IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
§ SCORPCAST, LLC d/b/a HAULSTARS, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 2:20-cv-00193-JRG-RSP § (LEAD CASE)
BOUTIQUE MEDIA, ALL 4 HEALTH §
SRL, KB PRODUCTIONS, LLC, §
MANICA MEDIA SL, OANASUN §
ENTERTAINMENT SRL, and § BRAVOMAX SERVICES LIMITED, §
§ Defendants. §
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court are seven motions: • Motion to Strike Plaintiff Scorpcast, LLC’s Infringement Contentions in part Under
Patent Rule 3-1(b) and Compel Infringement Contentions Complying with Patent Rule 3-1(c), filed by Defendant All 4 Health SRL, Dkt. No. 1081; • Motion to Strike Plaintiff Scorpcast, LLC’s Infringement Contentions in part Under
Patent Rule 3-1(b) and Compel Infringement Contentions Complying with Patent Rule 3-1(c), filed by Defendant Boutique Media, Dkt. No. 111; • Motion to Strike Plaintiff Scorpcast, LLC’s Infringement Contentions in part Under
Patent Rule 3-1(b) and Compel Infringement Contentions Complying with Patent Rule 3-1(c), filed by Defendant Bravomax Services Limited, Dkt. No. 114;
2• Motion to Strike Plaintiff Scorpcast, LLC’s Infringement Contentions in part Under
Patent Rule 3-1(b) and Compel Infringement Contentions Complying with Patent Rule 3-1(c), filed by Defendant KB Productions, Dkt. No. 116; • Motion to Strike Plaintiff Scorpcast, LLC’s Infringement Contentions in part Under
Patent Rule 3-1(b) and Compel Infringement Contentions Complying with Patent Rule 3-1(c), filed by Defendant Manica Media SL, Dkt. No. 118; • Motion to Strike Plaintiff Scorpcast, LLC’s Infringement Contentions in part Under
Patent Rule 3-1(b) and Compel Infringement Contentions Complying with Patent Rule 3-1(c), filed by Defendant Oanasun SRL, Dkt. No. 120 (collectively the “Defendants’ Motions); and • Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendants (“Plaintiff’s Motion”), filed by Plaintiff Scorpcast, LLC d/b/a HaulStars (“Plaintiff”), Dkt. No. 126. After briefing, the Court heard these motions on March 23, 2021. See Dkt. No. 148. This Order summarizes the rulings at that hearing, and the transcript shall provide clarifying details, if needed. After consideration and for the reasons discussed during the hearing, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART the Defendants’ Motions. The Court gives the Plaintiff two (2) weeks, from the date of the hearing, to amend their infringement contentions in the manner expressed by the Court during the hearing. It is therefore ORDERED that the Plaintiff amend their contentions by April 6, 2021. Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED-AS-MOOT without prejudice. During the hearing, the parties represented they would meet-and-confer in order to resolve the issues raised in Plaintiff’s Motion. Plaintiff may re-urge their motion at a later date, if necessary.
Footnotes
- ↩ 1 In the future, the Court prefers that motions which are substantively identical be filed in as few motions as possible, rather than filing several substantively identical motions.