Case number 1:21-cv-01733
ImmerVision, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. > Documents
| Date Field | Doc. No. | Description (Pages) |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 4, 2023 | 173 | STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Staying Cases Pending Resolution of Disputes in Related Actions by Apple, Inc.. (Palapura, Bindu) (Entered: 10/04/2023) (3) |
| Sep 26, 2023 | 172 | ORAL ORDER Setting Videoconference: The Court hereby ORDERS that a videoconference to hear argument on Defendant's Motion to Stay Pending IPR ("Motion"), (D.I. 147 in Civil Action No. 21-1484-MN-CJB; D.I. 163 in 21-1733-MN-CJB; D.I. 144 in 21-1570-MN-CJB,), is set for October 16, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. before Judge Christopher J. Burke via the Microsoft Teams platform. By no later than October 6, 2023, the parties shall send an e-mail to the Court's Courtroom Deputy, Ms. Benyo, indicating the names and e-mail addresses of all individuals who will participate in the hearing. The Court may choose to resolve the Motion prior to the videoconference and will, in that event, cancel the videoconference (however, if any party advises the Court in advance that a newer attorney will argue the dispute, see Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/StandingOrder2017.pdf, then the Court will go forward with the conference). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/26/2023. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(dlb) (Entered: 09/26/2023) (0) |
| Sep 25, 2023 | 170 | Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Keith A. Jones regarding request for the scheduling of a teleconference - re 163 MOTION to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review. (Jones, Keith) (Entered: 09/25/2023) (1) |
| Sep 25, 2023 | 171 | Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from David E. Moore regarding reply letter brief to motion to stay pending inter partes review - re (147 in 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 163 in 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB, 144 in 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB) MOTION to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 5-8)(Moore, David) (Entered: 09/25/2023) (0) |
| Sep 22, 2023 | 169 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Defendant filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Jones, Keith) (Entered: 09/22/2023) (3) |
| Sep 20, 2023 | 168 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Supplemental Responses And Objections To Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc.'s Second Set Of Interrogatories (Nos. 6-7) [Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only] filed by Apple, Inc..(Palapura, Bindu) (Entered: 09/20/2023) (2) |
| Sep 19, 2023 | 167 | Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from John D. Simmons regarding Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc.'s response to Defendant Apple Inc.'s letter requesting to stay - re 164 Letter,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Simmons, John) (Entered: 09/19/2023) (0) |
| Sep 18, 2023 | 166 | NOTICE requesting Clerk to remove Brandon R. Harper as co-counsel. Reason for request: no longer with the firm of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP. (Moore, David) (Entered: 09/18/2023) (2) |
| Sep 15, 2023 | 165 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc.'s Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant Apple Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-9), and (2) Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc.'s Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant Apple Inc.'s Third Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 11-12) filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Jones, Keith) (Entered: 09/15/2023) (3) |
| Sep 12, 2023 | 163 | MOTION to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review - filed by Apple, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke.(Moore, David) (Entered: 09/12/2023) (0) |
| Sep 12, 2023 | 164 | Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from David E. Moore regarding motion to stay pending inter partes review - re (147 in 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 163 in 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB, 144 in 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB) MOTION to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-4)(Moore, David) (Entered: 09/12/2023) (0) |
| Aug 30, 2023 | 161 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Second Amended Initial Disclosures filed by Apple, Inc..(Moore, David) (Entered: 08/30/2023) (2) |
| Aug 30, 2023 | 162 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Responses And Objections To Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc.'s Third Set Of Interrogatories (No. 8), and Defendant Apple Inc.'s Responses And Objections To Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc.'s Third Set Of Requests For Production (Nos. 45-48) filed by Apple, Inc..(Moore, David) (Entered: 08/30/2023) (2) |
| Aug 28, 2023 | 160 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Final Identification of Accused Products, Asserted Patents, Damages Model, and Prosecution File History filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Jones, Keith) (Entered: 08/28/2023) (3) |
| Aug 25, 2023 | 159 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Final Supplemental Identification Of Invalidity References filed by Apple, Inc..(Moore, David) (Entered: 08/25/2023) (2) |
| Aug 22, 2023 | 158 | ORAL ORDER: The Court has reviewed the joint discovery dispute motion ("Motion") filed by Defendant and by third parties Venson and Steven Shaw ("the Shaws"), via which Defendant requests that the Court enter an order to show cause permitting Defendant to produce a license agreement ("Agreement") between it, the Shaws and Sony Corp. (an entity that has already agreed to production) to Plaintiff, (D.I. 97, in Civil Action No. 21-1484-MN-CJB, the only case docket that will be cited herein). It has also reviewed the briefing related to the Motion. (D.I. 80; D.I. 85; D.I. 93; D.I. 94) Having done so, and understanding that the Shaws oppose Defendant's request, the Court ORDERS that Defendant's request is GRANTED and that the Agreement shall be produced. The Shaws object to such production on a few grounds, none of which are persuasive. First, they argue that the Agreement is not responsive to Plaintiff's RFP No. 22 nor relevant to the subject matter of this litigation. (D.I. 85 at 1-2) But the RFP's language is broad (seeking license agreements of Defendant "concerning" "the wide-angle or panoramic image capture capabilities of any product"), (D.I. 80, ex. 1), and it is undisputed that the Shaws' patent covered by the Agreement relates to "image sensors used to capture images[,]" (D.I. 80 at 2), which are components that can be said to "concern[]" a camera's image capture capabilities, (D.I. 93 at 1). Moreover, such an Agreement could be relevant to damages in this case, since potentially comparable licenses may come in many different flavors, and often parties attempt to utilize a license from the field of the invention in order to argue about relevant royalty rates (even if the license relates to technology that is not on all fours with every aspect of the claimed invention). Second, the Shaws suggest that the Agreement is not relevant or need not be produced because it is not a "core technical document." (D.I. 85 at 1-2; D.I. 94 at 1) But as Defendant correctly notes, (D.I. 93 at 2), core technical documents are only one type of relevant discovery in this case (one that happens to be called out by the Scheduling Order). Other types of relevant discovery may also be sought via a RFP (as with RFP No. 22 here). And third, the Shaws argue that Section 7.1(iii) of the Agreement prohibits the production of the Agreement in circumstances like these. (D.I. 85 at 2; D.I. 94 at 1) Of course, even were the Shaws correct as to Section 7.1(iii)'s meaning, that still would be no bar to production. See I.E.E. Int'l Elecs. & Engineering, S.A. v. TK Holdings, Inc., Case No. 10-13487, 2013 WL 12183637, at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 24, 2013). But the Court agrees with Defendant, (D.I. 93 at 1-2), that Section 7.1(iii) actually does permit disclosure of the Agreement by Defendant (after provision of prior notice to the Shaws, which has been afforded here). The Shaws appear to read Section 7.1(iii) as only allowing disclosure in a case being litigated between the Parties to the Agreement (e.g., between the Shaws and Defendant). (D.I. 85 at 2; D.I. 94 at 1) But that reading is not supported by the Agreement's text. Section 7.1(iii) covers what occurs "during the course of litigation"; were the Shaws' reading correct, one would have expected the subsection to instead read "during the course of litigation between the [Agreement's] Parties" (a group that includes only Defendant, the Shaws and/or Sony). And Section 7.1(iii) refers to "litigating parties" when describing how and to whom the Agreement will be produced during litigation, not simply "the Parties" to the Agreement. Therefore, in accordance with Section 7.1(iii), Defendant shall produce the Agreement to Plaintiff in the manner set out in Defendant's reply letter. (D.I. 93 at 2). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/22/2023. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(dlb) (Entered: 08/22/2023) (0) |
| Aug 16, 2023 | 157 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Supplemental Responses And Objections To Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc.'s First Set Of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-5) [Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only] filed by Apple, Inc..(Moore, David) (Entered: 08/16/2023) (2) |
| Aug 11, 2023 | 156 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Disclosures Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A) filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Jones, Keith) (Entered: 08/11/2023) (3) |
| Aug 8, 2023 | 155 | SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/8/2023. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(dlb) (Entered: 08/08/2023) (11) |
| Aug 7, 2023 | 154 | Interim STATUS REPORT (Joint) by Apple, Inc.. (Moore, David) (Entered: 08/07/2023) (2) |
