap ‐ ‐ Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 and Local Rule CV-72, it is ORDERED: CASES REFERRED: 1. 50% of all civil actions filed in the Marshall Division that are assigned to the undersigned District Judge are hereby referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Roy Payne for all pretrial proceedings. 2. 100% of all civil actions filed in the Texarkana Division that are assigned to the undersigned District Judge are hereby referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge James Boone Baxter for all pretrial proceedings. PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS: 3. The magistrate judges listed above will handle all pretrial proceedings in cases referred under Paragraphs 1 through 2. This shall include: a. b. To hear and determine all matters within the magistrate judge’s dispositive jurisdiction; To proceed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and (C) concerning matters excepted from the magistrate judge’s dispositive jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A); and c. After the magistrate judge has conducted the pretrial conference, in those cases in which the parties have not consented to trial before the magistrate judge, the magistrate judge shall issue a report to the undersigned indicating that the case is ready for jury selection and trial. Upon receipt of the report, the referral under Paragraphs 1 through 2 shall be withdrawn, and the case shall be returned to the undersigned for all further proceedings and entry of judgment. CONSENT: 4. Upon receipt of signed consent forms by all parties, the case shall be reassigned to the magistrate judge, who will conduct all proceedings, including jury and non-jury trials and order the entry of judgment. 1 REFERRAL PROCEDURE: 5. In the event of recusal or other disqualification of the magistrate judge in a case referred and assigned under this order, the case shall return automatically to the docket of the undersigned, subject to further orders of the court. 6. Case referrals pursuant to Paragraphs 1 through 2, case reassignments under Paragraph 4, and withdrawals of referrals under Paragraphs 3 and 5 shall be effected automatically under this order. Absent special circumstances, case-specific orders of reference, reassignment, and withdrawals shall not be entered. 7. This order does not affect General Orders 05-4, 05-5, 05-6 and 05-7 or other established procedures for referral to magistrate judges of special category cases (e.g., preliminary motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel in Title VII cases, prisoner cases, matters on the miscellaneous docket, etc.) Nothing herein shall preclude reference of additional matters to the magistrate judge or the 8. withdrawal of references in cases subject to this order whenever appropriate. This referral order supersedes its predecessor, Referral Order RG-72-1. 2 ____________________________________ RODNEY GILSTRAPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESo ORDERED and Effective as of the 5th day of July, 2022.

=== Referral Order RG-72-1 Civil Actions Assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Referral Order RG 72 1 Civil Actions Assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 and Local Rule CV ‐ 72, it is ORDERED: ‐ ‐ CASES REFERRED: 1. 50% of all civil actions filed in the Marshall Division that are assigned to the undersigned District Judge are hereby referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Roy Payne for all pretrial proceedings. 2. 40% of all civil actions filed in the Texarkana Division that are assigned to the undersigned District Judge are hereby referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Caroline Craven for all pretrial proceedings. 3. 60% of all civil actions filed in the Tyler Division that are assigned to the undersigned District Judge are hereby referred to U.S. Magistrate Judges John Love and Nicole Mitchell. Half of these referred cases will be randomly assigned to Judge Love, and the other half will be randomly assigned to Judge Mitchell for all pretrial proceedings. PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS: 4. The magistrate judges listed above will handle all pretrial proceedings in cases referred under Paragraphs 1 through 3. This shall include: a. To hear and determine all matters within the magistrate judge’s dispositive jurisdiction; b. To proceed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and (C) concerning matters excepted from the magistrate judge’s dispositive jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A); and c. After the magistrate judge has conducted the pretrial conference, in those cases in which the parties have not consented to trial before the magistrate judge, the magistrate judge shall issue a report to the undersigned indicating that the case is ready for jury selection and trial. Upon receipt of the report, the referral under Paragraphs 1 through 3 shall be withdrawn, and the case shall be returned to the undersigned for all further proceedings and entry of judgment CONSENT: 5. Upon receipt of signed consent forms by all parties, the case shall be reassigned to the magistrate judge, who will conduct all proceedings, including jury and non jury trials and order the entry of judgment. ‐ REFERRAL PROCEDURE: 6. In the event of recusal or other disqualification of the magistrate judge in a case referred and assigned under this order, the case shall return automatically to the docket of the undersigned, subject to further orders of the court. 1 7. Case referrals pursuant to Paragraphs 1 through 3, case reassignments under Paragraph 5, and withdrawals of referrals under Paragraphs 4 and 6 shall be effected automatically under this order. Absent special circumstances, case specific orders of reference, reassignment, and withdrawals shall not be entered. ‐ 8. This order does not affect General Orders 05 7 or other established procedures for referral to magistrate judges of special category cases (e.g., preliminary motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel in Title VII cases, prisoner cases, matters on the miscellaneous docket, etc.) 6 and 05 4, 05 5, 05 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9. Nothing herein shall preclude reference of additional matters to the magistrate judge or the withdrawal of references in cases subject to this order whenever appropriate. 2 . ____________________________________RODNEY GILSTRAPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.So ORDERED and SIGNED this 7th day of October, 2016.

