Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Golden Hour Data Systems, Inc. v. emsCharts, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00288 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2014)

See Opinion Disposition stated in the opinion
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:14-cv-00288, Dkt. No. 11
Decided
August 7, 2014
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER - Scheduling Conference set for 9/2/2014 01:30 PM in Ctrm 106 (Marshall) before the Honorable Rodney Gilstrap and the Honorable Roy Payne
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

GOLDEN HOUR DATA SYSTEMS, INC. §

§ v. § Case No. 2:14-CV-288-JRG § EMSCHARTS, INC. §

ORDER

This case is set for a scheduling conference in Marshall, Texas on September 2, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. before the Honorable Rodney Gilstrap and the Honorable Roy Payne. The purpose of the scheduling conference will be to assign a claim construction hearing date and a trial setting. The parties shall be prepared to inform the Court whether they will consent to trial before the Magistrate Judge.

The parties shall prepare and submit a proposed docket control order, a proposed discovery order and a proposed protective order to the Court no later than two weeks after the scheduling conference.1 These orders shall be guided by the sample docket control and discovery orders for patent cases, which can be found on the Court’s website. The sample orders include provisions that require input from the parties. If the parties are unable to reach agreement on these provisions, then the parties shall submit to the Court their competing proposals along with a summary of their disagreements in a single joint submission.

The sample orders include provisions that are mandatory and are not subject to change without showing good cause. Good cause shall not be considered to be met simply by an indication of the parties’ agreement. Should either party believe good cause can be shown to2 alter an otherwise mandatory provision, then such party shall file a separate motion to alter the provision after the parties have filed the proposed docket control and discovery orders with the mandatory provisions intact as previously required above.

Furthermore, it is hereby ORDERED that the following schedule of deadlines is in effect until further order of this Court:

6 Weeks After Scheduling ConferenceComply with P.R. 3-3 & 3-4 (Invalidity Contentions)
3 Weeks After Scheduling Conference*File Proposed Protective Order and Comply with Paragraphs 1 & 3 of the Discovery Order (Initial and Additional Disclosures)
2 Weeks After Scheduling Conference*File Proposed Docket Control Order, Proposed Discovery Order The Proposed Docket Control Order and the Proposed Discovery Order shall be filed as separate motions with the caption indicating whether or not the proposed order is opposed in any part.
1 Week After Scheduling ConferenceJoin Additional Parties
3 Days After Scheduling Conference*File Notice of Mediator
2 Weeks Before Scheduling ConferenceComply with P.R. 3-1 & 3-2 (Infringement Contentions)

Footnotes

  1. 1 Timely submission of the parties’ proposed docket control order, proposed discovery order and proposed protective order will be viewed by the Court as complying with the conference requirement of Rule 26(f).

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Golden Hour Data Systems, Inc. v. emsCharts, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00288 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2014).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_14-cv-00288-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_14-cv-00288-0

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.