IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

BARCO, INC., ET AL.

v.

YEALINK (USA) NETWORK

TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., ET AL.

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 2:23-CV-0521-JRG-RSP

ORDER

This case is set for a scheduling conference in Marshall, Texas on March 26, 2024 at 1:30 

p.m. before the Honorable Rodney Gilstrap. The purpose of the scheduling conference will be to 

assign a claim construction hearing date and a trial setting. The parties shall be prepared to inform 

the Court whether they will consent to trial before the Magistrate Judge.

The parties shall prepare and submit a proposed docket control order, a proposed discovery 

order and a proposed protective order, within the time periods contained in the schedule set forth 

hereinafter.

1 These orders shall be guided by the sample docket control, discovery, and protective

orders for patent cases, which can be found on the Court’s website. The sample orders include 

provisions that require input from the parties. If the parties are unable to reach agreement on these 

provisions, then the parties shall submit to the Court their competing proposals along with a 

summary of their disagreements in a single joint submission.

The sample orders include provisions that are mandatory and are not subject to change 

without showing good cause. Good cause shall not be considered to be met simply by an indication 

of the parties’ agreement. Should either party believe good cause can be shown to alter an 

1 Timely submission of the parties’ proposed docket control order, proposed discovery 

order and proposed protective order will be viewed by the Court as complying with the conference 

requirement of Rule 26(f).

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 15 Filed 02/09/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 213
- 2 -

otherwise mandatory provision, then such party shall file a separate motion to alter the provision 

after the parties have filed the proposed docket control and discovery orders with the mandatory 

provisions intact as previously required above.

Furthermore, it is hereby ORDERED that the following schedule of deadlines is in effect 

until further order of this Court:

6 Weeks After 

Scheduling Conference

Comply with Standing Order Regarding Subject-Matter Eligibility 

Contentions2

6 Weeks After 

Scheduling Conference

Comply with P.R. 3-3 & 3-4 (Invalidity Contentions)

3 Weeks After 

Scheduling Conference

*File Proposed Protective Order and Comply with Paragraphs 1 & 3 

of the Discovery Order (Initial and Additional Disclosures)

The Proposed Protective Order shall be filed as a separate motion 

with the caption indicating whether or not the proposed order is 

opposed in any part.

2 Weeks After 

Scheduling Conference

*File Proposed Docket Control Order and Proposed Discovery Order

The Proposed Docket Control Order and Proposed Discovery Order 

shall be filed as separate motions with the caption indicating whether 

or not the proposed order is opposed in any part.

1 Week After 

Scheduling Conference

Join Additional Parties

2 Weeks Before 

Scheduling Conference

Comply with P.R. 3-1 & 3-2 (Infringement Contentions)

2

_http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/judgeFiles/EDTX%20Standing%20Order%20

Re%20Subject%20Matter%20Eligibility%20Contentions%20.pdf

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 15 Filed 02/09/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 214