| Aug 4, 2023 | 152 | ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' joint motion to resolve a protective order dispute, (D.I. 122 in Civil Action No. 21-1484-MN-CJB, which will be the only case's docket index that is cited herein), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 121; D.I. 126; D.I. 130), hereby ORDERS that Defendant has demonstrated good cause such that its position should prevail and that its proposed Supplemental Protective Order ("SPO"), (D.I. 121, ex. F), should be entered. Defendant did here what too few parties in discovery disputes do: it made a detailed factual record, supported by multiple sworn declarations, that strongly supported its arguments. That is, Defendant has demonstrated that the "highly technical details necessary to fabricate [its] proprietary... lens designs" are, "in effect, the source code of lenses" and "are as commercially sensitive as any other form of source code[,]" such that they should receive the heightened form of protection set out in the SPO. (D.I. 126 at 1) It did so by showing that: (1) the lens prescriptions at issue amount to extremely precise, detailed information about a lens, including its physical dimensions, the arrangement of its optical elements, its materials and its overall layout; (2) these prescriptions are far more detailed than schematics, diagrams, specifications or other technical documents, as a person with knowledge of the latter types of documents could not reverse engineer the accused lens designs; (3) yet if one had access to the prescriptions at issue, they would provide a level of detail that would allow a lens designer to model or reconstruct or replicate the lens itself, which is otherwise incredibly difficult to do in light of the complexity of these designs; (4) the lens prescriptions at issue are very valuable assets in the mobile device industry, as they are the product of significant investments of time and resources resulting from years of research and development by multiple engineers and teams at Defendant; and (5) the files containing these prescriptions are treated as highly sensitive and proprietary materials at Defendant, they are subject to access controls at Defendant beyond what is generally applicable to confidential or proprietary material (including that they are stored in access-controlled repositories and access to them is granted only on a need-to-know-basis to a limited subset of Defendant employees), and they are shared only on an as-needed basis with vendors, who have contractual obligations to maintain their secrecy. (Id., ex. A at paras. 13-17; id., ex. B at paras. 6-9) In cases like this, involving discovery materials that are akin to software-based source code, our Court has blessed the type of heightened protections for such material sought here by Defendant. See Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Angewandten Forschung E.V. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., Civil Action No. 17-184-JFB-SRF, 2017 WL 4564742, at *2 (D. Del. Oct. 13, 2017) (defining "source code" to include "hardware-based code," because the hardware-based code "identifie[d] how the [circuit] chips themselves are made") (citing cases); cf. Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., Case No. 14-cv-00876-RS (JSC), 2016 WL 3129215, at *11-12 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2016) (agreeing with defendant that the design history file for its camera system is "akin to source code because it sets forth how the system operates, and that competitors could use the information to design or modify products that replace [defendant's] products[,]" and ordering that the materials at issue triggered a prosecution bar, the highest tier of protection discussed in the protective order at issue). The Court also finds that the burden to Plaintiff of abiding by these protections is not undue, in part because it will hold Defendant to its promise to make the materials available to Plaintiff not only in Chicago (where Defendant's counsel is located), but also in Santa Monica (not far from Plaintiff's expert), in Delaware (near Plaintiff's counsel) or wherever else the parties can mutually agree on. (D.I. 126 at 3; D.I. 130 at 1) The videoconference previously scheduled for August 7, 2023 is hereby CANCELED. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/4/2023. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(dlb) (Entered: 08/04/2023) (0) |
| Aug 4, 2023 | 153 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Amended Initial Disclosures filed by Apple, Inc..(Moore, David) (Entered: 08/04/2023) (2) |
| Aug 1, 2023 | 151 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Plaintiff's Third Set of Requests for Production to Defendant, and (2) Plaintiff's Third Set of Interrogatories to Defendant filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Jones, Keith) (Entered: 08/01/2023) (3) |
| Jul 25, 2023 | 148 | ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' July 21, 2023 letter, hereby ORDERS that the July 27, 2023 Markman hearing will be held in Courtroom 2A. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 7/25/2023. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(dlb) (Entered: 07/25/2023) (0) |
| Jul 25, 2023 | 149 | MOTION [Apple Inc.'s Motion and Proposed Order Granting Limited Exemption From the Standing Order Regarding Personal Electronic Devices] - filed by Apple, Inc.. Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke.(Palapura, Bindu) (Entered: 07/25/2023) (2) |
| Jul 25, 2023 | 150 | ORDER granting D.I. (133) in case 21-cv-01484 and D.I. (130) in case 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB and D.I. (149) in case 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB [Apple Inc.'s Motion and Proposed Order Granting Limited Exemption From the Standing Order Regarding Personal Electronic Devices]. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 7/25/2023. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(dlb) (Entered: 07/25/2023) (2) |
| Jul 21, 2023 | 147 | Joint Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from John D. Simmons and David E. Moore regarding the July 27, 2023, Claim Construction Hearing - re 145 Oral Order,,,,,,,. (Simmons, John) (Entered: 07/21/2023) (2) |
| Jul 19, 2023 | 146 | Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from John D. Simmons regarding reply discovery dispute letter brief - re 133 Order Setting Videoconference,,,,,,,. (Simmons, John) (Entered: 07/19/2023) (2) |
| Jul 17, 2023 | 145 | ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' June 29, 2023 letter regarding the Markman hearing ("Letter"), (Civil Action No. 21-1484-MN-CJB, D.I. 120; Civil Action No. 21-1570-MN-CJB, D.I. 121; Civil Action No. 21-1733-MN-CJB, D.I. 140), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) The Court hereby ADOPTS the parties' proposal regarding time allocation. Three hours will be allocated for argument, to be split equally between the parties.; (2) The Court also hereby ADOPTS the parties' proposal regarding the order of terms and which side will present argument first for each term.; (3) On or before July 24, 2023, Delaware and lead counsel for the parties shall meet and confer and file an amended joint claim construction chart that sets forth the terms/issues that remain in dispute. The meet and confer shall focus on an attempt to reach agreement on any remaining disputed terms/issues where possible and on an attempt to focus the dispute over the remaining terms/issues in light of the parties' claim construction briefing. By no later July 24, 2023, the parties shall also file a letter, identifying by name each individual who participated in this meet and confer, when and how that meet and confer occurred and how long it lasted. If no agreements on constructions have been reached or if no dispute has been narrowed on the meet and confer, the letter shall so state and the parties need not file an amended joint claim construction chart.; and (4) In the July 24 letter, the parties should also let the Court know if there is joint agreement to conduct the Markman hearing via videoconference. If there is joint agreement, the Court will do so; if there is not joint agreement, then the hearing will go forward as an in-person hearing in Courtroom 2A. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 7/17/2023. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(dlb) (Entered: 07/17/2023) (0) |
| Jul 12, 2023 | 143 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-5) [Highly Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only] filed by Apple, Inc..(Moore, David) (Entered: 07/12/2023) (2) |
| Jul 12, 2023 | 144 | Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from David E. Moore regarding responsive discovery dispute letter brief - re (122 in 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB) Letter, (141 in 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB) Letter, (121 in 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB) Letter. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-C)(Moore, David) (Entered: 07/12/2023) (0) |
| Jul 5, 2023 | 141 | Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from John D. Simmons regarding Discovery Dispute. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Simmons, John) (Entered: 07/05/2023) (0) |
| Jul 5, 2023 | 142 | Joint MOTION for Videoconference to Resolve Discovery Dispute - filed by ImmerVision, Inc.. Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke.(Simmons, John) (Entered: 07/05/2023) (2) |
| Jun 29, 2023 | 140 | Joint Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from John D. Simmons and David E. Moore regarding the July 27, 2023, Claim Construction Hearing. (Simmons, John) (Entered: 06/29/2023) (2) |
| Jun 27, 2023 | 137 | MOTION for Claim Construction re 91 Claim Construction Chart - filed by ImmerVision, Inc.. Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke.(Simmons, John) (Entered: 06/27/2023) (2) |
| Jun 27, 2023 | 138 | MOTION for Claim Construction re (71 in 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB) Claim Construction Chart, (91 in 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB) Claim Construction Chart, (66 in 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB) Claim Construction Chart - filed by Apple, Inc.. Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke.(Moore, David) (Entered: 06/27/2023) (2) |
| Jun 27, 2023 | 139 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Responses and Objections to Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc.'s First Set of Requests for Admission (Nos. 1-7) [Highly Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only]; Defendant Apple Inc.'s Responses and Objections to Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc.'s Second Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 6-7); and Defendant Apple Inc.'s Responses and Objections to Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc.'s Second Set of Requests for Production (Nos. 39-44) filed by Apple, Inc..(Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 06/27/2023) (2) |
