Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript v. Attentive Mobile Inc.
1:23-cv-00087
Overview
Case Number
1:23-cv-00087
Filing Date
2023-01-25
Status
Litigation filed
Court
District Court, D. Delaware (ded)
Presiding Judge
Christopher J. Burke
Nature of Suit
830 Patent
Jurisdiction Type
Federal Question
Cause of Action
35:271 Patent Infringement
Jury Demand
Plaintiff
Parties
Counter Claimant
Stodge Inc.
Represented By
21 Attorneys ListedMcCarter & English, LLP
Tel: +1 (302) 984-6392
Fax: +1 (302) 450-4235
Renaissance Centre, 405 N. King Street, 8th Floor
McCarter & English, LLP
Tel: +1 (302) 984-6300
Fax: +1 (302) 691-1260
Renaissance Centre, 405 N. King Street, 8th Floor
Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
Tel: +1 (302) 984-6107
1313 N. Market Street, 6th Floor
Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP
Tel: +1 (302) 984-6000
Fax: +1 (302) 778-6000
1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr., P.O. Box 951
Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP
Tel: +1 (302) 984-6000
1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr., P.O. Box 951
Attentive Mobile Inc.
Represented By
14 Attorneys ListedMcCarter & English, LLP
Tel: +1 (302) 984-6300
Fax: +1 (302) 984-6399
405 N. King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
Tel: +1 (302) 333-8052
1201 North Market Street, P.O. Box 1347
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
Tel: +1 (302) 351-9661
Fax: +1 (302) 498-6217
1201 North Market Street, P.O. Box 1347
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
Tel: +1 (302) 658-9200
1201 North Market Street, P.O. Box 1347
Third Party Defendant
Mindy Regnell
Represented By
1 Attorneys ListedYoung, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP
Tel: +1 (302) 571-6600
Rodney Square, 1000 North King Street
Court & Judges
Court
District Court, D. Delaware (ded)
Presiding Judge
Christopher J. Burke
Patents Involved
There are 4 patents involved in this case.
| Application Number | Patent Number | External Links |
|---|---|---|
| - | US11416887 | |
| - | US11709660 | |
| - | US11553074 | |
| - | US11416897 |
Docket Entries
COMPLAINT filed with Jury Demand against Stodge Inc. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ADEDC-4051666.) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-3, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(mpb) (Entered: 01/25/2023)
2023-01-25
1
COMPLAINT filed with Jury Demand against Stodge Inc. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ADEDC-4051666.) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-3, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(mpb) (Entered: 01/25/2023)
2023-01-25
2
COMPLAINT filed with Jury Demand against Stodge Inc. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ADEDC-4051666.) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-3, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(mpb) (Entered: 01/25/2023)
2023-01-25
2
Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (mpb) (Entered: 01/25/2023)
2023-01-25
1
Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 11,416,887 B1; 11,416,897 B1; 11,553,074 B1. (mpb) (Entered: 01/25/2023)
2023-01-25
1
Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (mpb) (Entered: 01/25/2023)
2023-01-25
1
Summonses Issued (please complete the top portion of the form and print out for use/service). (mpb) (Entered: 01/25/2023)
2023-01-25
1
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Attentive Mobile Inc..Stodge Inc. served on 1/25/2023, answer due 2/15/2023. (Blumenfeld, Jack) (Entered: 01/25/2023)
2023-01-25
1
STANDING ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING IN ALL CASES (nmf) (Entered: 02/01/2023)
2023-02-01
1
Case Assigned/Reassigned
2023-02-01
1
No Actions
Case Assigned to Judge Colm F. Connolly. Please include the initials of the Judge (CFC) after the case number on all documents filed. (rjb)
2023-02-01
1
No Actions
ORDER REFERRING CASE 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within one week of the first appearance by Defendant, the parties shall either ( 1) submit to the Clerk of Court an executed Form AO 85 Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge, indicating their consent to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case including trial, the entry of final judgment, and post-trial proceedings; or (2) file a joint letter indicating that all the parties do not consent to a referral of this action to a Magistrate Judge. The letter should not indicate which party or parties did not consent. If all the parties consent, the case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Burke. Because of the Court's caseload, if the parties do not consent, the Court intends to assign the case to a visiting judge from another district. Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 2/7/2023. (nmf) (Entered: 02/07/2023)
2023-02-07
1
Remark: The parties should follow the Court's Standing Order Regarding Courtesy Copies, a copy of which is found on Judge Burke's portion of the District Court's webpage: https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/CJBCC2022.pdf (dlb)
2023-02-07
1
No Actions
Remark re Newer Attorneys
2023-02-07
1
No Actions
Remark
2023-02-07
1
No Actions
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)
2023-02-07
1
No Actions
MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke.(Moore, David) (Entered: 02/15/2023)
2023-02-15
1
MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke.(Moore, David) (Entered: 02/15/2023)
2023-02-15
2
OPENING BRIEF in Support re 9 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Stodge Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 3/1/2023. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Compliance)(Moore, David) (Entered: 02/15/2023)
2023-02-15
1
OPENING BRIEF in Support re 9 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Stodge Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 3/1/2023. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Compliance)(Moore, David) (Entered: 02/15/2023)
2023-02-15
2
Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by Stodge Inc.. (Moore, David) (Entered: 02/15/2023)
2023-02-15
1
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Michael J. Sacksteder, Todd R. Gregorian, Jonathan T. McMichael, and John M. DiBaise of Fenwick & West LLP - filed by Stodge Inc.. Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke.(Palapura, Bindu) (Entered: 02/15/2023)
2023-02-15
1
Add Attorneys - PHV only
2023-02-16
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2023-02-16
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED D.I. 12 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Michael J. Sacksteder, Todd R. Gregorian, Jonathan T. McMichael, and John M. DiBaise of Fenwick & West LLP filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 2/16/2023. (dlb)
2023-02-16
1
No Actions
Pro Hac Vice Attorney Jonathan T. McMichael for Stodge 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)
2023-02-16
1
No Actions
Pro Hac Vice Attorney John M. DiBaise for Stodge 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)
2023-02-16
1
No Actions
Add Attorneys - PHV only
2023-02-17
1
No Actions
Pro Hac Vice Attorney Michael J. Sacksteder for Stodge 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. (twk)
2023-02-17
1
No Actions
Add Attorneys - PHV only
2023-02-21
1
No Actions
Pro Hac Vice Attorney Todd R. Gregorian for Stodge 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)
2023-02-21
1
No Actions
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME (1) for Plaintiff to file its answering brief in opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 9) and (2) for Defendant to file its reply brief to March 15, 2023 and March 29, 2023, respectively - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 02/22/2023)
2023-02-22
1
Order Setting Briefing Schedule - open, ans, reply, surreply AND SO ORDERED
2023-02-22
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED D.I. 13 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME (1) for Plaintiff to file its answering brief in opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 9) and (2) for Defendant to file its reply brief to March 15, 2023 and March 29, 2023, respectively filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 2/22/2023. (dlb)
2023-02-22
1
No Actions
CONSENT to Jurisdiction by U.S. Magistrate Judge filed by Attentive Mobile Inc., Stodge Inc. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke. Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 2/23/2023. (nmf) (Entered: 02/23/2023)
2023-02-23
1
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 the following: (i) a copy of the Checklist, indicating the names of Lead Counsel and Delaware Counsel for each party; (ii) a proposed Scheduling Order, which is consistent with Judge Burke's "Rule 16 Scheduling Order - Patent"; and (iii) 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 Scheduling Order can be found on Judge Burke's portion of the District Court's website. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 2/23/2023. (dlb) (Entered: 02/23/2023)
2023-02-23
1
Oral Order
2023-02-23
1
No Actions
ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re 9 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 3/22/2023. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 03/15/2023)
2023-03-15
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant and (2) Plaintiff's First Requests for Production to Defendant - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 03/20/2023)
2023-03-20
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Attentive Mobile Inc. (Nos. 1-10), and Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Attentive Mobile Inc. (Nos. 1-57) filed by Stodge Inc..(Palapura, Bindu) (Entered: 03/20/2023)
2023-03-20
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael J. Flynn regarding the Court's February 23, 2023 Order - re 15 Oral Order,,,,,. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A - Proposed Scheduling Order, # 2 Ex. B - Case Management Checklist)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 03/27/2023)
2023-03-27
1
SCHEDULING ORDER: Joinder of Parties due by 10/27/2023. Amended Pleadings due by 10/27/2023. Fact Discovery completed by 4/30/2024. Opening Expert Reports due by 6/14/2024. Rebuttal Expert Reports due by 7/12/2024. Expert Discovery due by 8/23/2024. Status Report due by 4/12/2024. Dispositive Motions due by 9/12/2024. A Motion Hearing is set for 11/7/2024 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 2A before Judge Christopher J. Burke Claim Construction Opening Brief due by 11/3/2023. Claim Construction Answering Brief due by 11/17/2023. Claim Construction Reply Brief due by 1/27/2023. Claim Construction Surreply Brief due by 12/4/2023. A Markman Hearing is set for 1/9/2024 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 2A before Judge Christopher J. Burke. A Pretrial Conference is set for 3/21/2025 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 2A before Judge Christopher J. Burke. A 5 day Jury Trial is set for 4/7/2025 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 2A before Judge Christopher J. Burke. Please see order for further details and deadlines.Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 3/27/2023. (dlb) (Entered: 03/28/2023)
2023-03-28
1
ORAL ORDER: With the parties having no disputes as to the form of the proposed Scheduling Order, (D.I. 20), 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 3/28/2023. (dlb) (Entered: 03/28/2023)
2023-03-28
1
Oral Order
2023-03-28
1
No Actions
REPLY BRIEF re 9 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Stodge Inc.. (Moore, David) (Entered: 03/29/2023)
2023-03-29
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 04/03/2023)
2023-04-03
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Initial Disclosures filed by Stodge Inc..(Moore, David) (Entered: 04/04/2023)
2023-04-04
1
REQUEST for Oral Argument by Stodge Inc. re 9 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim . (Moore, David) (Entered: 04/05/2023)
2023-04-05
1
REQUEST for Oral Argument by Attentive Mobile Inc. re 9 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim . (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 04/05/2023)
2023-04-05
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Initial Disclosures Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the Default Standard filed by Stodge Inc..(Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 04/26/2023)
2023-04-26
1
PROPOSED ORDER -- Stipulated Protective Order -- by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 04/26/2023)
2023-04-26
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Plaintiff Attentive Mobile Inc.'s Identification of Accused Products, Asserted Patents, and Damages Model and (2) Disclosure Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the Delaware Default Standard for Discovery - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 04/26/2023)
2023-04-26
1
Stipulated PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 4/27/2023. (dlb) (Entered: 04/27/2023)
2023-04-27
1
ORDER: The Court will hear argument on at least the following 101 Motions at a combined hearing on 7/7/2023 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 2A before Judge Christopher J. Burke: D.I. (9 in 1:22-cv-01163-CJB); D.I. (9 in 1:23-cv-00087-CJB); D.I. 11 in 1:22-cv-1538-CJB. (See Order for further details). Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 5/3/2023. Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-01163-CJB, 1:23-cv-00087-CJB(mlc) (Entered: 05/03/2023)
2023-05-03
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Plaintiff's Objections and Responses to Defendant's First Set of Requests for Production (Nos. 1-57) and (2) Plaintiff's Objections and Responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-10) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 05/03/2023)
2023-05-03
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-15); and Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production (Nos. 1-82) filed by Stodge Inc..(Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 05/03/2023)
2023-05-03
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that the combined hearing on the 101 Motions set for July 7, 2023 is rescheduled to July 14, 2023 at 9:30am in Courtroom 2A. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 5/10/2023. Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-01163-CJB, 1:23-cv-00087-CJB(dlb) (Entered: 05/10/2023)
2023-05-10
1
Order Setting Hearing on Motion
2023-05-10
1
No Actions
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Production Of Core Technical Documents And Sales Figures [Highly Confidential-Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only] filed by Stodge Inc..(Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 05/30/2023)
2023-05-30
1
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Jonathan Weinberg and Stephen Scaife - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 06/15/2023)
2023-06-15
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that the combined hearing on the 101 Motions set for July 14, 2023 at 9:30am will be held in Courtroom 2B. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 6/27/2023. Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-01163-CJB, 1:23-cv-00087-CJB(dlb) (Entered: 06/27/2023)
2023-06-27
1
Oral Order AND Order Setting Hearing on Motion
2023-06-27
1
No Actions
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Eugene Novikov, Raghav Krishnapriyan, Joyce C. Li and Hannah Jiam of Morrison & Foerster - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Moore, David) (Entered: 06/28/2023)
2023-06-28
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Disclosure of Preliminary Infringement Contentions filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 06/28/2023)
2023-06-28
1
ORAL ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that at the July 14, 2023 "101 Day" motions hearing, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 2B: (1) the motions in Civil Action No. 22-1163-CJB and Civil Action No. 23-87-CJB will be argued first and will be argued together, and each side will have 30 minutes for argument; and (2) the motion in Civil Action No. 22-1538-CJB will be argued second, and each side will have 20 minutes for argument. After these arguments have concluded, the Court will adjourn and will return later in the day to provide rulings on the motions. Counsel are reminded that each party must be represented throughout the entirety of the hearing (9:30 a.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m., or whenever the hearing concludes) as additional questions may be asked of any party at times other than during its initially scheduled time (including even after the Court has announced its decisions). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before July 11, 2023, each party in each of the above-captioned actions shall file a letter that includes responses to the following questions, of no more than two paragraphs per question: (a) Which Supreme Court or Federal Circuit case is most similar to the challenged claim(s)? That is, each party is to identify which case provides the best analogy if this Court is to compare the claim(s) at issue in the relevant Section 101 Motion to claims previously found to be patent (in)eligible by a higher court.; and (b) On the one hand, in finding patent claims ineligible, the Federal Circuit has sometimes noted that the fact that the claims do not provide sufficient detail about "how" the method/apparatus performs a function/step can be a clue that the claim is directed solely to an abstract idea. But on the other hand, in many cases, the Federal Circuit has found claims patent eligible (or possibly patent eligible) when they do not provide much detail as to "how" the invention does its important work. See Nielson Co. (US), LLC v. TVision Insights, Inc., Civil Action No. 21-1592-CJB, 2022 WL 3226318, at *5 (D. Del. Aug. 10, 2022). What is your view on how this "lack of how" argument can be relevant to the Section 101 eligibility calculus--and how much "how" the claims need to contain in order to suggest eligibility? IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that at the same time that the parties submit to the Court versions of any slides or other demonstrative materials they will use at the hearing (i.e., by no later than 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 13, 2023), the parties shall also advise the Court and opposing counsel which attorney(s) will argue each motion. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 6/29/2023. Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-01163-CJB, 1:23-cv-00087-CJB(mlc) (Entered: 06/29/2023)
