1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION

APPLIANCE COMPUTING III, INC. 

d/b/a SUREFIELD,

Plaintiff,

v.

REDFIN CORPORATION,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NO. 6:20-CV-00376-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

[PROPOSED] JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER

Plaintiff Appliance Computing III, Inc. d/b/a Surefield, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Surefield”)

and Defendant Redfin Corporation (“Defendant” or “Redfin”) (collectively, “the Parties”) submit 

the following proposed Joint Pretrial Order pursuant to the Court’s Order (Dkt. No. 151), the 

Court’s Standing Order on Pretrial Procedures and Requirements in Civil Cases, Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, and Local Rules of this Court. The Parties have stipulated to various matters 

identified herein and having identified exhibits, witnesses, factual contentions, and triable issues:

It is hereby ORDERED as follows:

A. APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

1. Attorneys for Plaintiff Appliance Computing III, Inc. d/b/a Surefield, LLC

Andrew G. DiNovo

Nicole E. Glauser

Christopher V. Goodpastor

Adam G. Price

Gregory G. Donahue

Daniel L. Schmid

DiNovo Price LLP

7000 N. MoPac Expressway, Suite 350

Austin, Texas 78731

Telephone: (512) 539-2626

adinovo@dinovoprice.com

nglauser@dinovoprice.com

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 1 of 33
2

cgoodpastor@dinovoprice.com

aprice@dinovoprice.com

gdonahue@dinovoprice.com

dschmid@dinovoprice.com

Steven W. Fogg (admitted Pro Hac Vice)

sfogg@corrcronin.com

Eric A. Lindberg (admitted Pro Hac Vice)

elindberg@corrcronin.com

CORR CRONIN, LLP

1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900

Seattle, Washington 98154

Telephone: (206) 625-8600

Mark P. Walters (admitted Pro Hac Vice)

walters@lowegrahamjones.com

LOWE GRAHAM JONES, PLLC

701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4800

Seattle, Washington 98104

Telephone: (206) 381-3300

2. Attorneys for Defendant Redfin Corporation

Ryan Marton (admitted Pro Hac Vice)

ryan@martonribera.com

Hector Ribera (admitted Pro Hac Vice)

hector@martonribera.com

Carolyn Chang (admitted Pro Hac Vice)

carolyn@martonribera.com

Phillip J. Haack (admitted Pro Hac Vice)

phaack@martonribera.com

Marton Ribera Schumann & Chang LLP

548 Market St Suite 36117 

San Francisco, California 94104

Telephone: (415) 360-2515

Darryl J. Adams

dadams@sgbfirm.com

Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC

401 Congress Ave., Suite 1650

Austin, Texas 78701

Telephone: (512) 402-3562

Facsimile: (512) 402-6865

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 2 of 33
3

Benjamin J. Byer (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

benbyer@dwt.com

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300

Seattle, Washington 98104

Telephone: (206) 757-8105

Facsimile: (206) 757-7105

M. Scott Stevens (NC Bar # 37828)

Nicholas Marais (NC Bar #53553)

Karlee Wroblewski (NC Bar #55043)

ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

One South at the Plaza

101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000

Charlotte, North Carolina 28280

Tel: 704.444.1000

Fax: 704.444.1111

Deron R. Dacus (Texas Bar No. 00790553)

THE DACUS LAW FIRM, P.C.

821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430

Tyler, TX 75701

Telephone: (903) 705-1171

Facsimile: (903) 581-2543

B. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the action under Title 28, U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 

1338(a), because this action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C.§ 1 et seq. 

Subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 

1400(b) are not disputed in this case.

C. JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a civil action for patent infringement in which Surefield accuses Redfin of 

infringing claims 1, 3, and 8-9 of U.S. Patent No. 9,836,885 (“’885 Patent”); claims 1, 2, 4, 7-8, 

10-11, 13-14, and 17 of United States Patent No. 10,102,673 (“’673 Patent”); claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 

16, 18, and 21-22 of United States Patent No. 10,510,111 (“’111 Patent”); and claims 1-2, 4, 8, 15, 

17-19, and 22 of United States Patent No. 10,592,973 (“’973 Patent”) (collectively the “Asserted 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 3 of 33
4

Claims” of the “Asserted Patents”).

1 Surefield alleges that Redfin has directly infringed (literally)

and/or indirectly infringed (by inducing infringement of) each of the Asserted Claims. Surefield 

also contends that Redfin has indirectly infringed by contributing to the infringement of each of 

the Asserted Claims.2 Redfin contends that Surefield failed to adequately disclose any theory of 

contributory infringement in its Final Infringement Contentions (as well as its expert report) and 

is thus precluded from asserting contributory infringement at trial. 

The accused instrumentalities in this case are 3D virtual tours branded “3D Walkthrough”

and displayed as “Powered by Matterport, Inc.” that are accessible through Redfin’s property 

listings available on www.redfin.com and through Redfin’s mobile applications, and/or certain 

associated computer software and data, associated hardware, and processes and methods related 

to those 3D virtual tours, including servers, databases, computers, storage, and software services. 

Surefield asserts that Redfin’s infringement has been willful. Surefield seeks monetary damages 

in the form of an ongoing reasonable royalty, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and an award 

of its fees under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285. Surefield disagrees each allegation, defense, and/or 

affirmative defense asserted by Redfin. 

1 Pursuant to the Court’s January 11, 2022 Amended Scheduling Order (Dkt 151), Surefield will identify from these 

listed claims a final set of no more than 11 asserted claims by March 11, 2022. 

2 Redfin objects to Surefield asserting any claim of contributory infringement as Surefield has failed to disclose any 

theory of how Redfin contributes to any direct infringement by Matterport, Inc. or Redfin end-users in its Final 

Infringement Contentions or expert report beyond conclusory statements and recitation of the legal standard for 

contributory infringement. 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 4 of 33
5

Redfin denies that it has directly infringed or is directly infringing, or has induced anyone 

to infringe,3 any of the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents. Redfin further contends that the 

Asserted Claims are invalid as anticipated and/or are obvious in light of the prior art.