| Jun 26, 2023 | 136 | ORAL ORDER: The Court notes as follows: (1) The parties were required by the Scheduling Order to each file concurrently with the Joint Claim Construction Chart a "Motion for Claim Construction[.]" (Civil Action No. 21-1484, D.I. 26 at para. 13; Civil Action No. 21-1570, D.I. 21 at para. 13; Civil Action No. 21-1733, D.I. 41 at para. 13) The parties have not done so. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that by no later than June 27, 2023, the parties shall each file the required Motion for Claim Construction.; and (2) The parties were also required by the Scheduling Order to submit a joint letter detailing, among other things, whether the parties request leave to present live testimony at the Markman hearing and the amount of time the parties are requesting for argument. (Civil Action No. 21-1484, D.I. 26 at para. 15; Civil Action No. 21-1570, D.I. 21 at para. 15; Civil Action No. 21-1733, D.I. 41 at para. 15) The parties have not complied with this requirement either. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that by no later than June 30, 2023, the parties shall submit this joint letter to the Court. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 6/26/2023. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(mlc) (Entered: 06/26/2023) (0) |
| Jun 21, 2023 | 133 | ORAL ORDER Setting Videoconference: The Court, having reviewed the parties' June 15, 2023 letter requesting a discovery dispute teleconference regarding one dispute, hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) A Videoconference utilizing the Microsoft Teams platform is set for August 7, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. before Judge Christopher J. Burke.; (2) By no later than July 5, 2023, Plaintiff shall file with the Court a letter, not to exceed three single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining the issues in dispute and its position on those issues. By no later than July 12, 2023, Defendant shall file a letter, not to exceed three single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining its reasons for its opposition. By no later than July 19, 2023, Plaintiff shall file a reply letter brief, not to exceed one single-spaced page, in no less than 12-point font.; (3) By no later than July 19, 2023, the parties shall send an e-mail to the Court's Courtroom Deputy, Ms. Benyo, indicating the names and e-mail addresses of all individuals who will participate in the hearing.; (4) The parties shall jointly file a Motion for Videoconference to Resolve Discovery Dispute.; (5) The parties should consult and follow Judge Burke's "Guidelines for Discovery Disputes," which is found in the "Guidelines" tab on Judge Burke's portion of the District Courts website.; and (6) The Court may choose to resolve the disputes prior to the videoconference and will, in that event, cancel the hearing (however, if any party advises the Court in advance that a newer attorney will argue the dispute, see Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/StandingOrder2017.pdf, then the Court will go forward with the hearing). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 6/21/2023. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(dlb) (Entered: 06/21/2023) (0) |
| Jun 21, 2023 | 134 | [SEALED] Letter to Judge Burke, from Venson Shaw and Steven Shaw, regarding disagreements to D.I. 98 letter in civil action 21-cv-1484. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Venson Shaw, # 2 Affidavit of Steven M. Shaw, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(apk) (Entered: 06/22/2023) (0) |
| Jun 20, 2023 | 135 | [SEALED] Letter to Judge Burke and Clerk's Office from Venson Shaw and Steven Shaw - no redactions to "letter to show cause". Letter is labeled as filed under seal and contains copies of a letter dated 6/13/2023 that "disagrees with Apple response." Filing also contains Affidavit which contains personal identifiers of Messers. Shaw, and a Proposed Order to Show Cause which also appears to be filed at D.I. 134 in this case.(dlb) (Entered: 06/22/2023) (0) |
| Jun 15, 2023 | 132 | Joint Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from John D. Simmons regarding Joint Request for a Discovery/Protective Order Dispute Teleconference. (Simmons, John) (Entered: 06/15/2023) (1) |
| Jun 9, 2023 | 130 | STATEMENT Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc.'s Comments on Defendant Apple Inc.'s Technology Tutorial by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Simmons, John) (Entered: 06/09/2023) (4) |
| Jun 9, 2023 | 131 | STATEMENT [Defendant Apple Inc.'s Comments on Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc.'s Technology Tutorial] by Apple, Inc.. (Palapura, Bindu) (Entered: 06/09/2023) (4) |
| Jun 8, 2023 | 128 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Production of Documents marked IMV0043327 to IMV0043411 filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Jones, Keith) (Entered: 06/08/2023) (3) |
| Jun 8, 2023 | 129 | ANSWER to Amended Complaint, re: 107 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand (Fourth) by Apple, Inc..(Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 06/08/2023) (7) |
| Jun 2, 2023 | 122 | NOTICE of Filing of Multi-Media Materials in Electronic Format with the Office of the Clerk by ImmerVision, Inc. (Jones, Keith) (Entered: 06/02/2023) (3) |
| Jun 2, 2023 | 123 | Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from David E. Moore regarding enclosure of Defendant's Technology Tutorial. (Moore, David) (Entered: 06/02/2023) (1) |
| Jun 2, 2023 | 124 | JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF filed by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Simmons, John) (Entered: 06/02/2023) (30) |
| Jun 2, 2023 | 125 | MULTI MEDIA DOCUMENT filed by ImmerVision, Inc. in the form of a 1 flash drive. Filing related to (99 in 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB) Notice (Other), (104 in 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB) Notice (Other), (122 in 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB) Notice (Other). (Media on file in Clerk's Office). Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(dlb) (Entered: 06/02/2023) (0) |
| Jun 2, 2023 | 126 | Joint APPENDIX re 124 Joint Claim Construction Brief by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Tab 1 - March 14, 2023 Declaration of Daniel Reiley and Exhibits A to L, # 2 Tab 2 - May 5, 2023 Declaration of Daniel Reiley and Exhibit M, # 3 Tab 3 - Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 15)(Simmons, John) (Entered: 06/02/2023) (0) |
| Jun 2, 2023 | 127 | MULTI MEDIA DOCUMENT filed by Apple, Inc. in the form of a 2 Flash drives. Filing related to (123 in 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB, 105 in 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 100 in 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB) Letter. (Media on file in Clerk's Office). Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(dlb) (Entered: 06/02/2023) (0) |
| Jun 1, 2023 | 119 | REDACTED VERSION of (116 in 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB, 95 in 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 93 in 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB) Letter, by Apple, Inc.. (Moore, David) (Entered: 06/01/2023) (4) |
| Jun 1, 2023 | 120 | Joint MOTION [Joint Motion to Resolve Discovery Dispute re Order to Show Cause] re (109 in 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB, 86 in 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 84 in 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB) Oral Order,,,,, - filed by Apple, Inc.. Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke.(Palapura, Bindu) (Entered: 06/01/2023) (3) |
| Jun 1, 2023 | 121 | Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from David E. Moore regarding response to the Shaws' letter to the Court dated May 22, 2023, and entered on the docket on May 24, 2023 - re (90 in 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB) Letter, (113 in 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB) Letter, (92 in 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB) Letter,. (Moore, David) (Entered: 06/01/2023) (1) |
| May 30, 2023 | 117 | [SEALED] Reply Letter to Judge Burke from Venson Shaw and Steven Shaw regarding Letter at D.I. 116 - re 116 Letter (Redacted to remove personal identifiers). (dlb) (Entered: 05/30/2023) (0) |
| May 30, 2023 | 118 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of [Sealed] Letter To The Honorable Christopher J. Burke From David E. Moore Regarding Apple's Response To The Shaw's Response To The Court's Order To Show Cause filed by Apple, Inc..(Moore, David) (Entered: 05/30/2023) (2) |
| May 25, 2023 | 111 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Plaintiff's Second Set of Requests for Production to Defendant, (2) Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories to Defendant, and (3) Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Jones, Keith) (Entered: 05/25/2023) (3) |
| May 25, 2023 | 116 | [SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from David E. Moore regarding Apple's response to the Shaw's response to the Court's Order to Show Cause - re (108 in 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB) Response to Order, (109 in 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB, 86 in 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 84 in 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB) Oral Order,,,,, (85 in 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB) Response to Order, (83 in 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB) Response to Order. (Moore, David) (Entered: 05/25/2023) (0) |
| May 24, 2023 | 112 | Letter responding to D.I. 109 Oral Order and noting no Redactions to D.I. 108 filed by Steven M Shaw, Venson M Shaw. (mkr) Modified on 5/26/2023 (dlb). (Entered: 05/25/2023) (2) |
| May 24, 2023 | 113 | (SEALED) Letter Motion to Judge Burke filed "IN CAMERA" requesting permission to Redact the Settlement Agreement filed by Venson Shaw and Steven Shaw with enclosed proposed redactions. (mkr) (Main Document 113 replaced on 5/26/2023) (dlb). Modified on 5/26/2023 (dlb). (Entered: 05/25/2023) (0) |
| May 23, 2023 | 110 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Surreply Markman Brief filed by Apple, Inc..(Moore, David) (Entered: 05/23/2023) (2) |
| May 18, 2023 | 107 | Amended Complaint* (1) |