=== Protective Order ===

(Sample for non-patent cases) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION § § § § § CIVIL NO. § § V. STANDARD PROTECTIVE ORDER The Court issues this Protective Order to facilitate document disclosure and production under the Local Rules of this Court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Unless modified pursuant to the terms contained in this Order, this Order shall remain in effect through the conclusion of this litigation. In support of this order, the court finds that: 1. Documents or information containing confidential proprietary and business information and/or trade secrets (“Confidential Information”) that bear significantly on the parties’ claims or defenses is likely to be disclosed or produced during the course of discovery in this litigation; 2. The parties to this litigation may assert that public dissemination and disclosure of Confidential Information could severely injure or damage the party disclosing or producing the Confidential Information and could place that party at a competitive disadvantage; 3. Counsel for the party or parties receiving Confidential Information are presently without sufficient information to accept the representation(s) made by the party or parties producing Confidential Information as to the confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret nature of such Confidential Information; and 4. To protect the respective interests of the parties and to facilitate the progress of disclosure and discovery in this case, the following Order should issue: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Documents or discovery responses containing Confidential Information disclosed or produced by any party in this litigation are referred to as “Protected Documents.” Except as otherwise indicated below, all documents or discovery responses designated by the producing party as “Confidential” and which are disclosed or produced to the attorney’s for the other parties to this litigation are Protected Documents and are entitled to confidential treatment as described below. 2. Protected Documents shall not include (a) advertising materials, (b) materials that on their face show that they have been published to the general public, or (c) documents that have submitted to any governmental entity without request for confidential treatment. 3. At any time after the delivery of Protected Documents, counsel for the party or parties receiving the Protected Documents may challenge the Confidential designation of all or any portion thereof by providing written notice thereof to counsel for the party disclosing or producing the Protected Documents. If the parties are unable to agree as to whether the confidential designation of discovery material is appropriate, the party or parties receiving the Protected Documents shall certify to the Court that the parties cannot reach an agreement as to the confidential nature of all or a portion of the Protected Documents. Thereafter, the party or parties disclosing or producing the Protected Documents shall have ten (10) days from the date of certification to file a motion for protective order with regard to any Protected Documents in dispute. The party or parties producing the Protected Documents shall have the burden of establishing that the disputed Protected Documents are entitled to confidential treatment. If the party or parties producing the Protected Documents do not timely file a motion for protective order, then the Protected Documents in dispute shall no longer be subject to confidential treatment as provided in this Order. All Protected Documents are entitled to confidential treatment pursuant to the terms of this Order until and unless the parties formally agree in writing to the contrary, a party fails to timely move for a protective order, or a contrary determination is made by the Court as to whether all or a portion of a Protected Document is entitled to confidential treatment. 4. Confidential Treatment. Protected Documents and any information contained therein shall not be used or shown, disseminated, copied, or in any way communicated to anyone for any purpose whatsoever, except as provided for below. 5. Protected Documents and any information contained therein shall be disclosed only to the following persons (“Qualified Persons”): (a) (b) Counsel of record in this action for the party or party receiving Protected Documents or any information contained therein; Employees of such counsel (including/excluding experts and investigators) assigned to and necessary to assist such counsel in the preparation and trial of this action; and (c) The Court. Protected Documents and any information contained therein shall be used solely for the prosecution of this litigation. 6. Counsel of record for the party or parties receiving Protected Documents may create an index of the Protected Documents and furnish it to attorneys of record representing or having represented parties involved in litigation involving the claims alleged in this suit against the party or parties disclosing or producing the Protected Documents. The index may only identify the document, date, author, and general subject matter of any Protected Document, but may not reveal the substance of any such document. Counsel for the party or parties receiving Protected Documents shall maintain a current log of the names and addresses of persons to whom the index was furnished. 7. The term “copy” as used herein means any photographic, mechanical or computerized copy or reproduction of any document or thing, or any verbatim transcript, in whole or in part, of such document or thing. 8. To the extent that Protected Documents or information contained therein are used in depositions, at hearings, or at trial, such documents or information shall remain subject to the provisions of this Order, along with the transcript pages of the deposition testimony and/or trial testimony referring to the Protected Documents or information contained therein. 9. Any court reporter or transcriber who reports or transcribes testimony in this action shall agree that all “confidential” information designated as such under this Order shall remain “confidential” and shall not be disclosed by them, except pursuant to the terms of this Order, and that any notes or transcriptions of such testimony (and any accompanying exhibits) will be retained by the reporter or delivered to counsel of record. 10. Inadvertent or unintentional production of documents or information containing Confidential Information which are not designated “confidential” shall not be deemed a waiver in whole or in part of a claim for confidential treatment. 11. The party or parties receiving Protected Documents shall not under any circumstances sell, offer for sale, advertise, or publicize Protected Documents or any information contained therein. 12. After termination of this litigation, the provisions of this Order shall continue to be binding, except with respect to those documents and information that become a matter of public record. This Court retains and shall have continuing jurisdiction over the parties and recipients of the Protected Documents for enforcement of the provisions of this Order following termination of this litigation. 13. Upon termination of this action by dismissal, judgment, or settlement, counsel for the party or parties receiving Protected Documents shall return the Protected Documents to the counsel for the party or parties disclosing or producing the Protected Documents. The party or parties receiving the Protected Documents shall keep their attorney work product which refers or relates to any Protected Documents. Attorney work product may be used in subsequent litigation provided that such use does not disclose Protected Documents or any information contained therein. 14. This Order shall be binding upon the parties and their attorneys, successors, executors, personal representatives, administrators, heirs, legal representatives, assigns, subsidiaries, divisions, employees, agents, independent contractors, or other persons or organizations over which they have control. 15. The Court anticipates and encourages the parties to file a motion to modify the terms hereof with respect to the sharing of Protected Documents with experts and consultants; shifting the cost burden of production equitably; and other terms that may be reasonably required to protect a party as provided in Rule 26(b) or (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.