IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMAZON.COM, INC.,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01795-GMS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE, INC.,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01796-GMS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC. AND ASUS

COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01797-GMS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

BLACKBERRY LTD AND

BLACKBERRY CORPORATION,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01798-GMS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 23 Filed 09/22/14 Page 1 of 14
MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

FUHU, INC.,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01799-GMS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

FUJITSU LIMITED AND

FUJITSU AMERICA, INC.

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01800-GMS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOOGLE INC. AND MOTOROLA

MOBILITY, LLC,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01801-GMS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

HISENSE USA CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01983-GMS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

2

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 23 Filed 09/22/14 Page 2 of 14
MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

HTC CORPORATION AND

HTC AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01802-GMS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC. AND

FUTUREWEI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01803-GMS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTEL CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01804-GMS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01805-GMS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

3

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 23 Filed 09/22/14 Page 3 of 14
MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

LG ELECTRONICS, INC.; LG ELECTRONICS, 

USA, INC.; AND LG ELECTRONICS 

MOBILECOMM USA, INC.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01806-GMS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01984-GMS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01807-GMS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.;

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, LLC; 

AND SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

AMERICA, LLC,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01808-GMS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

4

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 23 Filed 09/22/14 Page 4 of 14
MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SONY CORPORATION; SONY 

ELECTRONICS, INC.; SONY MOBILE 

COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.; AND SONY 

MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS AB,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01809-GMS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOSHIBA CORPORATION AND TOSHIBA 

AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01810-GMS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZTE CORPORATION AND ZTE (USA) INC.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01811-GMS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

SCHEDULING ORDER

This ______ day of _______________ 20___, the Court having conducted a Rule 16 

Scheduling Conference pursuant to Local Rule 16.2(b) on September 11, 2014, and the parties 

having determined after discussion that the matters cannot be resolved at this juncture by 

settlement, voluntary mediation or binding arbitration;

5

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 23 Filed 09/22/14 Page 5 of 14
IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, they 

shall make their initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) on or before 

October 20, 2014. The parties need not serve disclosures pursuant to paragraph 3 of the 

Delaware Default Standard for Discovery. 

2. Joinder of other Parties and Amendment of Pleadings. All motions to join 

other parties and amend the pleadings (except to add allegations of inequitable conduct) shall be 

filed on or before March 5, 2015. All motions to amend the pleadings to add allegations of 

inequitable conduct shall be filed on or before September 15, 2015. 

3. Reliance Upon Advice of Counsel. Each defendant shall inform plaintiffs 

whether it intends to rely upon advice of counsel as a defense no later than September 15, 2015. 

If a defendant elects to rely on advice of counsel as a defense, defendant shall produce any such 

opinions on which defendant intends to rely to plaintiff no later than September 30, 2015. 

4. Markman Claim Construction Hearing. A Markman claim construction 

hearing shall be held on September 25, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. The Markman hearing is scheduled 

for a total of one day. The parties shall meet and confer to determine the amount of time that 

will be allocated to each patent during the Markman Hearing, and agree that sufficient time must 

be allocated both for U.S. Patent No. 7,296,121 asserted against all parties and each of the three 

additional patents asserted against Intel. The parties also shall meet and confer regarding 

narrowing and reducing the number of claim construction issues. On or before March 18, 2015, 

the parties shall exchange lists of the claim terms they propose to be construed. On or before 

April 6, 2015, the parties shall exchange proposed claim constructions and supporting intrinsic 

and extrinsic evidence. On or before April 24, 2015, the parties shall submit a Final Joint Claim 

6

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 23 Filed 09/22/14 Page 6 of 14
Chart which shall include citations to intrinsic evidence. The plaintiff shall submit to the court, a 

Joint Appendix of Intrinsic Evidence (the “Joint Appendix”) containing all intrinsic evidence 

relied upon in the claim construction briefing. A sample table of contents of the Joint Appendix 

can be located on this court’s website at www.ded.uscourts.gov. The Joint Appendix shall be 

filed on the same day as the answering claim construction briefs. The parties shall file opening 

claim construction briefs on May 22, 2015, and answering claim construction briefs on July 2, 

2015. Briefing will be presented pursuant to the court’s Local Rules. However, Intel may file 

one additional, separate opening claim construction brief addressing claim terms in the three 

additional patents that Memory Integrity has asserted only against Intel. Plaintiff will be entitled 

to file an answering brief in response to each separate opening claim construction brief. 