4

D. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

By providing these statements, the Parties do not concede that any of the following issues 

is appropriate for trial. The Parties also do not waive any of their pending motions or objections.

1. Surefield’s Contentions

The contentions below do not include every detail underlying each contention. Surefield

does not waive any of its pending motions, including any motions in limine, motions for summary 

judgment, Daubert motions, motions to strike, and any other already pending and future motions 

or objections it may file.

(1) Plaintiff Surefield is the owner of the ’885 Patent titled “Image-Based Rendering 

of Real Spaces.” Redfin has been and is infringing the ’885 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by

making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling Redfin’s Matterport-powered “3D Walkthrough” 

virtual home tour as deployed on www.redfin.com and Redfin’s mobile applications, which are 

covered by one or more claims of the ’885 Patent within the United States. Surefield accuses 

Redfin’s products of infringing claims 1, 3, 8, and/or 9 of the ’885 Patent.

3 Redfin objects to Surefield asserting any claim that Redfin induces end-users of the Redfin website or mobile 

application of infringement as Surefield has not disclosed any theory of direct infringement by end-users in its Final 

Infringement Contentions or expert report. 

4 Pursuant to the Court’s January 11, 2022 Amended Scheduling Order (Dkt 151), following Surefield's 

identification of a final set of asserted claims, Redfin will identify by March 18, 2022 its final set of prior art 

grounds including no more than 3 grounds per asserted claim from the previously narrowed prior art grounds for the 

respective claim, each prior art ground asserted per claim counts toward the total asserted prior art grounds which 

shall not exceed 28. 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 5 of 33
6

(2) Plaintiff Surefield is the owner of the ’673 Patent titled “Image-Based Rendering 

of Real Spaces.” Redfin has been and is infringing the ’673 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by

making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling Redfin’s Matterport-powered “3D Walkthrough” 

virtual home tour as deployed on www.redfin.com and Redfin’s mobile applications, which are 

covered by one or more claims of the ’673 Patent within the United States. Surefield accuses 

Redfin’s products of infringing claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and/or 17 of the ’673 Patent.

(3) Plaintiff Surefield is the owner of the ’111 Patent titled “Image-Based Rendering 

of Real Spaces.” Redfin has been and is infringing the ’111 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by

making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling Redfin’s Matterport-powered “3D Walkthrough” 

virtual home tour as deployed on www.redfin.com and Redfin’s mobile applications, which are 

covered by one or more claims of the ’111 Patent within the United States. Surefield accuses 

Redfin’s products of infringing claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 16, 18, 21, and/or 22 of the ’111 Patent.

(4) Plaintiff Surefield is the owner of the ’973 Patent titled “Image-Based Rendering 

of Real Spaces.” Redfin has been and is infringing the ’973 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by

making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling Redfin’s Matterport-powered “3D Walkthrough” 

virtual home tour as deployed on www.redfin.com and Redfin’s mobile applications, which are 

covered by one or more claims of the ’973 Patent within the United States. Surefield accuses 

Redfin’s products of infringing claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 17-19, and/or 22 of the ’973 Patent.

(5) Redfin performs each step of the Asserted Method Claims or, to the extent that any 

step(s) of any Asserted Claim is performed by someone other than Redfin, e.g. Matterport or endusers of Redfin’s website and/or, performance of that step is attributable to Redfin.

(6) Redfin indirectly infringes through inducement and contributory infringement 

claims 1, 3, 8, and/or 9 of the ’885 Patent, claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10l, 11, 13, 14, and/or 17 of the ’673 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 6 of 33
7

Patent, claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 16, 18, 21, and/or 22 of the ’111 Patent, claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 17-19, 

and/or 22 of the ’973 Patent.

(7) Surefield provided pre-suit notice of infringement of the ’885 Patent and the ’673 

Patent to Redfin and Redfin was aware of each of the Asserted Patents prior to the filing of 

Surefield’s Original Complaint. 

(8) Redfin’s infringement of the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents has been and 

continues to be willful. 

(9) The Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents are not invalid for any reason, 

including under 35 U.S.C. § § 102 and/or 103.

(10) The Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents are not unenforceable for any 

reason, including for inequitable conduct, improper inventorship, or any other legal or equitable 

theory asserted by Redfin.

(11) Surefield has been damaged by Redfin’s infringement of the Asserted 

Claims, and is entitled to damages for all infringement addressed at trial.

(12) Surefield is entitled to supplemental damages for all infringement that is not 

addressed at trial, including, for example, damages for infringement that occurred (i) after the 

temporal cutoff for the data presented at trial; and (ii) during the period between the jury verdict 

and the entry of final judgment, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest

(13) Surefield seeks the following relief:

i. A judgment that Redfin has infringed the ’885 Patent;

ii. A judgment that Redfin has infringed the ’673 Patent;

iii. A judgment that Redfin has infringed the ’111 Patent;

iv. A judgment that Redfin has infringed the ’973 Patent;

v. A judgment that Redfin’s infringement has been willful.

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 7 of 33
8

vi. A judgment and order requiring Redfin to pay Surefield damages under 35 

U.S.C. § 284, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

vii. A judgment and order requiring Redfin to pay Surefield the costs of this

action;

viii. A judgment and order declaring this case to be exceptional based on Redfin’s

infringement and/or litigation conduct; and

ix. A judgment and order awarding attorneys’ fees to Surefield under 35 U.S.C.

§ 285.

x. All equitable relied from the Court that is just and proper.

(14) Surefield contends that the Asserted Patents are valid, patent-eligible, and 

enforceable and that its claims are not barred or otherwise limited as a result of any of the 

affirmative defenses raised by Redfin.

(15) To the extent not already addressed above, Surefield disagrees with 

Redfin’s contentions below.

2. Redfin’s Contentions

Redfin does not infringe, either directly or indirectly, any Asserted Claim of any of the 

Asserted Patents. Each Asserted Claim is further invalid as anticipated by or obvious in light of 

the prior art. Accordingly, Surefield is not entitled to any relief it seeks. Redfin further contends 

that:

(1) Redfin does not make, use, sell, or offer to sell a system or any computer readable 

memory medium that is claimed in the Asserted Patents.