2023-06-29
1
Oral Order
2023-06-29
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that the parties' deadline to submit slides or other demonstrative materials they will use at the 101 Day motions hearing and advise the Court and opposing counsel which attorney(s) will argue at the hearing is no later than 4:00 p.m. on July 13, 2023 (not July 12, 2023, as indicated in the Court's May 3, 2023 Order). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 7/6/2023. Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-01163-CJB, 1:23-cv-00087-CJB(mlc) (Entered: 07/06/2023)
2023-07-06
1
Oral Order
2023-07-06
1
No Actions
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from David E. Moore regarding submission pursuant to the Court's June 29, 2023 Oral Order - re 40 Oral Order,,,,,,,,,,,. (Moore, David) (Entered: 07/11/2023)
2023-07-11
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Oral Hearing of July 14, 2023 - re (40 in 1:23-cv-00087-CJB, 48 in 1:22-cv-01163-CJB) Oral Order,,,,,,,,,,,. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 07/11/2023)
2023-07-11
1
NOTICE of Issuance of Subpoenas upon Branch Metrics, Inc. d/b/a Branch, ProTexting LLC, and Twitter Inc. by Stodge Inc. (Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 07/11/2023)
2023-07-11
1
SO ORDERED D.I. 38 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Eugene Novikov, Raghav Krishnapriyan, Joyce C. Li and Hannah Jiam of Morrison & Foerster filed by Stodge Inc., and D.I. 36 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Jonathan Weinberg and Stephen Scaife filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 7/11/2023. (dlb)
2023-07-11
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2023-07-11
1
No Actions
Add Attorneys - PHV only
2023-07-13
1
No Actions
Pro Hac Vice Attorney Eugene Novikov, Raghav R. Krishnapriyan, Hannah Jiam, and Joyce C. Li for Stodge 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)
2023-07-13
1
No Actions
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Christopher J. Burke - Motion Hearing held on 7/14/2023 regarding D.I. 9 MOTION to Dismiss in 22-1163-CJB; D.I. 9 MOTION to Dismiss in 23-87-CJB (as well as (as well as regarding the motion to dismiss in Civil Action No. 22-1538-CJB). The Court heard argument from the parties. The Court ordered that the Section 101 portion of D.I. 9 in 22-1163-CJB be denied. The Court will take up the remaining portion of the motion on the papers and will issue an order. The Court ordered that D.I. 9 in 23-87-CJB be denied. The Court will issue a written version of the Court's order. (Clerk, M. Crawford)Appearances: M. Flynn, B. Davis, R. Schmid and J. Weinberg for Plaintiff; J. Day and R. Martinelli for Defendant 317 Labs, Inc. d/b/a Emotive; A. Brown, B. Palapura and G. Novikov for Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postcript. (Court Reporter Heather Troizzi) Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-01163-CJB, 1:23-cv-00087-CJB(dlb)
2023-07-14
1
No Actions
Motion Hearing
2023-07-17
1
No Actions
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Complaint to August 4, 2023 - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 07/20/2023)
2023-07-20
1
SO ORDERED D.I. 45 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Complaint to August 4, 2023 filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 7/21/2023. (dlb)
2023-07-21
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED AND ~Util - Set/Reset Answer Deadline
2023-07-21
1
No Actions
NOTICE requesting Clerk to remove Michael J. Sacksteder, Todd R. Gregorian, Jonathan T. McMichael and John M. DiBaise as co-counsel. Reason for request: no longer working on case. (Moore, David) (Entered: 07/24/2023)
2023-07-24
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Initial Invalidity Contentions [Claim Charts A1-A18, B1-B18 and C1-18] filed by Stodge Inc..(Palapura, Bindu) (Entered: 07/28/2023)
2023-07-28
1
ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand, COUNTERCLAIM against Attentive Mobile Inc. by Stodge Inc..(Moore, David) (Entered: 08/04/2023)
2023-08-04
1
NOTICE of Issuance of Subpoena to Google LLC by Stodge Inc. (Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 08/09/2023)
2023-08-09
1
Amended ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand, COUNTERCLAIM against Attentive Mobile Inc. by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Patent/Trademark Report)(Moore, David) (Entered: 08/25/2023)
2023-08-25
1
Amended ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand, COUNTERCLAIM against Attentive Mobile Inc. by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Patent/Trademark Report)(Moore, David) (Entered: 08/25/2023)
2023-08-25
2
Amended ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand, COUNTERCLAIM against Attentive Mobile Inc. by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Patent/Trademark Report)(Moore, David) (Entered: 08/25/2023)
2023-08-25
2
STIPULATION to Modify Rule 16 Scheduling Order by 317 Labs, Inc.. (Day, John) (Entered: 08/31/2023)
2023-08-31
1
SO ORDERED D.I. (51 in 1:23-cv-00087-CJB, 52 in 1:22-cv-01163-CJB) Stipulation to Modify Rule 16 Scheduling Order filed by 317 Labs, Inc. A Markman Hearing is set for 1/9/2024 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 2A before Judge Christopher J. Burke in Civil Action No. 22-1163-CJB. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/1/2023. Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-01163-CJB, 1:23-cv-00087-CJB(mlc)
2023-09-01
1
No Actions
1 - Terminate Hearings AND SO ORDERED AND ~Util - Set Hearings
2023-09-01
1
No Actions
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's First Supplemental Objections and Responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-10) filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/06/2023)
2023-09-06
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for Plaintiff to answer, move, or otherwise respond to Defendant's Amended Answer and Counterclaims to Plaintiff's Complaint (D.I. 50) to October 16, 2023 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/08/2023)
2023-09-08
1
SO ORDERED
2023-09-11
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED D.I. 53 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for Plaintiff to answer, move, or otherwise respond to Defendant's Amended Answer and Counterclaims to Plaintiff's Complaint (D.I. 50) to October 16, 2023 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/8/2023. (dlb)
2023-09-11
1
No Actions
NOTICE OF SERVICE of 1) Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Attentive Mobile Inc. (Nos. 5885), and 2) Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Second Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Attentive Mobile Inc. (Nos. 1125) filed by Stodge Inc..(Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 09/13/2023)
2023-09-13
1
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Sara Doudar and Bethany D. Bengfort of Morrison Foerster - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 09/13/2023)
2023-09-13
1
SO ORDERED D.I. 55 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Sara Doudar and Bethany D. Bengfort of Morrison Foerster filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/15/2023. (dlb)
2023-09-15
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2023-09-15
1
No Actions
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's First Amended Disclosure of Preliminary Infringement Contentions filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/19/2023)
2023-09-19
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Supplemental Responses And Objections To Plaintiff's First Set Of Interrogatories filed by Stodge Inc..(Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 09/22/2023)
2023-09-22
1
Pro Hac Vice Attorneys Sara Doudar and Bethany D. Bengfort for Stodge 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)
2023-09-22
1
No Actions
Add Attorneys - PHV only
2023-09-22
1
No Actions
Official Transcript of Motions Hearing held on 7/14/23 before Judge Christopher J. Burke. Court Reporter: Heather M. Triozzi,Email: Heather_Triozzi@ded.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or order/purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/16/2023. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/25/2023. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/26/2023. (Triozzi, Heather) (Entered: 09/24/2023)
2023-09-24
1
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER as announced at the hearing on July 14, 2023. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/25/2023. Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-01163-CJB, 1:23-cv-00087-CJB(dlb) (Entered: 09/25/2023)
2023-09-25
1
NOTICE of Change of Firm Affiliation by Stodge Inc. (Moore, David) (Entered: 09/26/2023)
2023-09-26