| May 18, 2023 | 109 | ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Venson Shaw and Steven Shaw's ("the Shaws") response to the Court's order to show cause ("Letter"), (Civil Action No. 21-1484-MN-CJB, D.I. 85; Civil Action No. 21-1570-MN-CJB, D.I. 83; Civil Action No. 21-1733-MN-CJB, D.I. 108), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) Pursuant to the District of Delaware CM/ECF Procedure G, the Shaws shall file with the Court a redacted version of their Letter within 7 days after the filing of the original sealed document.; (2) By no later than May 25, 2023, Defendant Apple, Inc. shall file with the Court an answering letter brief, not to exceed three single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining its opposition to the Letter. By no later than June 1, 2023, the Shaws may file with the Court a reply letter brief, not to exceed one single-spaced page, in no less than 12-point font.; (3) By no later than June 1, 2023, Apple, Inc. shall file on behalf of both parties a one-page motion with respect to this issue.; and (4) The parties should consult and follow Judge Burke's "Guidelines for Discovery Disputes," which is found in the "Guidelines" tab on Judge Burke's portion of the District Court's website. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 5/18/2023. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(dlb) (Entered: 05/18/2023) (0) |
| May 17, 2023 | 108 | [SEALED] Request to Seal and Letter RESPONSE to 101 Order to Show Cause filed by Venson M Shaw, Steven M Shaw. (dlb) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/18/2023: # 1 Letter Response to Order, # 2 Mailing envelope) (dlb). (Entered: 05/18/2023) (0) |
| May 16, 2023 | 106 | ORDER regarding 105 Letter Motion (which was incorrectly filed as a letter). Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 5/16/2023. (dlb) (Entered: 05/16/2023) (1) |
| May 12, 2023 | 105 | Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from John D. Simmons regarding Stipulated Motion to File a Fourth Amended Complaint to Dismiss Counts II and III of the Third Amended Complaint. (Attachments: # 1 Blackline Version, # 2 Fourth Amended Complaint, # 3 Exhibit A to Exhibit G to the Fourth Amended Complaint)(Simmons, John) (Entered: 05/12/2023) (0) |
| May 10, 2023 | 104 | REDACTED VERSION of (100 in 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB; D.I. 80 in 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB; D.I. 75 in 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB) Letter by Apple, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-3)(Moore, David) Modified on 5/10/2023 (dlb). (Entered: 05/10/2023) (0) |
| May 5, 2023 | 102 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc.'s Claim Construction Reply Brief, and the Declaration of Daniel Reiley, Ph.D. in Support of ImmerVision's Claim Reply Brief filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Jones, Keith) (Entered: 05/05/2023) (3) |
| May 5, 2023 | 103 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Order to Show Cause Regarding The Shaw License filed by Apple, Inc..(Palapura, Bindu) (Entered: 05/05/2023) (2) |
| May 4, 2023 | 101 | ORDER To Show Cause Regarding the Shaw License. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 5/4/23. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(mlc) (Entered: 05/04/2023) (2) |
| May 3, 2023 | 99 | Joint STIPULATION To Extend Time to Serve Claim Construction Briefs by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Simmons, John) (Entered: 05/03/2023) (3) |
| May 3, 2023 | 100 | [SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from David E. Moore regarding Discovery Dispute, Request for Order to Show Cause. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-3, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Moore, David) (Entered: 05/03/2023) (0) |
| Apr 20, 2023 | 98 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Responsive Markman Brief filed by Apple, Inc..(Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 04/20/2023) (2) |
| Apr 14, 2023 | 97 | STIPULATION to extend time to serve claim construction briefs by Apple, Inc.. (Palapura, Bindu) (Entered: 04/14/2023) (3) |
| Apr 3, 2023 | 95 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Production Of Documents (Bates APL-IMV_00026012 - APL-IMV_00048801) [Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only] filed by Apple, Inc..(Moore, David) (Entered: 04/03/2023) (2) |
| Apr 3, 2023 | 96 | NOTICE to Take Deposition of Dr. Daniel Reiley on April 12, 2023 filed by Apple, Inc..(Moore, David) (Entered: 04/03/2023) (2) |
| Mar 31, 2023 | 94 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc.'s production of documents marked IMV0007801 to IMV0043326 filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Jones, Keith) (Entered: 03/31/2023) (2) |
| Mar 15, 2023 | 92 | ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' Joint Claim Construction Chart, (Civil Action No. 21-1733, D.I. 91; Civil Action No. 21-1570, D.I. 66; Civil Action No. 21-1484, D.I. 71), hereby ORDERS that any party relying on a construction of "plain and ordinary meaning" shall clearly articulate in its claim construction briefing what it contends is the plain and ordinary meaning. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 3/15/2023. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB(dlb) (Entered: 03/15/2023) (0) |
| Mar 15, 2023 | 93 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Opening Claim Construction Brief, Declaration of Daniel Reiley, Ph.D., and Exhibits marked A to L filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Simmons, John) (Entered: 03/15/2023) (3) |
| Mar 13, 2023 | 91 | CLAIM Construction Chart by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Simmons, John) (Entered: 03/13/2023) (5) |
| Mar 9, 2023 | 89 | Joint Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from John D. Simmons and Bindu A. Palapura regarding Joint Request to Amend the Joint Claim Construction Chart filed on February 16, 2023. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Joint Claim Construction Chart)(Simmons, John) (Entered: 03/09/2023) (0) |
| Mar 9, 2023 | 90 | ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' March 9, 2023 letter, (Civil Action No. 21-1484-MN-CJB, D.I. 69; Civil Action No. 21-1570-MN-CJB, D.I. 64; Civil Action No. 21-1733-MN-CJB, D.I. 89), hereby ORDERS that by no later than March 13, 2023, the parties shall file their Amended Joint Claim Construction Chart separately on the docket.Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 3/9/2023. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(dlb) (Entered: 03/09/2023) (0) |
| Mar 8, 2023 | 88 | NOTICE of Issuance of Amended Subpoena directed to Volpi Manufacturing U.S.A., Co., Inc. by Apple, Inc. (Moore, David) (Entered: 03/08/2023) (30) |
| Feb 27, 2023 | 87 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Plaintiff's Responses and Objections to Defendant's Second Set of Requests for Production, and (2) Plaintiff's Responses and Objections to Defendant's Third Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 11-12) filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Jones, Keith) (Entered: 02/27/2023) (3) |
| Feb 23, 2023 | 86 | NOTICE of Issuance of Subpoena directed to Volpi Manufacturing U.S.A., Co., Inc. by Apple, Inc. (Moore, David) (Entered: 02/23/2023) (30) |
| Feb 16, 2023 | 85 | CLAIM Construction Chart by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Simmons, John) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/24/2023: # 1 Appendix) (dlb). (Entered: 02/16/2023) (0) |
| Feb 15, 2023 | 84 | Joint STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to File Joint Claim Construction Chart to 2/16/2023 - filed by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Simmons, John) (Entered: 02/15/2023) (2) |
| Jan 27, 2023 | 83 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Second Set of Requests for Production to Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc. (Nos. 69-74), and Defendant Apple Inc.'s Third Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc. (Nos. 11-12) filed by Apple, Inc..(Moore, David) (Entered: 01/27/2023) (2) |
| Jan 26, 2023 | 82 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Identification of Proposed Claim Constructions filed by Apple, Inc..(Moore, David) (Entered: 01/26/2023) (2) |
| Jan 25, 2023 | 81 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Proposed Claim Constructions filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Jones, Keith) (Entered: 01/25/2023) (2) |
| Jan 12, 2023 | 79 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Identification of Claim Terms for Construction filed by Apple, Inc..(Moore, David) (Entered: 01/12/2023) (2) |
| Jan 12, 2023 | 80 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc.'s Identification of Claim Terms for Construction filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Jones, Keith) (Entered: 01/12/2023) (2) |
| Dec 27, 2022 | 78 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Production of Documents marked IMV0002127 to IMV0007800 filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Jones, Keith) (Entered: 12/27/2022) (2) |
| Dec 18, 2022 | 77 | Joint STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME Claim Construction Issue Identification to 1/11/2023 - filed by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Simmons, John) (Entered: 12/18/2022) (2) |
| Dec 16, 2022 | 76 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Responses and Objections to Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-5) (Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 5) [Highly Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only] filed by Apple, Inc..(Moore, David) (Entered: 12/16/2022) (2) |
| Dec 9, 2022 | 75 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Invalidity Contentions, Corresponding Exhibits, and Production of Documents filed by Apple, Inc..(Moore, David) (Entered: 12/09/2022) (2) |
| Nov 3, 2022 | 74 | Notice of Service (2) Docket Text: NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Responses And Objections To Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc.'s First Set Of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-5) [Highly Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only] filed by Apple, Inc..(Palapura, Bindu) |
| Nov 2, 2022 | 72 | Notice of Appearance (1) Docket Text: NOTICE of Appearance by Keith A. Jones on behalf of ImmerVision, Inc. (Jones, Keith) |
| Nov 2, 2022 | 73 | Notice of Service (2) Docket Text: NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Initial Infringement Contentions filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Simmons, John) |
| Oct 20, 2022 | 71 | Notice of Service (2) Docket Text: NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Production of Documents marked IMV0002093 to IMV0002126 satisfying the October 4, 2022 Order to Show Cause filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Simmons, John) |