(2) Redfin does not practice each and every element of any Asserted Claim by 

providing on its website at www.redfin.com or through Redfin mobile applications property 

listings that link to Matterport-powered “3D Walkthrough” virtual home tours, or otherwise.

(3) Redfin does not direct or control Matterport, Inc. or otherwise control the manner 

or timing of Matterport’s acts in creating 3D Walkthrough home tours.

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 8 of 33
9

(4) Redfin has not induced and does not induce infringement of any Asserted Claim.

(5) Surefield is precluded from presenting any theory of contributory infringement at 

trial having failed to disclose any contributory infringement theory in its Final Infringement 

Contentions, or otherwise.

(6) Each of the Asserted Claim of the Asserted Patents is invalid because it is either 

anticipated by the prior and/or is obvious in light of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 

103. 

(7) Redfin is not liable to Surefield under any cause of action or legal theory 

Surefield asserts.

(8) Surefield is not entitled to any of the recovery it seeks.

(9) Surefield is not entitled to any other costs, interests, or further relief.

(10) Surefield is not entitled to any damages, including but not limited to a reasonable 

royalty.

(11) Surefield is not entitled to a finding of infringement.

(12) Surefield is not entitled to a finding of willful infringement.

(13) This is an exceptional case.

(14) Redfin is entitled to an order requiring Surefield to pay its costs and attorneys’ 

fees reasonably incurred in defending this action.

E. STIPULATIONS AND UNCONTESTED FACTS

The Parties will continue to meet and confer to attempt to resolve their objections to 

deposition designations and exhibits, and to identify additional potential stipulations, including 

stipulations related to the admissibility of exhibits, and will supplement these stipulations to the 

extent that additional stipulations are agreed by the parties.

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 9 of 33
10

1. The Parties’ Statement of Stipulations.

The Parties have met and conferred and agreed upon certain trial management procedures 

as set forth below.

2. The Parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts5

(1) Appliance Computing III, Inc. d/b/a Surefield, LLC is a corporation organized and 

existing under the laws of the state of Delaware.

(2) Redfin Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the 

State of Delaware.

(3) The Asserted Patents are U.S. Patent No. 9,836,885 (“’885 Patent”); United States 

Patent No. 10,102,673 (“’673 Patent”); United States Patent No. 10,510,111 (“’111 Patent”); and 

United States Patent No. 10,592,973 (“’973 Patent”) (collectively the “Asserted Patents”). 

(4) Surefield is the record assignee and owner of the Asserted Patents.

(5) Each of the Asserted Patents is titled “Image-Based Rendering of Real Spaces.”

(6) Each of the Asserted Patents names David Eraker, Aravind Kalaiah, and Robert 

McGarty as inventors. 

(7) Each of the Asserted Patents claims priority to the October 25, 2013 filing of U.S.

Provisional Application No. 61/895,978.

(8) U.S. Patent No. 9,836,885 was filed on October 27, 2014 and issued on December 

5, 2017. 

(9) U.S. Patent No. 10,102,673 was filed on December 5, 2017 and issued on October 

16, 2018. 

5 Surefield maintains that Redfin’s factual statements in its Responses to Surefield’s Requests for Admission also 

constitute uncontested facts that may be presented to the jury as such.

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 10 of 33
11

(10) U.S. Patent No. 10,510,111 was filed on September 13, 2018 and issued on 

December 17, 2019. 

(11) U.S. Patent No. 10,592,973 was filed on November 12, 2019 and issued on March 

17, 2020. 

(12) On May 11, 2020, Surefield filed the Complaint asserting infringement of the 

Asserted Patents.

(13) Redfin will not be challenging at trial the contention that the effective filing date 

for all the claimed inventions is October 25, 2013.

(14) The accused 3D Walkthrough virtual tours were first accessible through property 

listings available on www.redfin.com on August 21, 2014.

F. CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW

The parties identify the following issues that remain to be litigated. To the extent any issue 

of law discussed below is deemed to be an issue of fact, it is incorporated into this section. The 

Parties reserve the right to identify additional factual or legal issues that may arise, including issues 

raised by any further discovery undertaken in this case or the Court’s rulings on any pending 

motions or rulings made at the pretrial conference on this action.

By providing this statement, the Parties do not concede that all of these issues are 

appropriate for trial. The Parties also do not waive any of their pending motions.

1. Surefield’s Positions 

Infringement

(1) Whether Surefield has shown by a preponderance of evidence that Redfin has

directly infringed claims 1, 3, 8, and/or 9 of the ’885 Patent.

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 11 of 33
12

(2) Whether Surefield has shown by a preponderance of evidence that Redfin has 

indirectly infringed claims 1, 3, 8, and/or 9 of the ’885 Patent by inducing others to directly infringe 

or by contributing to others’ direct infringement.

(3) Whether Surefield has shown by a preponderance of evidence that Redfin directly 

infringes claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and/or 17 of the ’673 Patent.

(4) Whether Surefield has shown by a preponderance of evidence that Redfin has 

indirectly infringed claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and/or 17 of the ’673 Patent by inducing 

others to directly infringe or by contributing to others’ direct infringement.

(5) Whether Surefield has shown by a preponderance of evidence that Redfin directly 

infringed claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 16, 18, 21, and/or 22 of the ’111 Patent.

(6) Whether Surefield has shown by a preponderance of evidence that Redfin has 

indirectly infringed claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 16, 18, 21, and/or 22 of the ’111 Patent by inducing others 

to directly infringe or by contributing to others’ direct infringement.

(7) Whether Surefield has shown by a preponderance of evidence that Redfin directly 

infringed claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 17, 18, 19, and/or 22 of the ’973 Patent.

(8) Whether Surefield has shown by a preponderance of evidence that Redfin has 

indirectly infringed claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 17, 18, 19, and/or 22 of the ’973 Patent by inducing others 

to directly infringe or by contributing to others’ direct infringement.

(9) Whether Surefield has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Redfin has 

willfully infringed the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents.

Invalidity

(10) Whether Redfin has proved by clear and convincing evidence that claims 1, 3, 8, 

and/or 9 of the ’885 Patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 12 of 33
13

(11) Whether Redfin has proved by clear and convincing evidence that claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 

8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and/or 17 of the ’673 Patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 

§ 103.