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Counterclaim Defendant Attentive Mobile Inc.'s Initial Disclosures and (2) Plaintiff's Preliminary Identification of Terms and Phrases for Construction and Preliminary Proposed Constructions filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/29/2023)
2023-09-29
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of 317 Labs, Inc. dba Emotive's and Stodge Inc. dba Postscript's Joint Proposed Claim Terms and Constructions filed by 317 Labs, Inc., Stodge Inc..(Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 10/02/2023)
2023-10-02
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant And Counter-Claimant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's First Supplemental Initial Disclosures filed by Stodge Inc..(Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 10/06/2023)
2023-10-06
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant and Counter-Claimant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Identification of Accused Product, Asserted Patent, and Damages Model filed by Stodge Inc..(Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 10/06/2023)
2023-10-06
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Supplemental Responses And Objections To Plaintiff's First Set Of Interrogatories filed by Stodge Inc..(Moore, David) (Entered: 10/09/2023)
2023-10-09
1
CLAIM Construction Chart by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 10/13/2023)
2023-10-13
1
Joint APPENDIX re (66 in 1:23-cv-00087-CJB, 61 in 1:22-cv-01163-CJB) Claim Construction Chart by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 10/13/2023)
2023-10-13
1
MOTION for Claim Construction re (66 in 1:23-cv-00087-CJB, 61 in 1:22-cv-01163-CJB) Claim Construction Chart - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 10/13/2023)
2023-10-13
1
MOTION for Claim Construction re 66 Claim Construction Chart - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Moore, David) (Entered: 10/13/2023)
2023-10-13
1
ANSWER to 50 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim, COUNTERCLAIM against Stodge Inc. by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. 1-12)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 10/16/2023)
2023-10-16
1
ANSWER to 50 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim, COUNTERCLAIM against Stodge Inc. by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. 1-12)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 10/16/2023)
2023-10-16
2
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant and Counter-Claimant Stodge Inc. D/B/A Postscript's Supplemental Initial Disclosures Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of The Default Standard filed by Stodge Inc..(Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 10/18/2023)
2023-10-18
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Disclosure Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the Delaware Default Standard for Discovery - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 10/18/2023)
2023-10-18
1
STIPULATION and Order Amending Schedule for Patent Infringement Counterclaim re 20 Scheduling Order,,,, by Stodge Inc.. (Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 10/18/2023)
2023-10-18
1
Stipulated Amended SCHEDULE For Patent Infringement Counterclaim for the '600 Patent: Joinder of Parties due by 10/27/2023. Amended Pleadings due by 10/27/2023. Opening Expert Reports due by 7/8/2024. Rebuttal Expert Reports due by 8/5/2024. Reply Expert Reports due by 8/19/2024. Dispositive Motions due by 10/3/2024. Answering Brief due 10/24/2024. Reply Brief due 11/7/2024. A Motion Hearing is set for 11/20/2024 at 11:00 AM before Judge Christopher J. Burke Claim Construction Opening Brief due by 1/23/2024. Claim Construction Answering Brief due by 2/6/2024. Claim Construction Reply Brief due by 2/13/2024. Claim Construction Surreply Brief due by 2/20/2024. A Markman Hearing is set for 3/27/2024 at 11:00 AM before Judge Christopher J. Burke. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/19/2023. (dlb) (Entered: 10/19/2023)
2023-10-19
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Attentive Mobile Inc.'s Objections and Responses to Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents (Nos. 58-85) and (2) Attentive Mobile Inc.'s Objections and Responses to Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Second Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 11-19) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 10/27/2023)
2023-10-27
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. D/B/A Postscript's Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production (Nos. 39 and 41) filed by Stodge Inc..(Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 11/01/2023)
2023-11-01
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for Defendant to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Counterclaims (DI 70) to November 20, 2023 - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 11/03/2023)
2023-11-03
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Opening Claim Construction Brief - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 11/03/2023)
2023-11-03
1
SO ORDERED D.I. 77 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for Defendant to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Counterclaims (DI 70) to November 20, 2023 filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/7/2023. (dlb)
2023-11-07
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2023-11-07
1
No Actions
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. D/B/A Postscript's Third Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Attentive Mobile Inc. (No. 20) filed by Stodge Inc..(Moore, David) (Entered: 11/10/2023)
2023-11-10
1
STIPULATION to Extend Time for Claim Construction Deadlines - by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 11/15/2023)
2023-11-15
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Counterclaims (D.I. 70) to November 27, 2023 - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 11/15/2023)
2023-11-15
1
SO ORDERED D.I. 81 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Counterclaims (D.I. 70) to November 27, 2023 filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/15/2023. (dlb)
2023-11-15
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2023-11-15
1
No Actions
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Disclosure of Preliminary Infringement Contentions with Exhibit 1 [Restricted - Confidential Source Code] filed by Stodge Inc..(Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 11/17/2023)
2023-11-17
1
Notice of Service
2023-11-17
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendants Stodge Inc. D/B/A Postscript's and 317 Labs, Inc. D/B/A Emotive's Response to Plaintiff Attentive Mobile, Inc.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief, and Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D., In Support of Defendants' Responsive Markman Brief with Exhibits A-C filed by 317 Labs, Inc., Stodge Inc..(Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 11/17/2023)
2023-11-17
1
NOTICE of Issuance of Subpoenas upon BustedTees.com by Stodge Inc. (Moore, David) (Entered: 11/20/2023)
2023-11-20
1
- CORRECTING ENTRY
2023-11-20
1
No Actions
CORRECTING ENTRY: D.I. 83 has been removed from the docket as it was erroneously filed into the wrong case. (vfm)
2023-11-20
1
No Actions
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Timothy Chen Saulsbury of Morrison Foerster - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 11/22/2023)
2023-11-22
1
NOTICE of Issuance of Amended Subpoenas upon BustedTees.com by Stodge Inc. (Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 11/27/2023)
2023-11-27
1
ANSWER to 70 Answer to Counterclaim, [Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Counterclaims] by Stodge Inc..(Moore, David) (Entered: 11/27/2023)
2023-11-27
1
MOTION to Strike 70 Answer to Counterclaim, - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Moore, David) (Entered: 11/27/2023)
2023-11-27
1
MOTION to Strike 70 Answer to Counterclaim, - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Moore, David) (Entered: 11/27/2023)
2023-11-27
2
Letter OPENING BRIEF in Support re 89 MOTION to Strike 70 Answer to Counterclaim, filed by Stodge Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 12/11/2023. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-F)(Moore, David) (Entered: 11/27/2023)
2023-11-27
1
Letter OPENING BRIEF in Support re 89 MOTION to Strike 70 Answer to Counterclaim, filed by Stodge Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 12/11/2023. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-F)(Moore, David) (Entered: 11/27/2023)
2023-11-27
2
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Plaintiff's Second Set of Requests for Production to Defendant and (2) Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories to Defendant - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 11/28/2023)
2023-11-28
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Plaintiff's Reply Claim Construction Brief and (2) Declaration of Dr. Nathaniel Polish in Support of Attentive's Claim Construction filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 11/30/2023)
2023-11-30