| Oct 19, 2022 | N/A | Add Attorneys Pro Hac Vice (0) Docket Text: Pro Hac Vice Attorney Kenneth A. Kuwayti,Karina N. Pundeff for Apple, Inc. added for electronic noticing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 (d)., Delaware counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. (apk) |
| Oct 13, 2022 | N/A | SO ORDERED (0) Docket Text: SO ORDERED D.I. [70] MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Kenneth A. Kuwayti and Karina N. Pundeff of Morrison & Foerster LLP filed by Apple, Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/13/2022. (smg) |
| Oct 11, 2022 | 70 | Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice (3) Docket Text: MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Kenneth A. Kuwayti and Karina N. Pundeff of Morrison & Foerster LLP - filed by Apple, Inc.. Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke.(Palapura, Bindu) |
| Oct 4, 2022 | 67 | Letter (Main Document) (2) Docket Text: Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from John D. Simmons regarding a request for a court order directing the production of a prior settlement agreement. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Simmons, John) |
| Oct 4, 2022 | 67 | Letter (Text of Proposed Order) (2) Docket Text: Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from John D. Simmons regarding a request for a court order directing the production of a prior settlement agreement. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Simmons, John) |
| Oct 4, 2022 | 68 | Order to Show Cause (2) Docket Text: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Within ten days of this Order, Vivotek Inc.,Vivotek USA Inc., and Vivotek Holdings Inc. shall show cause why the settlement agreement between them and ImmerVision, Inc., dated September 2013, shall not be produced in this litigation under the HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY designation of the Protective Order governing this case. Plaintiff shall provide a copy of this Order to Vivotek Inc. within three days of this Order. If no objection is filed to this Order by Vivotek Inc., Vivotek USA Inc., or Vivotek Holdings Inc. within ten days of this Order, under the HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY designation of the Protective Order governing this case. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/4/2022. (apk) |
| Oct 4, 2022 | 69 | Notice of Service (2) Docket Text: NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendants' Production of Core Technical Documents filed by Apple, Inc..(Harper, Brandon) |
| Oct 3, 2022 | 66 | Notice of Service (2) Docket Text: NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Simmons, John) |
| Sep 30, 2022 | 65 | Notice of Service (2) Docket Text: NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc.'s Responses and Objections to Defendant Apple, Inc.'s Second Set of Interrogatories (No. 10) filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Simmons, John) |
| Sep 20, 2022 | 64 | Notice of Service (2) Docket Text: NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Plaintiff's Supplemental Disclosures Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A), (2) Plaintiff's Responses and Objections to Defendant Apple, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-9), and (3) Plaintiff's Responses and Objections to Defendant Apple, Inc.'s First Set of Requests for Production (Nos. 1-68) filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Simmons, John) |
| Sep 19, 2022 | 63 | Notice of Service (2) Docket Text: NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Supplemental Identification of Accused Products, Asserted Patents, Damages Model, and Prosecution File History filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Simmons, John) |
| Aug 31, 2022 | 62 | Notice of Service (2) Docket Text: NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Second Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc. (No. 10) filed by Apple, Inc..(Harper, Brandon) |
| Aug 30, 2022 | 61 | Notice of Service (2) Docket Text: NOTICE OF SERVICE of Notice of Service filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Simmons, John) |
| Aug 26, 2022 | 59 | Notice of Service (2) Docket Text: NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Responses to Plaintiff ImmerVision, Inc.'s First Set of Requests for Production (Nos. 1-38) filed by Apple, Inc..(Palapura, Bindu) |
| Aug 26, 2022 | 60 | Protective Order (25) Docket Text: PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/26/2022. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(mlc) |
| Aug 25, 2022 | 58 | Proposed Order (25) Docket Text: Joint PROPOSED ORDER (Protective Order) by Apple, Inc.. (Harper, Brandon) |
| Aug 18, 2022 | 56 | Proposed Order (9) Docket Text: PROPOSED ORDER Stipulated Discovery Order by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Simmons, John) |
| Aug 18, 2022 | 57 | Stipulation to EXTEND Time (2) Docket Text: STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to submit a joint Protective Order to August 25, 2022 - filed by Apple, Inc.. (Harper, Brandon) |
| Aug 16, 2022 | 55 | Notice of Service (2) Docket Text: NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Plaintiff's Disclosures Pursuant to 7.b of the Scheduling Order - The Identification of Accused Products, Asserted Patents, Damages Model, and Prosecution File History, and (2) Plaintiff's Production of Documents marked IMV0000001 to IMV0000546 filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Simmons, John) |
| Aug 15, 2022 | N/A | SO ORDERED (0) Docket Text: SO ORDERED D.I. (29 in 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB) (54 in 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB), (34 in 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB) STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the Plaintiff to Comply with Paragraph 7.a of the June 21, 2022 Scheduling Order to August 29, 2022 filed by ImmerVision, Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/15/2022. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB(dlb) |
| Aug 12, 2022 | 54 | Stipulation to EXTEND Time (2) Docket Text: STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the Plaintiff to Comply with Paragraph 7.a of the June 21, 2022 Scheduling Order to August 29, 2022 - filed by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Simmons, John) |
| Aug 8, 2022 | N/A | SO ORDERED (0) Docket Text: SO ORDERED D.I. (27 in 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 32 in 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 52 in 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB) STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to submit a joint Protective Order and Discovery Order to August 18, 2022 filed by Apple, Inc.. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/5/2022. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(dlb) |
| Aug 5, 2022 | 53 | Notice of Service (2) Docket Text: NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Apple Inc.'s First Set Of Interrogatories To Plaintiff Immervision, Inc. (Nos. 1-9); and Defendant Apple Inc.'s First Set Of Requests For Production To Plaintiff Immervision, Inc. (Nos. 1-68) filed by Apple, Inc..(Harper, Brandon) |
| Aug 4, 2022 | 52 | Stipulation to EXTEND Time (2) Docket Text: STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to submit a joint Protective Order and Discovery Order to August 18, 2022 - filed by Apple, Inc.. (Palapura, Bindu) |
| Jul 29, 2022 | 51 | Answer to Amended Complaint (10) Docket Text: ANSWER to Amended Complaint, re: [44] Amended Complaint with Jury Demand [Answer to Third Amended Complaint] by Apple, Inc..(Moore, David) |
| Jul 27, 2022 | 50 | Notice of Service (2) Docket Text: NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Simmons, John) |
| Jul 21, 2022 | N/A | SO ORDERED (0) Docket Text: SO ORDERED (47 in 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB, 28 in 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 23 in 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB) STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to submit a joint Protective Order and Discovery Order to August 4, 2022 filed by Apple, Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 7/20/2022. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(dlb) |
| Jul 21, 2022 | 48 | Notice of Service (2) Docket Text: NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A) filed by ImmerVision, Inc..(Simmons, John) |
| Jul 21, 2022 | 49 | Notice of Service (2) Docket Text: NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Initial Disclosures filed by Apple, Inc..(Moore, David) |
| Jul 20, 2022 | 47 | Stipulation to EXTEND Time (2) Docket Text: STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to submit a joint Protective Order and Discovery Order to August 4, 2022 - filed by Apple, Inc.. (Harper, Brandon) |
| Jul 18, 2022 | 46 | Redacted Document (Main Document) (2) Docket Text: REDACTED VERSION of [45] Exhibit to a Document by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service)(Simmons, John) |
| Jul 18, 2022 | 46 | Redacted Document (Certificate of Service) (1) Docket Text: REDACTED VERSION of [45] Exhibit to a Document by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service)(Simmons, John) |
| Jul 15, 2022 | 44 | Amended Complaint* (1) |
| Jul 15, 2022 | 44 | Amended Complaint (Main Document) (11) Docket Text: Third AMENDED COMPLAINT against Apple, Inc.- filed by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibits C to H)(Simmons, John) |
| Jul 15, 2022 | 44 | Amended Complaint (Exhibit A) (28) Docket Text: Third AMENDED COMPLAINT against Apple, Inc.- filed by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibits C to H)(Simmons, John) |
| Jul 15, 2022 | 44 | Amended Complaint (Exhibits C to H) (30) Docket Text: Third AMENDED COMPLAINT against Apple, Inc.- filed by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibits C to H)(Simmons, John) |