(12) Whether Redfin has proved by clear and convincing evidence that claims 1, 4, 9, 

11, 16, 18, 21, and/or 22 of the ’111 Patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. § 

103.

(13) Whether Redfin has proved by clear and convincing evidence that claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 

15, 17, 18, 19, and/or 22 of the ’973 Patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. § 

103.

Damages and Remedies

(14) Whether Surefield has shown by a preponderance of the evidence the amount of 

reasonable royalty damages to which it is entitled for any patent containing at least one claim that 

is found to be infringed and not invalid for the period from the issuance date of the earliest patent 

found to be infringed through December 31, 2021.

(15) If the jury awards damages to Surefield, whether Surefield has shown by a 

preponderance of the evidence that it is entitled to supplemental damages for infringement that is 

not included in the jury verdict, including, for example damages for infringement that occurred 

after December 31, 2021 and/or the period between the jury verdict and the entry of final judgment.

(16) If Surefield provides infringement of one or more patent claims that are not invalid, 

whether Surefield is entitled to ongoing royalties for post-judgment infringement (rather than an 

injunction), and the amount of those royalties.

(17) If the jury awards damages to Surefield, whether Surefield has shown by a 

preponderance of the evidence that it is entitled to pre- and/or post-judgment interest, and if so the 

amount.

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 13 of 33
14

(18) If the jury finds willful infringement, whether Surefield should be awarded 

enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and, if so, the amount of enhancement.

(19) Whether this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and, if so, whether Surefield 

or is entitled to attorneys’ fees or costs, and, if so, the amount.

Affirmative Defenses to Infringement

(20) Whether Redfin has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Asserted 

Claims of each of the Asserted Patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (anticipation) and/or 

103 (obviousness).

2. Redfin’s Positions

Infringement

(1) Whether Redfin directly infringed or infringe any of the asserted system or 

computer readable memory medium claims under any theory, including given Surefield only 

accuses capabilities offered by Matterport and Matterport systems.

(2) Whether Redfin indirectly infringed or infringes any of the asserted method claims 

under any theory, including inducing Matterport to infringe.6

(3) Whether the accused Matterport 3D Walkthroughs directly infringed or infringe the 

Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents.

(4) Whether Surefield can prove that any alleged infringement by Redfin of any of the 

Asserted Claims of any of the Asserted Patents was willful.

6 Redfin contends that Surefield is precluded from asserting any claims of contributory infringement at trial, having 

failed to adequately disclose any contributory infringement theory in its Final Infringement Contentions or 

otherwise. 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 14 of 33
15

Invalidity

(5) Whether the Asserted Claims of each of the Asserted Patents are invalid under 35 

U.S.C. §§ 102 (anticipation) and/or 103 (obviousness).

Damages and Remedies

(6) Whether Surefield can prove that it is entitled to any damages, including a 

reasonable royalty.

(7) Whether Surefield is entitled to pre- and post-judgment interest, and if so, in what 

amount.

(8) Whether Surefield is entitled to enhanced damages.

(9) Whether this case is exceptional.

(10) Whether Redfin is entitled to an order requiring Surefield to pay its costs and 

attorneys’ fees.

G. LIST OF WITNESSES

Surefield’s witness list with Redfin’s objections is attached as Exhibit 1.

Redfin’s witness list with Surefield’s objections is attached as Exhibit 2.

H. LIST OF EXHIBITS

A Joint Exhibit list, including documents identified by both Parties and not objected to, is 

attached as Exhibit 3.

Surefield’s Exhibit List with Redfin’s objections thereto is attached as Exhibit 4. Redfin’s 

Exhibit List with Surefield’s objections thereto is attached as Exhibit 5. 

The Parties will continue to meet and confer regarding their respective objections and strive 

to resolve all objections and issues prior to presenting them to the Court.

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 15 of 33
16

I. DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS

Surefield’s deposition designations with Redfin’s objections and counter-designations are 

attached as Exhibit 6.

Redfin’s deposition designations with Surefield’s objections and counter-designations are 

attached as Exhibit 7.

J. STIPULATIONS AND TRIAL DISCLOSURES

The following stipulations were agreed upon by the parties as discussed below and are 

made a part of this Pretrial Order. 

The parties agree to the following procedure which will govern the disclosure of witnesses, 

exhibits, deposition testimony and demonstratives to use at trial and the process to identify any 

objections remaining between the parties with regard to these disclosures. 

1. Motions

All motions for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) may be 

brought to the Court orally or in writing. Unless the Court sets alternative deadlines, all oppositions 

to motions filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) must be filed within 28 days of the filing of the 

motion. All replies in support of the motions must be filed within 21 days of service of any 

oppositions. The parties reserve their right to seek reasonable extensions of these deadlines, subject 

to the Court’s approval.

2. Exhibits

(1) The parties agree that any exhibit listed on any party’s exhibit list as to which no 

objection remains pending at the time of opening statements may be shown to the jury during 

opening statements. The parties agree that exhibits to be used or offered into evidence solely for 

impeachment need not be included on the parties’ trial exhibit lists. Except for such documents 

used solely for impeachment, a party may not offer substantive documentary evidence not 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 16 of 33
17

appearing on its exhibit list or the exhibit list of the other party, unless the Court determines that 

the interest of justice so warrants.

(2) Each party has the right to use an exhibit on either party’s exhibit list, even if not 

introduced by the designating party, subject to all evidentiary objections. Another party’s exhibit 

is not, however, admissible simply by virtue of being on an exhibit list. A party seeking to 

introduce another party’s exhibit must still have a witness sponsor the exhibit into evidence and is 

subject to any objections, including for example, hearsay objections that may apply to one party 

but not the other.

(3) Any document produced in discovery in this case bearing a production number and 

that on its face appears to have been generated by the producing party (including documents 

generated by the producing party’s employees during the course of their employment) shall be 

deemed to be prima facie authentic. Any secondary document (e.g., email attachment, website 

link, etc.) embedded within or attached to a primary document that qualifies as prima facie 

authentic under the preceding sentence shall not be deemed prima facie authentic unless it 

separately and independently qualifies as prima facie authentic under the preceding sentence. 