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME (1) for Plaintiff to file a response to Defendant's Motion to Strike Inequitable Conduct and Unclean Hands Defenses (D.I. 89) and (2) for Defendant's deadline to file a reply to December 21, 2023 and January 11, 2024, respectively - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/01/2023)
2023-12-01
1
SO ORDERED
2023-12-04
1
No Actions
Order Setting Briefing Schedule - open, ans, reply, surreply AND SO ORDERED
2023-12-04
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED D.I. 93 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME (1) for Plaintiff to file a response to Defendant's Motion to Strike Inequitable Conduct and Unclean Hands Defenses (D.I. 89) and (2) for Defendant's deadline to file a reply to December 21, 2023 and January 11, 20 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/4/2023. (dlb)
2023-12-04
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED D.I. 86 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Timothy Chen Saulsbury of Morrison Foerster filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/4/2023. (dlb)
2023-12-04
1
No Actions
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendants Stodge Inc. D/B/A Postscript's and 317 Labs, Inc. D/B/A Emotive's Sur-Reply to Plaintiff Attentive Mobile, Inc.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief filed by Stodge Inc..(Brown, Andrew) (Main Document 94 replaced on 12/8/2023) (vfm). (Entered: 12/07/2023)
2023-12-07
1
CORRECTING ENTRY: The main document at D.I. 94 has been replaced per counsels' request. (vfm)
2023-12-08
1
No Actions
- CORRECTING ENTRY
2023-12-08
1
No Actions
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff Attentive Mobile Inc.'s Objections and Responses to Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Third Set of Interrogatories (No. 20) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/11/2023)
2023-12-11
1
JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. 1-9)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/11/2023)
2023-12-11
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Claim Construction Hearing. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/11/2023)
2023-12-11
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Attentive Mobile Inc.'s Technology Tutorial. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/11/2023)
2023-12-11
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' December 11, 2023 letter (the "December 11 letter") regarding the Markman hearing, (Civil Action No. 22-1163, D.I. 71; Civil Action No. 23-87, D.I. 97), 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) With respect to the order of the terms and which side will present argument first for each term, the Court ADOPTS the parties' proposal set out in the December 11 letter, with the modification that at the Markman hearing, the Court will hear argument on only Terms 1-6 (it will take Terms 7 and 8 on the papers).; and (3) On or before January 2, 2024, 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. In a joint letter that the parties shall submit by January 2, 2024, the parties shall: (a) identify by name each individual who participated in this meet and confer, when and how that meet and confer occurred and how long it lasted; and (b) list, for each term remaining to be argued, what they understand the parties' remaining disputes about the construction of that term to be (i.e., "The parties' [first/only] dispute as to this term is whether [describe dispute]."), including no more than one sentence to describe each dispute. 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. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/12/2023. Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-01163-CJB, 1:23-cv-00087-CJB(dlb) (Entered: 12/12/2023)
2023-12-12
1
Oral Order
2023-12-12
1
No Actions
Pro Hac Vice Attorney Timothy C. Saulsbury for Stodge 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)
2023-12-13
1
No Actions
Add Attorneys - PHV only
2023-12-13
1
No Actions
MULTI MEDIA DOCUMENT filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. in the form of a 2 USB Drives containing Plaintiff's Technology Tutorial. Filing related to (72 in 1:22-cv-01163-CJB, 98 in 1:23-cv-00087-CJB) Letter. (Media on file in Clerk's Office). Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-01163-CJB, 1:23-cv-00087-CJB(dlb) (Entered: 12/14/2023)
2023-12-14
1
Multi Media Document
2023-12-14
1
No Actions
STATEMENT re 98 Letter [Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Response to Attentive Mobile Inc.'s Technology Tutorial] by Stodge Inc.. (Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 12/18/2023)
2023-12-18
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Attentive's Preliminary Invalidity Contentions - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/18/2023)
2023-12-18
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Postscript's Motion to Strike. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/21/2023)
2023-12-21
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. D/B/A Postscript's Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories filed by Stodge Inc..(Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 12/22/2023)
2023-12-22
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Proposed Claim Terms and Constructions filed by Stodge Inc..(Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 12/29/2023)
2023-12-29
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Attentive's Preliminary Identification of Terms and Phrases for Construction and Preliminary Proposed Constructions - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/29/2023)
2023-12-29
1
MOTION [and Proposed Order] Granting Limited Exemption from the Standing Order Regarding Personal Electronic Devices - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Moore, David) (Entered: 01/02/2024)
2024-01-02
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding the parties' joint submission pursuant to the Court's December 12, 2023 Oral Order - re (73 in 1:22-cv-01163-CJB, 99 in 1:23-cv-00087-CJB) Oral Order,,,,,,,,. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/02/2024)
2024-01-02
1
ORDER granting (76) MOTION Granting Limited Exemption from the Standing Order Regarding Personal Electronic Devices in case 1:22-cv-01163-CJB; granting (107) MOTION Granting Limited Exemption from the Standing Order Regarding Personal Electronic Devices in case 1:23-cv-00087-CJB in case 1:22-cv-01163-CJB. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 1/2/2024. Associated Cases: 1:23-cv-00087-CJB, 1:22-cv-01163-CJB(dlb) (Entered: 01/03/2024)
2024-01-03
1
NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL re Stodge Inc.: Entry of appearance of attorney Alexandra M. Joyce. Attorney David E. Moore, Esq., Bindu A. Palapura, Esq., and Andrew L. Brown, Esq. terminated. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 01/03/2024)
2024-01-03
1
NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel M. Silver on behalf of Stodge Inc. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/03/2024)
2024-01-03
1
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Christopher J. Burke - Markman hearing held on 1/9/24. The Court heard argument from the parties regarding the disputed terms. (D.I. 68; D.I. 69 in Civil Action No. 22-1163; D.I. 68; D.I. 69 in Civil Action No. 23-87) The Court took the matter under advisement. The Court ordered as follows: (1) By no later than January 12, 2024, the parties shall submit a revised version of the Joint Claim Construction Brief that cites to applicable exhibit numbers where appropriate.; (2) The parties shall further meet and confer as discussed regarding term 3 and submit a joint letter that describes the parties remaining dispute(s) regarding this term, the parties' current respective proposals, and a paragraph or two setting out each side's respective position.; (3) The parties shall further meet and confer regarding terms 4 and 6 based on the Court's comments. In the joint letter, the parties shall indicate if there are remaining dispute(s) regarding these terms and if so, what those dispute(s) are.; and (4) By no later than January 12, 2024, the parties shall submit a stipulation indicating when the joint letter shall be due. (Clerk: M. Crawford) Appearances: M. Flynn, B. Davis, C. Campbell, R. Schmid, S. Vellala for Plaintiff; J. Day and M. Chow for Defendant 317 Labs, Inc. d/b/a Emotive; A. Joyce, R. Krishnapriyan and H. Kiam for Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postcript. (Court Reporter Bonnie Archer.) Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-01163-CJB, 1:23-cv-00087-CJB(dlb)
2024-01-09
1
No Actions
Markman Hearing
2024-01-09
1
No Actions
NOTICE of Lodging Attentive's Markman Presentation by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/11/2024)
2024-01-11
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Reply Letter Brief - re 90 Opening Brief in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/11/2024)
2024-01-11
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Reply Letter Brief - re 90 Opening Brief in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/11/2024)
2024-01-11
2
NOTICE of Lodging by Stodge Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/11/2024)
2024-01-11
1
