Uniloc v. Sony, et (really) al., 6:10cv373 (E.D. Tex. 11/3/11)
Judge: Leonard Davis
Holding: Provisional Claim Construction / Case Management Holdings
Yesterday Judge Leonard Davis of Tyler issued a provisional claim construction holding in the Uniloc litigation that included some comments regarding some of the case management techniques used with some success in this case, which involves seven separate cases and which initially had over 124 defendants.
Provisional claim construction
First, Judge Davis issued a provisional claim construction order setting forth his initial constructions for the three disputed claim terms. "The Court will issue a Memorandum Opinion, including a full analysis of the disputed claim terms, at a later date," he wrote. "The Court may modify these provisional constructions when it issues the Memorandum Opinion. This Order is intended to serve as a guideline and framework with which the parties may proceed at an earlier point in the litigation."
Case Management
Judge Davis then described briefly the case management history in the case. "Early in this multiple-defendant case," he wrote, "the Court held a status conference to both flesh out Plaintiff’s rationale for suing more than 124 defendants, and to entertain ideas regarding case management of a series of cases of this magnitude. Given the total number of defendants and the relative size of these cases, the Court requested input from the parties regarding strategies to promote the efficient and
economical management of these cases. Based on the Court’s assessment of the case and the
parties’ input, the Court modified its standard docket control order and fashioned a unique schedule regarding discovery disclosures for these cases." (Internal citations omitted; emphasis mine).
Unique how?
- The Court maintained the normal early disclosure of Uniloc’s Infringement Contentions
under P.R. 3-1 and 3-2. - The Court also implemented an early disclosure of Uniloc’s previous licenses and Defendants’ accused product sales data.
- The Court set an early mediation deadline.
- The Court deferred P.R. 3-3 and 3-4 (Invalidity Contentions and Accompanying Disclosures) and all other disclosures until after the early mediation deadline.
- Defendants also had the option to disclose source code related to the accused instrumentalities identified in Uniloc’s P.R. 3-1(c) chart(s). If a Defendant chose to disclose its source code, Uniloc was obligated to amend its P.R. 3-1(c) chart(s), incorporating the source code, within 30 days.
- The parties would then mediate the case, and only after the mediation were Defendants required to comply with P.R. 3-3 and 3-4 and the exchange of disclosures according to the Court’s Discovery Order.
At the Markman hearing, the parties provided Judge Davis with comments regarding the results of this modified schedule. The parties reported that of the 124 Defendants initially named and the 95
remaining Defendants that appeared at the April status conference, only 20 parties remained in the
case. In other words, across all cases, a total of 104 Defendants resolved their differences with
Uniloc without the need for expensive and extensive early discovery. "The parties agreed that the
early disclosure of source code and sales data facilitated substantive discussions regarding noninfringement and allowed the parties to evaluate their relative positions at an early stage without the need for voluminous and expensive discovery," Judge Davis observed. "The parties also stated that the Court’s approach to this type of case, i.e. multiple defendant software patent case, allowed the parties to narrow the number of asserted claims and accused products significantly, in turn, reducing the cost of discovery for the remaining parties."
A few Defendants voiced concern regarding the “compressed” nature of the Court’s
modified schedule, Judge Davis noted, and he encouraged "any future multiple defendant
parties to substantively voice this concern early in the process so the Court can evaluate the need
to extend any deadlines set out in a modified schedule."
Judge Davis concluded with some comments about case management in multiple defendant cases:
The Court commends the parties for taking the modified schedule seriously and significantly narrowing the number of parties, claims, and accused products that are at issue in this case. The Court notes that despite the very vocal criticism of large multiple-defendant cases, this case in particular demonstrates that with willing parties, the Court can fashion a litigation process that attempts to successfully address the myriad concerns of all parties. As a result, this leads to efficient and economical resolution of these cases with regard to many Defendants without the need for expensive discovery. The Court can imagine the expense that each party may have borne had these cases been filed serially in far-flung venues across the nation. Not to mention—had these cases been filed serially across the nation—the concept of any judicial economy would have been severely undermined. The Court has also observed that many Defendants in these multiple party suits save significantly by sharing costs for, among other things, experts and third-party discovery vendors.