(4) A legible copy of an exhibit may be offered in evidence in lieu of the original 

subject to all foundational requirements and other objections that might be made to the 

admissibility of the original and subject to the right of the party against whom it is offered to 

inspect on original upon request reasonably in advance of any proposed use of the copy. For 

exhibits that are spreadsheets, slide presentations, or videos, the parties may use electronic versions 

of such exhibits in their native format.

(5) Legible photocopies of United States and foreign patent and trademark 

applications, published documents, issued documents, and file histories, including the asserted 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 17 of 33
18

patents and their file histories, may be used in evidence in lieu of certified copies thereof, subject 

to all other objections which might be made to the admissibility of certified copies. The dates of 

filing and issuance and the identity of the inventors of record shall be deemed to be shown on the 

face of the patent, subject to the right of the party against whom it is offered to adduce evidence 

to the contrary.

(6) The parties will exchange by email lists of exhibits they intend to use during direct 

examination or by witnesses called by designation by 7:00 p.m.7 two (2) calendar days before their 

intended use (i.e., Sunday evening for a witness to be called on Tuesday), and provide an 

identification of the witness(es) each such exhibit will be used with on direct examination or by 

designation. The parties shall exchange objections to exhibits by 7:00 p.m. one (1) calendar day

before the exhibits are proposed to be introduced and the parties shall then meet and confer 

regarding all objections by 9:00 p.m. the day the objections are provided. To the extent good faith 

efforts to resolve objections fail, the objecting party will raise the objections with the Court, if 

possible, on the morning, before trial begins, of the day the exhibits are intended be used, but 

otherwise prior to the introduction of the exhibit.

(7) No exhibit will be admitted unless offered into evidence through a witness, who 

must at least be shown the exhibit and formally moved the exhibit into evidence by exhibit number.

(8) Exhibits may not be published, displayed, or otherwise shown to the jury until after 

they have been admitted into evidence, except documents used for demonstrative purposes only or 

used during examination of an expert witness where the documents were relied upon by the expert 

in forming the expert’s opinions and disclosed in that expert’s report, and for which there is no 

objection or any objection has been overruled.

7 All times noted herein are Central Time.

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 18 of 33
19

(9) The parties agreed to exchange lists of “Admitted Exhibits” (those admitted into 

evidence) by 9:00 p.m. the same day they were entered.

3. Witnesses

The parties will identify by email witnesses to be called live or by deposition (in the order 

that they will be called) at 7:00 p.m. two (2) calendar days in advance of the day of trial during 

which the witnesses will testify. For example, if a witness will testify on a Monday, the witness 

must be identified by 7:00 p.m. on the previous Saturday. The parties shall exchange objections 

to any identified witnesses by 7:00 p.m. the day before the witness is offered to testify. The parties 

shall then meet and confer telephonically or in person by 9:00 p.m. the day the objections are 

provided in an attempt to resolve any objections. To the extent good faith efforts to resolve 

objections fail, the objecting party will raise the objections with the Court, if possible, on the 

morning, before trial begins, of the day the witness is intended to testify, but otherwise prior to 

witness taking the stand.

4. Deposition Testimony

(1) For deposition designations, the parties will provide a list of any deposition 

designations that party intends to present, along with estimated run-times for video, by 7:00 p.m. 

two (2) days before the designation is to be read or played. Any counter-designations and 

objections shall be provided by 7:00 p.m. the day before the deposition is to be played. All 

objections to counter-designations shall be provided no later than 8:00 p.m. the day the counterdesignations are provided. The parties shall then meet and confer regarding all objections by 9:00 

p.m. Any unresolved objections will be raised with the Court the next morning. Promptly after 

the meet and confer one (1) day before the deposition testimony is to be played, the party that 

seeks to read or play the deposition testimony must provide the opposing party a workable copy 

of the actual recordings to be played (or testimony to be read), including all designations and 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 19 of 33
20

counter designations included sequentially (i.e., in the order that they appeared at the deposition).

The parties shall cooperate in good faith to prepare the designated portions of the depositions for 

presentation at trial. The time available for each side’s trial presentation shall be reduced by the 

length of its designations or counter-designations actually played or read at trial. If played, such 

time shall be measured by the amount of time of each party’s designations.

(2) The parties agree to continue to meet and confer to resolve any objections to the 

other party’s deposition designations and exhibits. The parties agree to endeavor to enter into 

stipulations as to the authenticity and use of produced documents following the exchange of exhibit 

lists and objections.

(3) Unless used for impeachment, all designated deposition testimony shall be played 

by video unless both parties reach an agreement to read the deposition testimony live or the Court 

orders otherwise. The parties’ designations and counter-designations shall be played together.

(4) Regardless of whether deposition testimony is read or played by video, the time 

available for each party’s trial presentation shall be reduced by the length of its designated and 

counter-designated testimony read or played.

(5) Prior to the introduction of deposition designations or counter-designations, 

counsel for the introducing party may provide a short introduction to the jury about the identity of 

the witness, which introduction the parties agree is not evidence and the time for which will be 

charged against that party.

(6) All irrelevant and redundant colloquy between counsel and objections will be 

eliminated as much as practicable when the deposition testimony is presented at trial.

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 20 of 33
21

(7) For each deposition, the specific portions of the deposition designated or counterdesignated by either party shall be read or played together in the same order as the real time 

deposition testimony with all objections and colloquy removed.

(8) Any deposition testimony not specifically identified on a party’s deposition 

designation list may still be used at trial for the purpose of impeachment, if otherwise competent 

for that purpose. When a party uses deposition testimony for impeachment, the party may elect to 

either play the deposition testimony by video or read the deposition testimony live unless the Court 

orders otherwise.

(9) To the extent certain designated deposition testimony is admissible, a party’s 

decision not to introduce some or all of the deposition testimony of a witness designated by that 

party herein shall not be commented upon by the other party at trial.

(10) If a party withdraws testimony previously designated, the other party has the right 

to designate the withdrawn testimony subject to the initially designating party’s objections.