NOTICE of Lodging by Stodge Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/11/2024)
2024-01-11
2
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories and (2) Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's Second Set of Requests for Production filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 01/11/2024)
2024-01-11
1
ORAL ORDER Setting Videoconference: The Court hereby ORDERS as follows with respect to Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's affirmative defenses of inequitable conduct and unclean hands to Defendant's infringement counterclaim, (the "Motion"), (D.I. 89): (1) A videoconference using the Microsoft Teams platform is set for March 11, 2024 at 1:00 PM before Judge Christopher J. Burke.; (2) By no later than February 26, 2024, 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 videoconference.; and (3) 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 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). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 1/12/2024. (dlb) (Entered: 01/12/2024)
2024-01-12
1
JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF (Revised) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/12/2024)
2024-01-12
1
NOTICE of Subpoena to Fenwick & West by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/12/2024)
2024-01-12
1
STIPULATION Regarding Supplemental Claim Construction Briefing - by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/12/2024)
2024-01-12
1
NOTICE requesting Clerk to remove Eugene Novikov as co-counsel.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 01/12/2024)
2024-01-12
1
Order Setting Hearing on Motion
2024-01-12
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: A Markman hearing is currently scheduled in this case for March 27, 2024, regarding Defendant's patent asserted in its counterclaim. (D.I. 74) The Court now has a conflict with this date, but it also notes that the parties appear not to have filed relevant papers regarding that hearing (like the joint claim construction chart or a notice of service regarding the opening claim construction brief). By no later than January 26, 2024, the parties shall file a one-page joint letter indicating whether the Court should take the hearing off of its calendar (or if not, what other jointly-available dates they propose for the hearing in April 2024). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 1/25/24. (dlb) (Entered: 01/25/2024)
2024-01-25
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Andrew Jones on February 7, 2024 filed by Stodge Inc..(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/25/2024)
2024-01-25
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Eric Miao on February 6, 2024 filed by Stodge Inc..(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/25/2024)
2024-01-25
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Subpoena and Notice of Deposition of Ethan Han Lo filed by Stodge Inc..(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/25/2024)
2024-01-25
1
Oral Order
2024-01-25
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2024-01-25
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED D.I. 119 Stipulation filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 1/12/2024. (dlb)
2024-01-25
1
No Actions
STIPULATION Regarding Supplemental Claim Construction Briefing by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/26/2024)
2024-01-26
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Request to Remove March 27, 2024 Markman Hearing for U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 from Calendar - re 121 Oral Order,,. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/26/2024)
2024-01-26
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Claim Construction Disputes. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/29/2024)
2024-01-29
1
SO ORDERED D.I. 125 Stipulation Regarding Supplemental Claim Construction Briefing filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 1/29/2024. (dlb)
2024-01-29
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2024-01-29
1
No Actions
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Brian Hill - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/31/2024)
2024-01-31
1
Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for Brian Hill. ( re 128 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Brian Hill )( Payment of $ 50, receipt number ADEDC-4327271).(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/31/2024)
2024-01-31
1
-District Court Pro Hac Vice Fee - 01 Attorney Credit Card Payment
2024-01-31
1
No Actions
NOTICE of Lodging of Transcript from the Deposition of Benjamin Bederson, Ph.D. by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 02/01/2024)
2024-02-01
1
STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order regarding Claim Construction of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 and to Amend the Case Schedule by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 02/01/2024)
2024-02-01
1
SO ORDERED
2024-02-01
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED D.I. 128 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Brian Hill filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 2/1/2024. (dlb)
2024-02-01
1
No Actions
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Subpoenas filed by Stodge Inc..(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 02/02/2024)
2024-02-02
1
SO ORDERED D.I. 131 STIPULATION REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF U.S. PATENT NO. 11,709,660 AND TO AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 2/1/2024. (dlb)
2024-02-02
1
No Actions
1 - Terminate Deadlines and Hearings AND SO ORDERED AND ~Util - Set Scheduling Order Deadlines
2024-02-02
1
No Actions
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Supplemental Objections and Responses to Defendant's Interrogatories (Nos. 1-20) filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 02/09/2024)
2024-02-09
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Second Amended Infringement Contentions filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 02/09/2024)
2024-02-09
1
Notice to Take Deposition
2024-02-14
1
Notice to Take Deposition
2024-02-14
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Alex Beller on February 28, 2024 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 02/14/2024)
2024-02-14
1
Notice to Take Deposition
2024-02-14
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Mindy Regnell on February 29, 2024 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 02/14/2024)
2024-02-14
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Dan Glazer on March 1, 2024 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 02/14/2024)
2024-02-14
1
- CORRECTING ENTRY
2024-02-14
1
No Actions
CORRECTING ENTRY: Notices to Take Depositions filed at D.I. Nos. 135, 136, and 138 have been deleted at the request of the filer as having been filed in this case in error. (dlb)
2024-02-14
1
No Actions
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Amit Jhawar on March 1, 2024 filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 02/16/2024)
2024-02-16
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael J. Flynn regarding request for teleconference. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 02/21/2024)
2024-02-21
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Amended Subpoena and Amended Notice of Deposition filed by Stodge Inc..(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 02/23/2024)
2024-02-23
1
Amended NOTICE of Deposition of Andrew Jones by Stodge Inc. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 02/26/2024)
2024-02-26
1
Amended NOTICE of Deposition of Eric Miao by Stodge Inc. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 02/26/2024)
2024-02-26
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Amended Subpoena and Amended Notice of Deposition filed by Stodge Inc..(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 02/26/2024)
2024-02-26
1
NOTICE of Regarding Intent to Have Newer Attorney Participate in Argument Regarding Motion by Stodge Inc. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 02/26/2024)
2024-02-26
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having considered Defendant's Notice of Intent to Have Newer Attorney Participate in Argument Regarding Motion, (D.I. 147), and pursuant to the Court's Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, hereby ORDERS that the Court will ensure that sufficient time is permitted for argument during the March 11, 2024 videoconference regarding Defendant's Motion to Strike and will permit experienced counsel to provide assistance when appropriate. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 2/27/2024. (dlb) (Entered: 02/27/2024)
2024-02-27
1
Oral Order
2024-02-27