5. Discovery. All fact discovery in this case shall be initiated so that it will be 

completed on or before November 20, 2015. Opening expert reports on issues on which a party 

bears the burden of proof shall be served on or before January 29, 2016. Rebuttal expert reports 

shall be served on or before March 3, 2016. Expert Discovery in this case shall be initiated so 

that it will be completed on or before March 25, 2016. Pursuant to the Court’s instructions 

during the September 11, 2014 Status Conference, the parties have reached the below 

agreements regarding discovery limitations. The parties reserve their rights to seek changes to 

the discovery limitations set forth below to the extent that facts emerge giving rise to good cause 

for such changes. 

a. Discovery and Scheduling Matters: Should counsel find they are unable 

to resolve a discovery or scheduling matter, the party seeking the relief shall contact chambers at 

(302) 573-6470 to schedule a telephone conference. Not less than forty-eight hours prior to the 

teleconference, the parties shall file with the court, via electronic means (CM/ECF), a Joint 

7

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 23 Filed 09/22/14 Page 7 of 14
Letter Agenda, which is non-argumentative, not to exceed two (2) pages outlining the issue(s) 

in dispute. A sample letter can be located on this court’s website at www.ded.uscourts.gov. 

After the parties have had three (3) discovery teleconferences, they will be required to file a joint 

letter showing good cause why the court should permit a fourth discovery teleconference. 

Should the court find further briefing necessary upon conclusion of the telephone conference, 

unless otherwise directed, the party seeking relief shall file with the court a TWO PAGE 

LETTER, exclusive of exhibits, describing the issues in contention. The responding party shall 

file within five (5) days from the date of service of the opening letter an answering letter of no 

more than TWO PAGES. The party seeking relief may then file a reply letter of no more than 

TWO PAGES within three (3) days from the date of service of the answering letter. 

b. Patent Disclosures: On or before October 13, 2014, plaintiff shall 

identify the accused product(s) and the asserted claim(s) each product allegedly infringes, and 

produce the file history for each asserted patent. On or before December 8, 2014, each 

defendant shall produce to the plaintiff the core technical documents related to the accused 

product(s), including but not limited to operation manuals, product literature, schematics, and 

specifications. On or before February 2, 2015, plaintiff shall produce to each defendant an 

initial claim chart relating each accused product to the asserted claims each product allegedly 

infringes. On or before March 4, 2015, each defendant shall produce to the plaintiff its initial 

invalidity contentions for each asserted claim, as well as the invalidating references (e.g., 

publications, manuals and patents). 

c. Document Production: Document production shall be substantially 

complete by June 19, 2015. 

8

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 23 Filed 09/22/14 Page 8 of 14
d. Requests for Admission: In the Intel case, each side may serve up to 70 

requests for admission. In the non-Intel cases, Plaintiff and each Related Defendant Group1may 

serve up to 30 requests for admission in each respective case. In all of the cases, however, there 

shall be no limit on the number of requests for admission for the purpose of authenticating 

documents. Provided, however, that this provision is not a waiver of any party’s ability to argue 

that a particular set of requests for admission directed to authenticity constitutes an undue 

burden.

e. Interrogatories: In the Intel case, each side may serve up to 50 

interrogatories. In the non-Intel cases, Plaintiff and each Related Defendant Group may serve up 

to 25 interrogatories in each respective case. 