5. Demonstrative Exhibits

(1) The parties will exchange by email copies of all documentary, graphic, slide, 

animation, boards, and any other form of Demonstratives they plan to use at trial for use during 

direct examination – but not for cross-examination – and an identification of witnesses each such 

Demonstrative will be use with, by 7:00 p.m. the night before their intended use. In other words, 

if a demonstrative will be used on Monday, it must be exchanged or made available by 7:00 p.m. 

on the previous Sunday. That same evening, the parties shall exchange objections to 

demonstratives by 8:00 p.m. and then meet and confer regarding all objections by 9:00 p.m. To 

the extent good faith efforts to resolve objections fail and there are additional unresolved 

objections about demonstrative exhibits, the objecting party will raise the objections with the 

Court, if possible, the morning before trial begins or resumes of the day the demonstratives is 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 21 of 33
22

intended be used, other otherwise before their use. Demonstratives exchanged will not be used by 

the opposing party prior to being used by the disclosing party.

(2) “Demonstratives” are exhibits specifically created for the purpose of the trial and 

do not include (a) the blowup (enlargement), highlighting, ballooning, etc. of trial exhibits (so long 

as the underlying exhibit is pre-admitted or any objections thereto have been resolved) or 

transcripts of testimony, (b) demonstratives previously displayed in the course of the trial. 

Reasonable non-substantive edits or corrections of typographical and similar errors to 

demonstrative exhibits may be made to such exhibits prior to use.

(3) For clarity, Demonstratives include physical or other non-documentary 

demonstratives (such as poster boards, product samples, prior art sample, live product, or prior art 

demonstrations). Thus, photos or electronic images of the physical demonstrative must be 

disclosed in accordance with the schedule and procedure set forth in subparagraph (1), and also 

made available for physical inspection if requested by the opposing party. Similarly, hand-written 

or other demonstratives that a party plans to create during opening statements or witness direct 

examinations must be disclosed (by providing a description and purpose of the Demonstrative) in 

accordance with the schedule set forth in subparagraph (1). For any demonstration involving a 

website or other interactive computer interface (“Website”), a working link or access to the 

Website with full navigation capability enabled must be provided, as well as a detailed description 

of the planned navigation of the Website in accordance with the schedule set forth in 

subparagraph (1).

(4) Demonstratives for direct examination and opening and trial exhibits must be 

cleared of outstanding objections before being shown to the jury. Additionally, any transcripts of 

testimony (excluding testimony given during this trial) must be cleared of outstanding objections 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 22 of 33
23

before being shown to the jury during opening or on direct examination. On cross-examination, 

transcripts of testimony may be used so long as it is not in violation of a motion in limine or other 

exclusionary order, regardless of whether it was previously designated by the parties. 

(5) The parties agree that the demonstrative exhibits the parties intend to use at trial do 

not need to be included on their respective lists of trial exhibits. The parties further agree that, 

unless otherwise ordered by the Court, demonstrative exhibits will not be admitted as evidence 

and will not be made available to the jury during deliberations.

(6) The parties agree to discuss in good faith a reasonable time for exchange of 

previously undisclosed closing demonstratives. For closing arguments, the parties agree that a 

party need not provide advance notice regarding its intent to use demonstratives previously used 

during the course of trial or enlargements, highlighting, ballooning, or other annotations of 

admitted trial exhibits.

(7) The parties agree that any party seeking to use a demonstrative exhibit previously 

used by the opposing party shall include the previously used demonstrative exhibit, in the format 

it will be used, in its demonstrative exhibits exchanged pursuant to paragraph 1 above. To the 

extent a video is embedded in such demonstrative (e.g., a slide), the parties agree to produce a 

native version of the video upon request by the opposing party.

(8) To the extent certain exhibits or demonstrative exhibits are admissible, a party’s 

decision not to introduce the exhibits or demonstrative exhibits shall not be commented upon by 

the other party at trial.

6. Disclosures for Opening Statements

Any demonstratives (documentary, graphic, slide, animation, mock-ups to be created 

during opening statements with detail regarding their substance, and any other form of 

demonstratives), deposition testimony, and exhibits to be used during opening statements are to be 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 23 of 33
24

exchanged by 10 a.m. one (1) day before the opening statements. Any physical demonstratives, 

including any poster boards, must be made available for inspection at the same time and physical 

demonstratives must also be made available for inspection at the same time along with the other 

demonstratives. “Demonstratives” herein have the same definition set forth above in J(5)(2).

Any objections to the opening statement disclosures must be provided by 1:00 p.m. the 

day the disclosures are received. The parties shall meet and confer telephonically in an attempt to 

resolve any objections to these disclosures by 4:00 p.m. If the parties cannot resolve the objections, 

the unresolved issues will be raised with the Court in the morning, before opening statements are 

presented to the jury. Demonstratives exchanged will not be used by an opposing party prior to 

being used by the disclosing party.

7. Stipulations Regarding Subject Matter Not to Be Presented to The Jury

(1) There will not be any testimony, argument or evidence presented that is contrary to 

the Court’s claim construction.

(2) There will not be any testimony, argument, or evidence regarding settlement 

communications or negotiations between the parties, including the substance of any settlement 

offers, counter offers, or responses and communications made between the parties relating to 

possible or actual settlement. For the avoidance of doubt this agreed stipulation does not apply to 

pre-suit communications between Surefield and Redfin.8

(3) There will not be any testimony, argument, or evidence suggesting the Asserted 

Patents are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or unenforceable due to inequitable conduct or 

unclean hands defenses. 

8 The parties dispute whether or not the amount of any licensing offers in any pre-suit licensing negotiations or 

communications is admissible, which is the subject of Surefield’s opposed motions in limine and Daubert motion.

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 24 of 33
25

(4) There will not be any testimony, argument, or evidence regarding infringement 

under the Doctrine of Equivalents. 

(5) The Parties agree not to offer any evidence or testimony (lay and expert) of or make 

any reference, suggestion, or argument regarding the fact that any claim, defense, affirmative 

defense, prior art, theory, or product was previously at issue in this lawsuit, has been withdrawn 

over the course of the litigation, or is no longer at issue in this lawsuit. 