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: The Court has reviewed the parties' February 21, 2024 letters requesting a discovery dispute teleconference regarding one dispute in C.A. No. 22-1163-CJB and three disputes in C.A. No. 23-87. (D.I. 92 in C.A. No. 22-1163; D.I. 142 in C.A. No. 23-87) It hereby ORDERS as follows with regard to these disputes: (1) A discovery dispute videoconference using the Microsoft Teams platform is set for April 22, 2024 at 1:00 PM before Judge Christopher J. Burke.; (2) With respect to each case, by February 29, 2024, any party seeking relief shall file with the Court a letter, not to exceed two (2) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining the issues in dispute and its position on those issues.; (3) With respect to each case, by March 7, 2024, any party opposing the application for relief may file a letter, not to exceed two (2) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining that party's reasons for its opposition.; (4) With respect to each case, by March 14, 2024, the party seeking relief shall file with the Court a reply letter brief, not to exceed one (1) single-spaced page, in no less than 12-point font.; (5) With respect to each case, the parties shall jointly file a Motion For Videoconference To Resolve Discovery Dispute.; (6) The parties should also 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.; (7) By no later than March 14, 2024, 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 videoconference.; and (8) The Court may choose to resolve the disputes 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 disputes, 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 2/22/2024. (dlb) (Entered: 02/28/2024)
2024-02-28
1
Order Setting Videoconference
2024-02-28
1
No Actions
Letter to The Honorable Christoher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Discovery Disputes Concerning Attentive Mobile Inc.'s Interrogatory Responses. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-4, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 02/29/2024)
2024-02-29
1
Letter to The Honorable Christoher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Discovery Disputes Concerning Attentive Mobile Inc.'s Interrogatory Responses. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-4, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 02/29/2024)
2024-02-29
2
Letter to The Honorable Christoher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Discovery Disputes Concerning Attentive Mobile Inc.'s Interrogatory Responses. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-4, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 02/29/2024)
2024-02-29
2
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding ESI Dispute. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 02/29/2024)
2024-02-29
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding ESI Dispute. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 02/29/2024)
2024-02-29
2
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding ESI Dispute. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 02/29/2024)
2024-02-29
2
NOTICE of of Supplemental Authority Regarding Claim Construction by Stodge Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 02/29/2024)
2024-02-29
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Attentive Mobile Inc. (No. 21) filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 03/01/2024)
2024-03-01
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Dan Glazer on March 6, 2024 (Amended) filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Main Document 154 replaced on 3/5/2024) (dlb). (Entered: 03/04/2024)
2024-03-04
1
MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 03/04/2024)
2024-03-04
1
OPENING BRIEF in Support re 155 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 3/18/2024. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 03/04/2024)
2024-03-04
1
Amended NOTICE of Supplemental Authority Regarding Claim Construction by Stodge Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 03/05/2024)
2024-03-05
1
Amended NOTICE of Supplemental Authority Regarding Claim Construction by Stodge Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 03/05/2024)
2024-03-05
2
CORRECTING ENTRY: PDF at D.I. 154 has been replaced at the request of the filer. (dlb)
2024-03-05
1
No Actions
- CORRECTING ENTRY
2024-03-05
1
No Actions
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding request for the scheduling of a discovery dispute teleconference. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 03/07/2024)
2024-03-07
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Defendant and Counter-Claimant Stodge Inc. D/B/A Postscript's Second Supplemental Initial Disclosures Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the Default Standard and (2) Defendant and Counter-Claimant Stodge Inc. D/B/A Postscript's Second Supplemental Initial Disclosures filed by Stodge Inc..(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 03/07/2024)
2024-03-07
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver regarding Opposition to Plaintiff Attentive Mobile Inc.'s letter regarding ESI Discovery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1-2)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 03/07/2024)
2024-03-07
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver regarding Opposition to Plaintiff Attentive Mobile Inc.'s letter regarding ESI Discovery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1-2)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 03/07/2024)
2024-03-07
2
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding response to Postscript's discovery dispute letter regarding Attentive's responses to Interrogatory Nos. 6 and 20. - re 150 Letter,. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. 1-5)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 03/07/2024)
2024-03-07
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Postscript's Response to Attentive's Unilateral Letter, and Request for Court to Refrain From Scheduling Discovery Teleconference - re 158 Letter. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 03/07/2024)
2024-03-07
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Postscript's Response to Attentive's Unilateral Letter, and Request for Court to Refrain From Scheduling Discovery Teleconference - re 158 Letter. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 03/07/2024)
2024-03-07
2
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Notice to Attentive Mobile Inc. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) filed by Stodge Inc..(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 03/08/2024)
2024-03-08
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' March 7, 2024 letters, (D.I. 158; D.I. 162), hereby ORDERS that by no later than March 13, 2024, the parties shall further meet and confer regarding Defendant's possible discovery dispute and file a joint letter requesting a discovery dispute teleconference with respect to the issue(s) that are ripe for resolution. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 3/8/2024. (mlc) (Entered: 03/08/2024)
2024-03-08
1
Oral Order
2024-03-08
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the briefing related to Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's inequitable conduct and unclean hands defenses ("Motion"), (D.I. 89), hereby CANCELS the videoconference scheduled for today and will reschedule it for a date and time after the Court has received the additional briefing discussed below. After reviewing the briefing, the Court (unless it is missing something), does not understand why neither party addressed two Federal Circuit cases that appear very relevant to at least Plaintiff's "burying" theory: Fiskars, Inc. v. Hunt Mfg., 221 F.3d 1318, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2000) and Scripps Clinic & Rsch. Found. v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The Court cannot see how, in light of the holding in those cases, see Fiskars, 221 F.3d at 1327 ("An applicant can not be guilty of inequitable conduct if the reference was cited to the examiner[.]"); Scripps, 927 F.2d at 1582 ("When a reference was before the examiner, whether through the examiner's search or the applicant's disclosure, it can not be deemed to have been withheld from the examiner."), Plaintiff's "burying" theory can survive. See also Jackson v. NuVasive, Inc., Civil Action No. 21-53-RGA, 2023 WL 5175092, at *5 (D. Del. Aug. 11, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 6387866 (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2023); Jackson v. SeaSpine Holdings Corp., Civil Action No. 20-1784-RGA, 2023 WL 5175387, at *5 (D. Del. Aug. 11, 2023); Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Aruba Networks, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 353, 358-59 (D. Del. 2009); but see Pact XPP Schweiz AG v. Intel Corp., Case No. 1:19-cv-01006-JDW, 2023 WL 2631503, at *7 (D. Del. Mar. 24, 2023). But Plaintiff should be given a chance to address the Court's concern about these cases, since Defendant did not cite them in its briefing. By no later than March 18, 2024, Plaintiff shall file a supplemental letter brief, of no more than two single-spaced pages, discussing the cases cited in this order and their impact on the Motion. By no later than March 25, 2024, Defendant shall file a supplemental letter brief, of no more than two single-spaced pages, responding to Plaintiff's submission. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 3/11/2024. (dlb) (Entered: 03/11/2024)
2024-03-11