f. Depositions: The parties shall attempt in good faith to coordinate 

depositions across the cases to minimize the burden on the witnesses. If a defendant in any of 

the above cases seeks to depose an inventor, Plaintiff, or a third-party, the defendant shall 

provide notice of the deposition to all parties in all of the above cases. The total deposition hours 

set forth below may be used on any non-expert deponent. For any deposition taken under Rule 

30(b)(6), the deposition of each individual Rule 30(b)(6) witness shall be limited to a maximum 

of 7 hours. However, this 7-hour time limit shall not apply to an individual Rule 30(b)(6) 

witness designated for multiple unrelated topics, in which case the parties shall negotiate the 

deposition time limit in good faith. The fact that a witness testifies as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness 

does not preclude the witness from being deposed in his or her individual capacity. 

1 The parties agree that a “Related Defendant Group” consists of related corporate entities. 

The parties agree that, in each respective case that currently has more than one defendant, those 

defendants in each such case respectively constitute a “Related Defendant Group.” 

9

 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 23 Filed 09/22/14 Page 9 of 14
i) In the non-Intel cases, Plaintiff and each Related Defendant Group 

shall attempt in good faith to agree upon deposition limits for each 

case. 

ii) In the Intel case, each side is permitted to take up to one hundred 

(100) hours of fact depositions. Memory Integrity and Intel agree 

that Intel will be permitted sufficient time to depose each of the 

named inventors on each of the four patents that Memory Integrity 

has asserted against Intel and agree that Intel will be given time 

with each inventor commensurate to the number of patents on 

which that inventor is named. Memory Integrity and Intel shall 

meet and confer to attempt to agree upon deposition limits for the 

named inventors on the patents asserted against Intel. 

iii) For the purposes of calculating the number of deposition hours 

taken, time will only be counted against a party during the time 

counsel for that party is examining a witness, and time shall not 

count against another party simply because that party’s counsel is 

present for the questioning. Any party may rely on the testimony 

elicited by any other party. 

iv) These provisions do not permit any party to seek an additional 

deposition of a witness that such party already had the opportunity 

to depose, but elected not to depose. 

g. Expert Depositions: The parties agree to meet and confer after the 

Markman hearing to discuss appropriate limits to expert discovery. 

10

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 23 Filed 09/22/14 Page 10 of 14
h. Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”): The parties agree to meet 

and confer in an attempt to reach agreement regarding an ESI protocol, and regarding the format 

for the production of documents, including ESI, following the December 8, 2014 deadline for 

defendants’ production of core technical documents. 

i. Email Service: The parties consent to service by e-mail. Service by email will be regarded as personal service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b) for 

purposes of serving documents that are not filed via ECF. Documents filed via ECF will be 

served in accordance with the Court’s Rules. 

j. Modifications of Discovery Limits: The above limitations on discovery 

are subject to modification by further order of the Court for good cause shown. The affected 

parties may agree in writing to modify these limitations without further order of the Court. 

6. Confidential Information and Papers filed under Seal. Should counsel find it 

will be necessary to apply to the court for a protective order specifying terms and conditions for 

the disclosure of confidential information, they should confer and attempt to reach an agreement 

on a proposed form of order and submit it to the court within thirty (30) days from the date of 

this order. When filing papers under seal, counsel should deliver to the Clerk an original and 

two copies of the papers. 

If after making a diligent effort the parties are unable to agree on the contents of the 

joint proposed protective order, then they shall follow the dispute resolution process 

outlined in paragraph 5(a).

7. Settlement Conference. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, these matters are referred 

to the United States Magistrate Judge for the purpose of exploring the possibility of a settlement. 

The parties shall wait to be contacted by the assigned United States Magistrate Judge. 