| Jul 13, 2022 | N/A | Oral Order (0) Docket Text: ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant's pending motion to dismiss ("Motion"), (D.I. 26), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 27; D.I. 32; D.I. 35), and having heard argument during a teleconference held on July 11, 2022, hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) As an initial matter, the Court treats the Motion as a non-dispositive motion, and so it will issue this Order (and not a Report and Recommendation) in resolving the Motion. The Court does so because although the Motion is styled as a "Motion to Dismiss[,]" (D.I. 26), in truth it is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion filed pursuant to 9 U.S.C. sec. 3, in which a party may move to compel that claims be stayed (or, in the alternative, dismissed) in favor of arbitration. And a motion seeking to compel arbitration is a non-dispositive motion. See Virgin Islands Water & Power Auth. v. Gen. Elec. Intl Inc., 561 F. App'x 131, 133-34 (3d Cir. 2014); Bus Air, LLC v. Woods, C.A. No. 19-1435-RGA-CJB, 2022 WL 2666001, at *2 & n.1 (D. Del. July 11, 2022); GNH Grp., Inc. v. Guggenheim Holdings, L.L.C., Civil Action No. 19-1932-CFC, 2020 WL 4287358, at *1 n.1 (D. Del. July 27, 2020) (citing cases).; (2) Though the Motion was brought when the Second Amended Complaint was pending, in its answering brief, Plaintiff requested leave to file a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"), and attached the TAC to that brief. (D.I. 32 at 12-13 & ex. 2) During the teleconference, the parties both agreed that: (a) the TAC should become the operative complaint; (b) this would moot any dispute about Count II of the TAC, which all parties agree can now go forward in this Court along with Count I; (c) the only remaining claim in dispute as to the Motion is Count III of the TAC; and (d) the briefing on the Motion may be used to assess this remaining live dispute. Therefore, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff's request to file the TAC be GRANTED and that Plaintiff file the TAC on the docket by no later than July 15, 2022.; (3) Count III of the TAC is a claim for a violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. sec. 1836; the claim is premised on the allegation that Defendant violated a Mutual Confidentiality Agreement ("MCA") between it and Plaintiff by improperly using trade secrets obtained pursuant to the MCA. (D.I. 32, ex. 2 at 8-9) The MCA contains a provision (hereafter, the "all disputes" provision) which states that "[a]ll disputes arising under or in connection with this [MCA] will be finally settled under the then current Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce ["ICC"] by three arbitrators appointed in accordance with such rules." (Id., ex. 2 at ex. B at 3) Defendant contends that since Count III is a claim arising under or in connection with the MCA, it should go to arbitration. (D.I. 27 at 7) Plaintiff disagrees, pointing out that: (a) a few sentences after the "all disputes" provision, the MCA includes a provision (hereafter, the "notwithstanding" provision) stating that "[n]otwithstanding anything to the contrary above and irrespective of the tribunal's powers to order interim or conservatory measures, either party may bring court proceedings in any court having jurisdiction to seek an injunction, specific performance, or other equitable relief to enforce any right or obligation under this [MCA,]" (D.I. 32, ex. 2 at ex. B at 3); and (b) Count III seeks only "equitable" relief, so, pursuant to the "notwithstanding" provision, it is not subject to arbitration. (D.I. 32 at 8) Defendant responds by arguing that Count III does not fall under this exception to arbitration, because it contains a request for disgorgement of profits, (D.I. 32, ex. 2 at 9), and that type of request for relief is not one "to enforce any right or obligation under th[e MCA]." (D.I. 27 at 8-9; D.I. 35 at 7-8); (4) The threshold dispute here is about who should decide whether Count III is arbitrable. On that question, federal law states that if there is "clear and unmistakable" evidence that in the MCA the parties delegated threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitration tribunal, then all such questions must be determined by the arbitrators. See Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S.Ct. 524, 530 (2019); GNH Grp., Inc., 2020 WL 4287358, at *3.; (5) Here, the Court concludes that there is in fact clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended for arbitrators to decide questions of arbitrability like this one. It does so because of the presence of the "all disputes" provision. Courts have concluded that this type of provisione.g., one that makes reference to settling disputes pursuant to the ICC's Rules of Arbitrationprovides just such clear and unmistakable evidence, because those Rules include a provision stating that an arbitration tribunal should decide the question of arbitrability. See Mitas Endustri Sanayi Ticaret A.S. v. Valmont Indus., Inc., Civil Action No. 20-1285-CFC, 2021 WL 3169301, at *2 & n.1 (D. Del. July 27, 2021); cf. Richardson v. Coverall N. Am., Inc., 811 F. App'x 100, 103 (3d Cir. 2020); Adtile Techs. Inc. v. Perion Network Ltd., 192 F. Supp. 3d 515, 525 (D. Del. 2016); see also (D.I. 35 at 3). Indeed, during the teleconference, Plaintiff's counsel agreed that the "all disputes" provision, were it to stand alone, would surely amount to clear and unmistakable evidence that the arbitrators should decide arbitrability here. But Plaintiff argues that the presence of the "notwithstanding" provision muddies the waters, and thus renders that point unclear. The Court disagrees with that line of argument. The "notwithstanding" provision simply has to do with the scope of the agreementit is a provision that speaks to circumstances in which certain types of claims may be brought in a court, instead of in arbitration. It says nothing about who decides whether a particular claim in fact falls within that scope or not (i.e., about who decides arbitrability/scope questions) in the first instance. In light of the clear import of the "all disputes" provision as it relates to the "who decides arbitrability" question, the mere fact that the "notwithstanding" provisions mentions "proceedings in a[] court" does not reasonably interject any uncertainty regarding the fact that the parties agreed that arbitrators should decide MCA-related arbitrability questions. See, e.g., Blanton v. Domino's Pizza Franchising LLC, 962 F.3d 842, 844-45, 847-48 (6th Cir. 2020) (concluding that where a provision in an agreement indicated that the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") would administer arbitration and do so pursuant to AAA rules, and where those rules provided that an arbitrator should decide questions of arbitrability, this was clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties had agreed to arbitrate arbitrability, and concluding that a different clause in the agreement that carved out certain claims from arbitration did not impact this conclusion, since the carveout simply went to the "scope of the agreement" and not to the arbitrator's authority to decide questions of arbitrability") (internal quotation marks, emphasis and citations omitted); Crawford Pro. Drugs, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 748 F.3d 249, 256, 262 (5th Cir. 2014) (concluding that a provision in an agreement that stated that all disputes were to be resolved in arbitration in accordance with the rules of the AAA provided clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties desires to arbitrate arbitrability, even though the agreement contained another clause that permitted a party to seek injunctive relief in a court as opposed to in arbitration); Promptu Sys. Corp. v. Comcast Corp., Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-06516, 2017 WL 4475966, at *3-5 (E.D. Pa. May 18, 2017); Congress Const. Co. v. Geer Woods, Inc., No. 3:05CV1665 (MRK), 2005 WL 3657933, at *3 n.2 (D. Conn. Dec. 29, 2005); cf. Archer & White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., 935 F.3d 274, 281-82 (5th Cir. 2019) (concluding that there was not clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability, where a clause in the agreement incorporated the AAA rules, but where in the very same sentence in which the AAA rules were referenced, the agreement excepted certain actions like the one in question from being resolved according to such rules).; and (6) Because, inter alia, an arbitration panel could decide that Count III belongs in court after all, the right path here is simply to stay Count III, not dismiss it. See Nidec Corp. v. Seagate Tech. LLC, Civil Action No. 21-52-RGA, 2021 WL 3048456, at *3 (D. Del. July 20, 2021). Therefore, the Court ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART, in that the case as to Count III will be STAYED in favor of an arbitral proceeding, and that the Motion be otherwise DENIED. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 7/13/2022. (dlb) |
| Jul 11, 2022 | N/A | Motion Hearing (0) Docket Text: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Christopher J. Burke: Teleconference held on 7/11/2022. The Court heard the parties' arguments regarding Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (D.I. 26) After hearing the parties regarding the dispute, the Court took the motion under advisement. (Clerk: E. Bryant-Alvarez) APPEARANCES: J. Simmons and K. Jones for Plaintiff; B. Palapura, D. Moore, M. Pieja, S. Zhang, and S. Simon for Defendant. (Court Reporter Stacey Ingram, Hawkins Reporting) (dlb) |
| Jun 21, 2022 | 41 | Scheduling Order (20) Docket Text: SCHEDULING ORDER: Joinder of Parties due by 5/22/2023. Amended Pleadings due by 5/22/2023. Discovery due by 12/15/2023. Opening Expert Reports due by 1/26/2024. Rebuttal Expert Reports due by 2/26/2024. Claim Construction Opening Brief due by 3/15/2023. Claim Construction Answering Brief due by 4/17/2023. Claim Construction Reply Brief due by 5/1/2023. A Markman Hearing is set for 7/27/2023 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 2A before Judge Christopher J. Burke. A Pretrial Conference is set for 10/21/2024 at 04:30 PM in Courtroom 4A before Judge Maryellen Noreika. A 7 day Jury Trial is set for 10/28/2024 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 4A before Judge Maryellen Noreika. Please see Order for further details and deadlines. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 6/21/2022. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(dlb) |
| Jun 21, 2022 | N/A | Oral Order (0) Docket Text: ORAL ORDER: With the parties having no disputes as to the form of the proposed Scheduling Order (D.I. 41 in 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB, 26 in 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 21 in 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB), the Court has today entered that Order. To the extent that either party wishes the Court to schedule an in-person or telephonic Case Management Conference at this time, they should so inform the Court by letter. To the extent that the parties do not do so, the Court will not set a conference at this time. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 6/21/2022. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(dlb) |
| Jun 15, 2022 | 39 | Proposed Order (20) Docket Text: Joint PROPOSED ORDER Scheduling Order by Apple, Inc.. (Moore, David) |