(6) There will not be any testimony, evidence, or expert opinions from experts not 

disclosed in expert reports.

(7) There will not be any testimony, argument, or evidence regarding alleged prior art 

that is not specifically mentioned in Dr. Navratil’s report.9

(8) The Parties shall not offer any evidence or testimony (lay and expert) of or make

any reference, suggestion, or argument that damages could potentially be enhanced.

(9) Redfin agrees not to offer any evidence or testimony (lay and expert) of or make 

any reference, suggestion, or argument regarding Surefield's or David Eraker’s decision not to 

assert a patent granted to, assigned to, or owned by Surefield or David Eraker, including without 

limitation patents in the same family with or otherwise related to the Asserted Patents. 

9 Redfin agrees that Dr. Navratil will not testify to any materials or opinions not disclosed in his expert report, and 

understands that Dr. Navratil can testify about the state of the art based on art disclosed in his expert report. 

Surefield objects to Redfin’s statement because the background/state of the art and overview section of Dr. 

Navratil’s report contain numerous statements that are not relevant and unfairly prejudicial to Surefield. Fed. R. 

Evid. 402-03, 703. By way of example only, these sections improperly rely on undisclosed and unelected prior art 

and compare “state-of-the-art” prior art to the claimed invention, ECF Nos. 88 & 160 (MIL #13); allege individual 

claim elements are in the prior art separate from an opinion that it would be obvious to combine the references 

together to yield the full invention of a least one challenged claim, ECF No. 160 (MIL #8 ); improperly allege 

misconduct by Surefield before the PTO, (Jt. Pretrial Order, Stip. 11); improperly compare the prior art to the 

embodiments in the specification of the Asserted Patents and the accused instrumentalities, ECF No. 160 (MIL #9); 

assert waived, rejected, or undisclosed indefiniteness arguments, id. (MIL #6); and rely on facts that are 

inadmissible, on which experts in the field would not reasonably rely, and/or the prejudicial effect of which would 

greatly outweigh any possible probative value.

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 25 of 33
26

(10) The Parties agree not to offer any evidence or testimony (lay and expert) of or make 

any reference, suggestion, or argument regarding other litigation or propensity to litigation by any 

person or party.

(11) Redfin agrees not to disparage the quality of the PTO and its examiners, including 

without limitation that examiners are overworked or that the PTO is prone to error, beyond making 

comments in reference to the Federal Judicial Center Patent Video.

(12) Redfin agrees that at trial it will not present any theory that the Asserted Patents are 

invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112.

(13) Redfin agrees that at trial it will not present any theory that the Asserted Patents are 

invalid for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112.

(14) Redfin agrees not to offer any evidence or testimony (lay and expert) of or make 

any reference, suggestion, or argument that any inventor(s) or patent prosecutor(s) acted 

improperly, provided inaccurate or intentionally withheld information from the PTO, attempted to 

or did deceive the PTO during prosecution, or that the patent is in anyway unenforceable as a result 

of inequitable conduct. Nothing herein shall prevent Redfin from presenting evidence or arguments 

regarding what was or was not disclosed to the PTO.

(15) Redfin agrees not to offer any evidence or testimony (lay and expert) of or make 

any reference, suggestion, or argument (i) that Surefield's attorneys have a contingent fee 

arrangement in this case or (ii) of how Surefield is paying the expenses and/or costs associated 

with this litigation. 

(16) The Parties agrees not to offer any evidence or testimony (lay and expert) of or 

make any reference, suggestion, or argument regarding any current or prior relationship between 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 26 of 33
27

any expert witnesses and Marton, Ribera, Schumann & Chang LLP, DiNovo Price LLP, and/or 

any other counsel of record or their current or former attorneys.

(17) The Parties will not make any reference to jury consultants, investigators, mock 

trials, focus groups and the like consulted in preparation for litigation.

(18) The Parties agrees not to offer any evidence or testimony (lay and expert) of or 

make any reference, suggestion, or argument regarding the Western District of Texas as a patent 

venue or excessive litigation or patent litigation.

(19) Surefield shall not make particular reference to Redfin’s total profits or revenue. 

Nothing herein shall prevent Surefield from referring to Redfin’s total brokerage profits or revenue 

or Redfin’s total RedfinNow profits or revenue.

(20) The Parties shall not refer to stealing or theft by Redfin or Surefield. Nothing herein 

shall prevent the parties from offering evidence or testimony or making argument regarding 

copying (which is the subject of disputed MILs).

(21) Redfin agrees not refer to David Eraker or Surefield as a “patent troll,” “patent 

assertion entity,” “non-practicing entity,” “NPE”, “pirate,” “privateer,” “paper patent,” “playing 

the lawsuit lottery,” “patent assertion entity,” or a company that is “playing the lawsuit lottery”. 

8. Handling of Source Code and Confidential Material

The parties agree to request that the courtroom be sealed when a party’s confidential 

information, including source code or evidence concerning highly sensitive business documents, 

testimony, or information is expected to be presented.

Regarding source code, the Protective Order allows for creating “an electronic image of a 

selected portion of source code for documents filed electronically with the Court or used during 

trial.” Dkt. No. 72, para. 12(f). The parties agree that for purposes of trial this includes creating an 

electronic image of the entirety of Surefield’s or Redfin’s printed hard copy (Redfin and/or 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 27 of 33
28

Matterport) source code in order to pre-mark the electronic copy as an exhibit. The parties agree 

that only the specific code files or source code pages discussed at trial may be offered into evidence 

to become part of the record, not the entirety of the printed source code hard copies during fact 

discovery or their electronic image. Once the trial is complete, the parties may retain a file copy 

of the admitted version of the source code trial exhibit(s), but any other digitized source code 

should be deleted. A hard copy of the source code may be retained subject to the provisions of the 

Protective Order. Any third-party source code will be handled as set forth in this Paragraph 8 

subject to any additional restrictions agreed upon by Surefield and Redfin with the third-party.

For the avoidance of any doubt, any presentation of the parties’ source code in open court 

requires sealing of the courtroom.

K. PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND VERDICT FORM

Two versions of the parties’ joint and disputed jury instructions are attached: Exhibit 8-A, 

which is marked “Requested Jury Charge” and includes citation of authority and the parties’ 

respective objections, if any, and Exhibit 8-B, which is marked “Jury Charge” and omits all 

citations, authorities, and objections.

The parties are working on an agreed Jury Interrogatories/Verdict form and will submit 

their requested version by February 21, 2022. 

L. LIST OF PENDING ISSUES AND MOTIONS

Date Filed Dkt. No. Description

10/20/2021 82 Surefield’s Motion to Strike and Exclude Defendant’s Expert 

Opinions Regarding Certain Noninfringing Alternatives

10/25/2021 85 Redfin’s Motion to Exclude Certain Testimony of Dr. Jose Luis 

Melendez

10/25/2021 86 Redfin’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Expert Report of Dr. 

Jose Luis Melendez on Infringement

10/25/2021 87 Redfin’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement

10/25/2021 88 Surefield’s Motion to Strike and Exclude Opinions in the 

Reports of Defendant's Expert Dr. Navratil

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 28 of 33
29

10/25/2021 89 Surefield’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on 

Defendant’s Invalidity Defenses and Counterclaims

10/29/2021 93 Joint Report Regarding Narrowing of Asserted Claims and 

Prior Art

11/05/2021 99 Redfin’s Motion to Exclude Mr. Benoit’s Opinions and 

Testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert

11/05/2021 100 Surefield’s Motion to Strike and Exclude Opinions of Redfin’s 

Damages Expert, James Malackowski

12/15/2021 141 

Surefield’s Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary 

Judgment Based on Recent PTAB Decisions (including 141-2 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of No 

Obviousness of the Asserted Claims in View of the CowtanBell Combinations and Cowtan-Matterport Prior Art System 

Combination)

1/10/2022 150 Redfin’s Motion to Strike Untimely Report of Dr. Jose L. 

Melendez

M. MEMORANDA ON DISPUTED ISSUES OF LAW

Each party reserves the right to submit a trial brief, as appropriate, on any disputed issues 

of law and/or fact regarding infringement, invalidity, damages, and the exceptional nature of this 

case.

N. PROPOSED VOIR DIRE

The parties intend to submit joint proposed (or proposed and disputed) voir dire questions

and proposed juror questionnaire by February 18, 2022.

O. DISPUTED MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Surefield’s Motions in Limine were filed as Dkt. 159.

Redfin’s Motions in Limine were filed as Dkt. 160.

The parties will be filing their oppositions to these motions on February 11, 2022.

P. PROBABLE LENGTH OF TRIAL

The parties estimate that the length of trial will be one week and request 14 hours per 

side. This time will not include opening statements and closing arguments. The parties propose 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 29 of 33
30

that opening statements are limited to thirty (30) minutes per side and closing arguments are 

limited to forty-five (45) minutes to one hour per side.

This Joint Pre-Trial Order is hereby approved this _____ day of ________, 2022.

________________________________

HON. ALAN D. ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 30 of 33
31

Dated: February 11, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Nicole E. Glauser

Andrew G. DiNovo

Texas State Bar No. 00790594

adinovo@dinovoprice.com

Nicole E. Glauser

Texas State Bar No. 24050694

nglauser@dinovoprice.com 

Daniel L. Schmid 

Texas State Bar No. 24093118 

dschmid@dinovoprice.com 

Christopher V. Goodpastor 

Texas State Bar No. 00791991 

cgoodpastor@dinovoprice.com

Adam G. Price

Texas State Bar No. 24027750

aprice@dinovoprice.com

Gregory S. Donahue

Texas State Bar No. 24012539

gdonahue@dinovoprice.com

DINOVO PRICE LLP

7000 N. MoPac Expressway, Suite 350

Austin, Texas 78731

Telephone: (512) 539-2626

Facsimile: (512) 539-2627

Steven W. Fogg (pro hac vice)

sfogg@corrcronin.com

Eric A. Lindberg (pro hac vice)

elindberg@corrcronin.com

CORR CRONIN, LLP

1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900

Seattle, Washington 98154

Telephone: (206) 625-8600

Mark P. Walters (pro hac vice)

walters@lowegrahamjones.com

LOWE GRAHAM JONES, PLLC

701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4800

Seattle, Washington 98104

Telephone: (206) 381-3300

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

APPLIANCE COMPUTING III, INC. 

d/b/a SUREFIELD

/s/ Ryan J. Marton___________

Ryan J. Marton (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

ryan@martonribera.com

Hector J. Ribera (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

hector@martonribera.com

Carolyn Chang (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

carolyn@martonribera.com

Phillip Haack (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

phaack@martonribera.com

MARTON RIBERA SCHUMANN & 

CHANG LLP

548 Market St. Suite 36117

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 360-2515

Darryl Adams

Texas State Bar No. 00796101

dadams@sgbfirm.com 

SLAYDEN GRUBERT BEARD PLLC 

401 Congress Ave., Ste. 1650 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Telephone: (512) 402-3550 

Facsimile: (512) 402-6865 

Benjamin J. Byer (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

benbyer@dwt.com

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 

920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 

Seattle, Washington 98104 

Telephone: (206) 757-8105 

Facsimile: (206) 757-7105

M. Scott Stevens (NC Bar # 37828)

Nicholas Marais (NC Bar #53553)

Karlee Wroblewski (NC Bar #55043)

ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

One South at the Plaza

101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000

Charlotte, North Carolina 28280

Tel: 704.444.1000

Fax: 704.444.1111

Deron R. Dacus (Texas Bar No. 00790553)

THE DACUS LAW FIRM, P.C.

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 31 of 33
32

821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430

Tyler, TX 75701

Telephone: (903) 705-1171

Facsimile: (903) 581-2543

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

REDFIN CORPORATION

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 32 of 33
33

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on February 11, 2022, the foregoing document was filed

electronically with the Clerk of the Court using the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send a 

Notice of Electronic Filing to all counsel of record who have appeared in this action.

/s/ Nicole E.Glauser

Nicole E. Glauser 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 166 Filed 02/11/22 Page 33 of 33