11

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 23 Filed 09/22/14 Page 11 of 14
8. Summary Judgment Motions. Prior to filing any summary judgment motion, 

the parties must submit letter briefs seeking permission to file the motion. The opening letter 

brief shall be no longer than five (5) pages and shall be filed with the Court no later than April 8, 

2016. Answering letter briefs shall be no longer than five (5) pages and filed with the court no 

later than April 22, 2016. Reply letter briefs shall be no longer than three (3) pages and filed 

with the Court on or before April 29, 2016. If the Court determines that argument is necessary 

to assist in the resolution of any request to file summary judgment, it shall notify the parties of 

the date and time on which the Court will conduct a telephone conference to hear such argument. 

Unless the Court directs otherwise, no letter requests to file a motion for summary 

judgment may be filed at a time before the dates set forth in paragraph 8. 

9. Case Dispositive Motions. To the extent permitted, all case or issue dispositive 

motions shall be served and filed within two weeks of the Court’s decision to permit the filing of 

such motions. Briefing will be presented pursuant to the Court’s Local Rules. The parties may 

agree on an alternative briefing schedule. Any such agreement shall be in writing and filed with 

the Court for the Court’s approval. Any request for extensions of time as set forth in this 

Scheduling Order must be accompanied by an explanation or your request will be denied. 

10. Applications by Motion. Except as provided in this Scheduling Order or for 

matters relating to scheduling, any application to the Court shall be by written motion filed, via 

electronic means (CM/ECF). Unless otherwise requested by the Court, counsel shall not deliver 

copies of papers or correspondence to Chambers. Any non-dispositive motion should contain the 

statement required by Local Rule 7.1.1. 

11. Oral Argument. If the Court believes that oral argument is necessary, the Court 

will schedule a hearing Pursuant to District of Delaware Local Rule 7.1.4. 

12

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 23 Filed 09/22/14 Page 12 of 14
12. Pretrial Conference. On September 12, 2016, beginning at 10 a.m., the Court 

will hold a Pretrial Conference in the Intel case only, C.A. No. 13-CV-1804-GMS in Chambers. 

Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the parties should assume that filing the Joint Pretrial 

Order satisfies the pretrial disclosure requirement in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3). A 

sample form of Pretrial Order can be located on this court’s website at www.ded.uscourts.gov. 

Thirty (30) days before the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order is due, plaintiff’s counsel shall forward 

to defendant’s counsel a draft of the pretrial order containing the information plaintiff proposes 

to include in the draft. Defendant’s counsel shall, in turn, provide to plaintiff’s counsel any 

comments on the plaintiff’s draft, as well as the information defendant proposes to include in the 

proposed pretrial order. Motions in limine2: NO MOTIONS IN LIMINE SHALL BE 

FILED; instead, the parties shall be prepared to address their evidentiary issues at the Pretrial 

Conference and during trial (before and after the trial day). In the Intel case only, C.A. No. 13-

CV-1804-GMS, the parties shall file with the court the joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order in 

accordance with the terms and with the information required by the form of Final Pretrial Order, 

which can be located on this court’s website at www.ded.uscourts.gov on or before close of 

business on August 1, 2016. 

13. Trial. In the Intel case only, C.A. No. 13-CV-1804-GMS, the matter is scheduled 

for a 10 day jury trial beginning at 9:30 a.m. on September 26, 2016. The Intel case is 

currently set as the first trial. However, the Court will be prepared to address requests to 

substitute a different case for the first trial for good cause, as events evolve during each of the 

respective cases. The Court will set further trials as needed at a later date. 

2 The parties should simply list, in an Exhibit to be attached to the Pretrial order, the issues 

under a heading such as “Plaintiff’s [name of party] List of Evidentiary Issues It Intends To 

Raise.” 

13

 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 23 Filed 09/22/14 Page 13 of 14
14. Scheduling. The parties shall contact chambers, at (302) 573-6470, only in 

situations where scheduling relief is sought, and only then when ALL participating counsel is on 

the line for purposes of selecting a new date. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 23 Filed 09/22/14 Page 14 of 14