| Jun 15, 2022 | 40 | Letter (Main Document) (3) Docket Text: Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from David E. Moore regarding case summary pursuant to the Court's Order of April 18, 2022 - re (19 in 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 24 in 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 39 in 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB) Proposed Order. (Attachments: # (1) Checklist)(Moore, David) |
| Jun 15, 2022 | 40 | Letter (Checklist) (3) Docket Text: Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from David E. Moore regarding case summary pursuant to the Court's Order of April 18, 2022 - re (19 in 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 24 in 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 39 in 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB) Proposed Order. (Attachments: # (1) Checklist)(Moore, David) |
| Jun 2, 2022 | N/A | SO ORDERED (0) Docket Text: SO ORDERED D.I. (18 in 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 37 in 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB, 23 in 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB) STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties' to submit a joint proposed Scheduling Order and case-management letter to June 15, 2022 filed by Apple, Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 6/2/2022. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(dlb) |
| Jun 2, 2022 | 38 | Redacted Document (15) Docket Text: REDACTED VERSION of [35] Reply Brief by Apple, Inc.. (Moore, David) |
| Jun 1, 2022 | 37 | Stipulation to EXTEND Time (2) Docket Text: STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties' to submit a joint proposed Scheduling Order and case-management letter to June 15, 2022 - filed by Apple, Inc.. (Palapura, Bindu) |
| May 27, 2022 | N/A | Order Setting Hearing on Motion (0) Docket Text: ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the pending motion to dismiss ("Motion"), (D.I. 26), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) The Court will hear argument on the Motion on Monday, July 11, 2022 at 2:30 PM via teleconference.; (2) By no later than July 5, 2022, the parties shall jointly provide the Court's Courtroom Deputy, Ms. Benyo, with a dial-in number via e-mail to use for the call; and (3) It is possible that, prior to the teleconference, the Court will simply determine that it can decide the Motion on the papers, and in that event, it will cancel the teleconference. That said, the Court encourages (though it does not require) the parties to consider allowing a newer attorney who is familiar with the case and the Motion (if applicable) to argue the Motion. If any party advises the Court in advance that a newer attorney will argue the Motion, see Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/StandingOrder2017.pdf, then the Court will go forward with the conference and will not cancel it. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 5/27/2022. (dlb) |
| May 19, 2022 | N/A | SO ORDERED (0) Docket Text: SO ORDERED D.I. [33] STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for Defendant Apple Inc. to file its reply brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss to May 26, 2022 filed by Apple, Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 5/19/2022. (dlb) |
| May 19, 2022 | 33 | Stipulation to EXTEND Time (2) Docket Text: STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for Defendant Apple Inc. to file its reply brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss to May 26, 2022 - filed by Apple, Inc.. (Moore, David) |
| May 19, 2022 | 34 | Redacted Document (Main Document) (18) Docket Text: REDACTED VERSION of [32] Answering Brief in Opposition, re [26] Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1, # (2) Exhibit 2, # (3) Certificate of Service)(Simmons, John) |
| May 19, 2022 | 34 | Redacted Document (Exhibit 1) (3) Docket Text: REDACTED VERSION of [32] Answering Brief in Opposition, re [26] Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1, # (2) Exhibit 2, # (3) Certificate of Service)(Simmons, John) |
| May 19, 2022 | 34 | Redacted Document (Exhibit 2) (30) Docket Text: REDACTED VERSION of [32] Answering Brief in Opposition, re [26] Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1, # (2) Exhibit 2, # (3) Certificate of Service)(Simmons, John) |
| May 19, 2022 | 34 | Redacted Document (Certificate of Service) (1) Docket Text: REDACTED VERSION of [32] Answering Brief in Opposition, re [26] Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1, # (2) Exhibit 2, # (3) Certificate of Service)(Simmons, John) |
| Apr 28, 2022 | N/A | SO ORDERED (0) Docket Text: SO ORDERED D.I. (21 in 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB) Stipulation filed by ImmerVision, Inc., (17 in 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB) Stipulation filed by ImmerVision, Inc., (31 in 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB) Stipulation filed by ImmerVision, Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 4/28/2022. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(dlb) |
| Apr 28, 2022 | 31 | Stipulation (3) Docket Text: STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to Extend Time by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Simmons, John) |
| Apr 21, 2022 | 30 | Redacted Document (Main Document) (13) Docket Text: REDACTED VERSION of [27] Opening Brief in Support by Apple, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A)(Moore, David) |
| Apr 21, 2022 | 30 | Redacted Document (Exhibit A) (3) Docket Text: REDACTED VERSION of [27] Opening Brief in Support by Apple, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A)(Moore, David) |
| Apr 18, 2022 | N/A | Oral Order (0) Docket Text: ORAL ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer and discuss, in person and/or by telephone, each of the matters listed on Judge Burke's Case Management Checklist ("Checklist"). Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, the parties shall jointly file a proposed Scheduling Order, which is consistent with Judge Burke's "Rule 16 Scheduling Order Patent" up through and including paragraph number 16 (i.e., regarding the portions of the case schedule leading up to but not including the case dispositive motion stage of the case) and that is consistent with paragraphs 15-22 of Judge Noreika's "Patent Scheduling Order - Non-ANDA" (i.e., regarding the portions of the case schedule from the case dispositive motion stage through post-trial motions); and (ii) a letter, not to exceed three pages, that contains the following: (a) a description of what this case is about; (b) the parties positions regarding any disputes in the proposed Scheduling Order; and (c) a list of the three most significant topics (other than Scheduling Order disputes) discussed during the parties' review of the Checklist items, along with a brief description as to what was discussed as to those topics. Thereafter, the Court may schedule a Case Management Conference/Rule 16 Scheduling Conference to be held with Judge Burke. The Checklist and both Scheduling Orders can be found on Judge Burke's/Judge Noreika's portions of the District Court's website.. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 4/18/2022. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(dlb) |
| Apr 14, 2022 | N/A | Motions Referred (0) Docket Text: MOTION REFERRED: [26] MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Motion referred to Christopher J. Burke.(dlb) |
| Apr 14, 2022 | 26 | Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Main Document) (1) Docket Text: MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim - filed by Apple, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Moore, David) |
| Apr 14, 2022 | 26 | Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Text of Proposed Order) (1) Docket Text: MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim - filed by Apple, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Moore, David) |
| Apr 14, 2022 | 28 | Disclosure Statement (1) Docket Text: Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by Apple, Inc.. (Moore, David) |
| Apr 7, 2022 | N/A | Add Attorneys Pro Hac Vice (0) Docket Text: Pro Hac Vice Attorney Jennifer M Hartjes for Apple, Inc. added for electronic noticing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 (d)., Delaware counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. (mpb) |
| Apr 6, 2022 | N/A | Add Attorneys Pro Hac Vice (0) Docket Text: Pro Hac Vice Attorney Doug Winnard, Jennifer M Hartjes, Michael T. Pieja, and Shaun Zhang for Apple, Inc. added for electronic noticing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 (d)., Delaware counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. (mpb) |
| Apr 5, 2022 | N/A | SO ORDERED (0) Docket Text: SO ORDERED D.I. (12 in 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB) MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Michael T. Pieja, Doug Winnard, Shaun Zhang and Jennifer M. Hartjes of Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP filed by Apple, Inc.. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 4/5/2022. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(dlb) |
| Mar 24, 2022 | 23 | Amended Complaint* (1) |
| Mar 24, 2022 | 25 | Amended Complaint* (1) |
| Mar 24, 2022 | N/A | SO ORDERED (0) Docket Text: SO ORDERED D.I. [20] MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff's UNOPPOSED MOTION for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff shall file the Second Amended Complaint on the docket.Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 3/24/2022. (mlc) |
| Mar 24, 2022 | 22 | Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice (5) Docket Text: MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Michael T. Pieja, Doug Winnard, Shaun Zhang and Jennifer M. Hartjes of Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP - filed by Apple, Inc.. Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke.(Palapura, Bindu) |
| Mar 24, 2022 | 23 | Redacted Document (Main Document) (3) Docket Text: REDACTED VERSION of [20] MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff's UNOPPOSED MOTION for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Second Amended Complaint, # (2) Exhibits A to H to the Second Amended Complaint, # (3) Blackline of the Second Amended Complaint, # (4) Exhibit 3 - E-mail, # (5) Text of Proposed Order)(Butler, Dennis) |
| Mar 24, 2022 | 23 | Redacted Document (Second Amended Complaint) (11) Docket Text: REDACTED VERSION of [20] MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff's UNOPPOSED MOTION for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Second Amended Complaint, # (2) Exhibits A to H to the Second Amended Complaint, # (3) Blackline of the Second Amended Complaint, # (4) Exhibit 3 - E-mail, # (5) Text of Proposed Order)(Butler, Dennis) |
