AUTOMATIC MEDIATION SCHEDULE

In addition to the initial mediation provided for in Loc. R. Civ. P. 16(a), a second and third mediation for patent cases shall be conducted as follows: (a) Not later than twenty-one (21) days after the exchange of proposed claim constructions, the parties shall hold a second mediation consistent with this Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution plan (Loc. R. Civ. P. 16(a ; and (b) Not later than forty-two (42) days after entry of the claim construction order, the parties shall hold a third mediation consistent with this Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution plan (Loc. R. Civ. P. 16(a . ____________________________________________________________________________________ -14- Event Rule 26(f) Meeting APPENDIX A TIMELINE Deadline 21 days prior to Case Management Conference Filing of Civil Case Management Plan 7 days prior to Case Management Conference Patentee: Initial Infringement Contentions 14 days after Case Management Conference Accused Infringer: Non-Infringement and Invalidity Contentions Patentee: Responses to Invalidity Contentions 56 days after Initial Infringement Contentions 28 days after Non-Infringement and Invalidity Contentions Final Infringement and Invalidity Contentions 20 weeks after Initial Infringement Contentions Final Non-Infringement Contentions and Final Responses to Invalidity Contentions 28 days after Final Infringement and Invalidity Contentions Exchange of Claim Terms for Construction Exchange of Proposed Constructions Joint Claim Construction Statement Completion of Claim Construction Discovery Patentee: Opening Markman Submissions Accused Infringer: Responding Markman Submissions 7 days after Final Infringement and Invalidity Contentions 21 days after Exchange of Claim Terms for Construction 28 days after Exchange of Proposed Construction 28 days after filing of Joint Claim Construction Statement 42 days after filing of Joint Claim Construction Statement 28 days after Opening Markman Submission Patentee: Reply Markman Brief 14 days after Responsive Markman Brief Accused Infringer: Surreply Markman Brief 14 days after Reply Markman Brief Advice of Counsel Disclosure 28 days after claim construction order Initial Expert Reports (non-claim construction) 56 days after claim construction order Responsive Expert Reports 28 days after service of Initial Expert Reports Completion of All Discovery 112 days after claim construction order Filing of Dispositive Motions 42 days after close of all discovery -15- APPENDIX B UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, v. Defendant.

Civil Action No. _______________ [MODEL] ORDER REGARDING E-DISCOVERY IN PATENT CASES The Court ORDERS as follows: 1. This Order supplements all other discovery rules and orders. It streamlines Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) production to promote a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of this action, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1. 2.

This Order may be modified in the Court’s discretion or by agreement of the parties. The parties shall jointly submit any proposed modifications within 30 days after the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 conference. If the parties cannot resolve their disagreements regarding these modifications, the parties shall submit their competing proposals and a summary of their dispute. 3.

Costs will be shifted for disproportionate ESI production requests pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Likewise, a party’s nonresponsive or dilatory discovery tactics will be cost-shifting considerations. 4. A party’s meaningful compliance with this Order and efforts to promote efficiency and reduce costs will be considered in cost-shifting determinations.

5. Absent a showing of good cause, general ESI production requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and 45, or compliance with disclosure -16- requirements of the Local Patent Rules, shall not include metadata. However, fields showing the date and time that the document was sent and received, as well as the complete distribution list, shall generally be included in the production if such fields exist. 6.

General ESI production requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and 45, or compliance with disclosure requirements of the Local Patent Rules, shall not include email or other forms of electronic correspondence (collectively “email”). To obtain email parties must propound specific email production requests. 7. Email production requests shall only be propounded for specific issues, rather than general discovery of a product or business.

8. Email production requests shall be phased to occur after the parties have exchanged initial disclosures, infringement contentions and accompanying documents pursuant to the Local Patent Rules, and invalidity contentions and accompanying documents pursuant to the Local Patent Rules. 9. Email production requests shall identify the custodian, search terms, and time frame.

The parties shall cooperate to identify the proper custodians, proper search terms and proper timeframe. 10. Each requesting party shall limit its email production requests to a total of five custodians per producing party for all such requests. The parties may jointly agree to modify this limit without the Court’s leave.

The Court shall consider contested requests for up to five additional custodians per producing party, upon showing a distinct need based on the size, complexity, and issues of this specific case. Should a party serve email production requests for additional custodians beyond the limits agreed to by the parties or granted by the Court pursuant to this paragraph, the requesting party shall bear all reasonable costs caused by such additional discovery. -17- 11. Each requesting party shall limit its email production requests to a total of five search terms per custodian per party. The parties may jointly agree to modify this limit without the Court’s leave.

The Court shall consider contested requests for up to five additional search terms per custodian, upon showing a distinct need based on the size, complexity, and issues of this specific case. The search terms shall be narrowly tailored to particular issues. Indiscriminate terms, such as the producing company’s name or its product name, are inappropriate unless combined with narrowing search criteria that sufficiently reduce the risk of overproduction. A conjunctive combination of multiple words or phrases (e.g., “computer” and “system”) narrows the search and shall count as a single search term.

A disjunctive combination of multiple words or phrases (e.g., “computer” or “system”) broadens the search, and thus each word or phrase shall count as a separate search term unless they are variants of the same word. Use of narrowing search criteria (e.g., “and,” “but not,” “w/x”) is encouraged to limit the production and shall be considered when determining whether to shift costs for disproportionate discovery. Should a party serve email production requests with search terms beyond the limits agreed to by the parties or granted by the Court pursuant to this paragraph, the requesting party shall bear all reasonable costs caused by such additional discovery. 12.

The receiving party shall not use ESI that the producing party asserts is attorney-client privileged or work product protected to challenge the privilege or protection. 13. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), the inadvertent production of a privileged or work product protected ESI is not a waiver in the pending case or in any other federal or state proceeding. -18- 14. The mere production of ESI in a litigation as part of a mass production shall not itself constitute a waiver for any purpose.

15. Except as expressly stated herein, nothing is this Order affects the parties’ discovery obligation under the Federal or Local Rules. -19- APPENDIX C CLAIM LIMITATION ACCUSED [STEP OR COMPONENT] BASIS OF INFRINGEMENT CONTENTION -20- APPENDIX D CLAIM LIMITATION PRIOR ART OR OTHER EVIDENCE BASIS OF INVALIDITY CONTENTION CLAIM LIMITATION ACCUSED [STEP OR COMPONENT] BASIS OF NON- INFRINGEMENT CONTENTION -21-