| Mar 24, 2022 | 23 | Redacted Document (Exhibits A to H to the Second Amended Complaint) (30) Docket Text: REDACTED VERSION of [20] MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff's UNOPPOSED MOTION for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Second Amended Complaint, # (2) Exhibits A to H to the Second Amended Complaint, # (3) Blackline of the Second Amended Complaint, # (4) Exhibit 3 - E-mail, # (5) Text of Proposed Order)(Butler, Dennis) |
| Mar 24, 2022 | 23 | Redacted Document (Blackline of the Second Amended Complaint) (12) Docket Text: REDACTED VERSION of [20] MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff's UNOPPOSED MOTION for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Second Amended Complaint, # (2) Exhibits A to H to the Second Amended Complaint, # (3) Blackline of the Second Amended Complaint, # (4) Exhibit 3 - E-mail, # (5) Text of Proposed Order)(Butler, Dennis) |
| Mar 24, 2022 | 23 | Redacted Document (Exhibit 3 - E-mail) (3) Docket Text: REDACTED VERSION of [20] MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff's UNOPPOSED MOTION for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Second Amended Complaint, # (2) Exhibits A to H to the Second Amended Complaint, # (3) Blackline of the Second Amended Complaint, # (4) Exhibit 3 - E-mail, # (5) Text of Proposed Order)(Butler, Dennis) |
| Mar 24, 2022 | 23 | Redacted Document (Text of Proposed Order) (1) Docket Text: REDACTED VERSION of [20] MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff's UNOPPOSED MOTION for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Second Amended Complaint, # (2) Exhibits A to H to the Second Amended Complaint, # (3) Blackline of the Second Amended Complaint, # (4) Exhibit 3 - E-mail, # (5) Text of Proposed Order)(Butler, Dennis) |
| Mar 24, 2022 | 25 | Redacted Document (Main Document) (12) Docket Text: REDACTED VERSION of [24] Amended Complaint by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibits A to H)(Butler, Dennis) |
| Mar 24, 2022 | 25 | Redacted Document (Exhibits A to H) (30) Docket Text: REDACTED VERSION of [24] Amended Complaint by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibits A to H)(Butler, Dennis) |
| Mar 23, 2022 | 21 | Opening Brief in Support (7) Docket Text: OPENING BRIEF in Support re [20] MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff's UNOPPOSED MOTION for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint filed by ImmerVision, Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 4/6/2022. (Butler, Dennis) |
| Feb 22, 2022 | N/A | SO ORDERED (0) Docket Text: SO ORDERED D.I. [19] STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint to March 25, 2022 filed by Apple, Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 2/2/2022. (dlb) |
| Feb 18, 2022 | 19 | Stipulation to EXTEND Time (2) Docket Text: STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint to March 25, 2022 - filed by Apple, Inc.. (Moore, David) |
| Feb 16, 2022 | N/A | SO ORDERED (0) Docket Text: SO ORDERED D.I. (8 in 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB) MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Keith A. Jones filed by ImmerVision, Inc.,D.I. (8 in 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB) MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Keith A. Jones filed by ImmerVision, Inc.,and D.I. (14 in 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB) MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Keith A. Jones filed by ImmerVision, Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 2/16/2022. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01570-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(dlb) |
| Feb 16, 2022 | N/A | Add Attorneys Pro Hac Vice (0) Docket Text: Pro Hac Vice Attorney Keith A. Jones for ImmerVision, Inc. added for electronic noticing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 (d)., Delaware counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. (apk) |
| Feb 15, 2022 | 17 | Notice of Appearance (2) Docket Text: NOTICE of Appearance by Bindu Ann George Palapura on behalf of Apple, Inc. (Palapura, Bindu) |
| Feb 15, 2022 | 18 | Notice of Appearance (2) Docket Text: NOTICE of Appearance by Brandon Ryan Harper on behalf of Apple, Inc. (Harper, Brandon) |
| Feb 10, 2022 | 15 | Stipulation (3) Docket Text: STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Staying Case Pending Resolution of Disputes in Related Actions by Apple, Inc.. (Palapura, Bindu) |
| Feb 10, 2022 | N/A | Oral Order (0) Docket Text: ORAL ORDER: The Court has reviewed the parties' proposed stipulation requesting a stay pending the resolution of disputes in certain related actions, (D.I. 9 in Civil Action No. 21-1481-MN-CJB; D.I. 15 in Civil Action No. 21-1733-MN-CJB). After conferring with the District Judge, and in light of the District Judge's related order denying a stay request in those related cases, (D.I. 154 in Civil Action No. 18-1630-MN-CJB; D.I. 152 in Civil Action No. 18-1631-MN-CJB), the Court hereby ORDERS that the proposed stipulation is DENIED. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 2/10/2022. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB, 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB(dlb) |
| Feb 9, 2022 | 14 | Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice (3) Docket Text: MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Keith A. Jones - filed by ImmerVision, Inc.. Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke.(Simmons, John) |
| Feb 3, 2022 | N/A | SO ORDERED (0) Docket Text: SO ORDERED D.I. [13] STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint to March 10, 2022 filed by Apple, Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 2/3/2022. (dlb) |
| Feb 3, 2022 | 13 | Stipulation to EXTEND Time (2) Docket Text: STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint to March 10, 2022 - filed by Apple, Inc.. (Moore, David) |
| Jan 18, 2022 | 12 | Return of Service Executed (2) Docket Text: Return of Service Executed by ImmerVision, Inc.. Apple, Inc. served on 1/18/2022, answer due 2/8/2022. (Simmons, John) |
| Jan 13, 2022 | 11 | Amended Complaint* (1) |
| Jan 13, 2022 | 11 | Redacted Document (Main Document) (10) Docket Text: REDACTED VERSION of [10] Amended Complaint by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibits A to H)(Simmons, John) |
| Jan 13, 2022 | 11 | Redacted Document (Exhibits A to H) (30) Docket Text: REDACTED VERSION of [10] Amended Complaint by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibits A to H)(Simmons, John) |
| Dec 20, 2021 | N/A | Remark re Newer Attorneys (0) Docket Text: REMARK: The parties should be aware that the Court encourages the participation of newer attorneys in courtroom proceedings and at oral argument. Please see the Court's Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, a link to which is provided here for the parties' convenience:http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/forms/StandingOrder2017.pdf (dlb) |
| Dec 20, 2021 | N/A | Remark (0) Docket Text: Remark: The parties should follow the Court's Standing Order Regarding Courtesy Copies, a copy of which is found on Judge Burkes portion of the District Court's webpage: https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/judge/magistrate-judge-christopher-j-burke (dlb) |
| Dec 16, 2021 | N/A | CORRECTING ENTRY: (0) Docket Text: CORRECTING ENTRY: removed incorrect related case (21-cv-1481 from civil cover sheet), and added correct related case, 21-cv-1484. (rjb) |
| Dec 16, 2021 | N/A | Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge (0) Docket Text: ORAL ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke to hear and resolve all pre-trial matters up to and including expert discovery matters (but not including summary judgment motions, Daubert motions, pre-trial motions in limine or the pre-trial conference), subject to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and any further Order of the Court. All subsequent filings in this action shall be captioned as follows: Civil Action No. 21-1733-MN-CJB. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 12/16/2021. (dlw) |
| Dec 15, 2021 | N/A | Case Assigned/Reassigned (0) Docket Text: Case Assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika. Please include the initials of the Judge (MN) after the case number on all documents filed. (rjb) |
| Dec 9, 2021 | N/A | Remark (0) Docket Text: Remark: Exit Electronic Copies to Duty Judge (MN). (apk) |
| Dec 9, 2021 | N/A | Remark (0) Docket Text: Remark: Case Submitted for Routine Judicial Assignment. (apk) |
| Dec 9, 2021 | 7 | Order on Motion to Seal (1) Docket Text: ORDER granting D.I. [1] Motion for Leave to File Exhibit B to Complaint Under Seal. Plaintiffs shall file a public version of Exhibit B filed under seal, which redacts any confidential information, within seven days of this Order. Signed by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 12/9/2021. (apk) |
| Dec 9, 2021 | 8 | Redacted Document (4) Docket Text: REDACTED VERSION of [6] Exhibit to a Document by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Simmons, John) |
| Dec 8, 2021 | 2 | Complaint* (1) |
| Dec 8, 2021 | 1 | Motion to Seal (3) Docket Text: MOTION for Leave to File Exhibit B to Complaint Under Seal - filed by ImmerVision, Inc. (apk) |
| Dec 8, 2021 | 2 | Complaint (Main Document) (9) Docket Text: COMPLAINT filed with Jury Demand against Apple, Inc. - Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ADEDC-3759068.) - filed by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A-G, # (2) Civil Cover Sheet)(apk) |
| Dec 8, 2021 | 2 | Complaint (Exhibit A-G) (30) Docket Text: COMPLAINT filed with Jury Demand against Apple, Inc. - Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ADEDC-3759068.) - filed by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A-G, # (2) Civil Cover Sheet)(apk) |
| Dec 8, 2021 | 2 | Complaint (Civil Cover Sheet) (1) Docket Text: COMPLAINT filed with Jury Demand against Apple, Inc. - Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ADEDC-3759068.) - filed by ImmerVision, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A-G, # (2) Civil Cover Sheet)(apk) |
| Dec 8, 2021 | 3 | Magistrate Consent Forms (3) Docket Text: Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (apk) |
| Dec 8, 2021 | 4 | Patent/Trademark Report to Commissioner (1) Docket Text: Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) US 6,844,990 B2. (apk) |
| Dec 8, 2021 | 5 | Disclosure Statement (1) Docket Text: Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by ImmerVision, Inc. (apk) |