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Fifth Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Attentive Mobile Inc. (Nos. 22 and 23) filed by Stodge Inc..(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 03/11/2024)
2024-03-11
1
1 - Terminate Deadlines and Hearings AND Oral Order
2024-03-11
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: The Court hereby advises the parties that it will not meet its aspirational goal of issuing the claim construction opinion within 60 days of the Markman hearing. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 3/12/2024. Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-01163-CJB, 1:23-cv-00087-CJB(dlb) (Entered: 03/12/2024)
2024-03-12
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael J. Flynn regarding request for teleconference - re 164 Oral Order,. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 03/12/2024)
2024-03-12
1
ORAL ORDER Setting Videoconference: The Court has reviewed the parties' March 12, 2024 letter requesting a discovery dispute teleconference regarding two discovery disputes. (D.I. 168) It hereby ORDERS as follows with regard to these disputes: (1) A discovery dispute videoconference using the Microsoft Teams platform is set for May 13, 2024 at 1:00 PM before Judge Christopher J. Burke.; (2) By March 19, 2024, any party seeking relief shall file with the Court a letter, not to exceed two (2) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining the issues in dispute and its position on those issues.; (3) By March 26, 2024, any party opposing the application for relief may file a letter, not to exceed two (2) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining that party's reasons for its opposition.; (4) By no later than April 2, 2024, the party seeking relief shall file with the Court a reply letter brief, not to exceed one (1) single-spaced page, in no less than 12-point font.; (5) The parties shall jointly file a Motion For Videoconference To Resolve Discovery Dispute.; (6) The parties should also 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.; (7) By no later than April 2, 2024, 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 videoconference.; and (8) The Court may choose to resolve the disputes 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 disputes, 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 3/12/2024. (dlb) (Entered: 03/12/2024)
2024-03-12
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the Deadline for the Defendant to file its Answering Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) to April 4, 2024 (from March 18, 2024) - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 03/12/2024)
2024-03-12
1
Order Setting Videoconference AND ~Util - Set Deadlines/Hearings
2024-03-12
1
No Actions
Oral Order
2024-03-12
1
No Actions
MOTION for Leave to Respond to Defendant's Notices of Supplemental Authority Regarding Claim Construction re 157 Notice (Other), 152 Notice (Other) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A - Response to Notices)(Flynn, Michael) (Main Document 171 replaced on 3/14/2024) (dlb). (Entered: 03/13/2024)
2024-03-13
1
MOTION for Leave to Respond to Defendant's Notices of Supplemental Authority Regarding Claim Construction re 157 Notice (Other), 152 Notice (Other) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A - Response to Notices)(Flynn, Michael) (Main Document 171 replaced on 3/14/2024) (dlb). (Entered: 03/13/2024)
2024-03-13
2
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Stodge, Inc. d/b/a Postscript Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) on March 25, 2024 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 03/13/2024)
2024-03-13
1
SO ORDERED D.I. 170 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the Deadline for the Defendant to file its Answering Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) to April 4, 2024 (from March 18, 2024) filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 3/13/2024. (dlb)
2024-03-13
1
No Actions
Order Setting Briefing Schedule - open, ans, reply, surreply AND SO ORDERED
2024-03-13
1
No Actions
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding reply to Postscript's Opposition to Attentive's letter regarding ESI Discovery - re 160 Letter. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 03/14/2024)
2024-03-14
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Discovery Disputes - re 150 Letter,. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 03/14/2024)
2024-03-14
1
Joint MOTION for Hearing (videoconference) to resolve discovery disputes - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 03/14/2024)
2024-03-14
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION re 174 Letter of Timothy Saulsbury by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 03/14/2024)
2024-03-14
1
CORRECTING ENTRY: The main PDF at D.I. 171 has been replaced at the request of the filer. (dlb)
2024-03-14
1
No Actions
- CORRECTING ENTRY
2024-03-14
1
No Actions
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Motion to Strike Inequitable Conduct Defense. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 03/18/2024)
2024-03-18
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Discovery Disputes to Compel Production of Documents Responsive to Requests for Production 39, 40, 53, and 54. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-5, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 03/19/2024)
2024-03-19
1
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Source Code Production Dispute - re 169 Order Setting Videoconference,,,,,,,,, Set Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,,. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 03/19/2024)
2024-03-19
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Subpoena and Notice of Deposition of Sara Varni filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 03/19/2024)
2024-03-19
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Amended Subpoena and Notice of Deposition filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Subpoena)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 03/21/2024)
2024-03-21
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Amended Subpoena and Notice of Deposition filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Subpoena)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 03/21/2024)
2024-03-21
2
REDACTED VERSION of 176 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 03/21/2024)
2024-03-21
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production (Nos. 46, 48 & 63) filed by Stodge Inc..(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 03/22/2024)
2024-03-22
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver regarding supplemental letter brief in support of its motion to strike and in response to Attentive's submission - re 177 Letter, 165 Oral Order,,,,,,,,,, Terminate Deadlines and Hearings,,,,,,,,,. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 03/25/2024)
2024-03-25
1
ORAL ORDER Setting Videoconference: Having received the additional briefing regarding Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's affirmative defenses of inequitable conduct and unclean hands to Defendant's infringement counterclaim, (the "Motion"), (D.I. 89; see also D.I. 165), the Court hereby ORDERS that the videoconference on the Motion is rescheduled to May 13, 2024 at 3:00 PM before Judge Christopher J. Burke.; and (2) By no later than April 29, 2024, the parties shall send an e-mail to the Court's Courtroom Deputy, Ms. Grimes, indicating the names and e-mail addresses of all individuals who will participate in the videoconference. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 3/26/2024. (dlb) (Entered: 03/26/2024)
2024-03-26
1
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver regarding Source Code Production Dispute - re 179 Letter. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A - D, # 2 Exhibits E - I, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 03/26/2024)
2024-03-26
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION re 186 Letter Declaration of Vishak Visvanathan by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 03/26/2024)
2024-03-26
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Emotive Discovery - re 178 Letter,. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 03/26/2024)
2024-03-26
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Amended Subpoena and Amended Notice of Deposition of Sara Varni filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Subpoena)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 03/26/2024)
2024-03-26
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Amended Subpoena and Amended Notice of Deposition of Sara Varni filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Subpoena)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 03/26/2024)
2024-03-26
2
Order Setting Hearing on Motion
2024-03-26
1
No Actions
RESPONSE to Motion re 171 MOTION for Leave to Respond to Defendant's Notices of Supplemental Authority Regarding Claim Construction re 157 Notice (Other), 152 Notice (Other) filed by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 03/27/2024)
2024-03-27
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Plaintiff's Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant and (2) Plaintiff's Third Set of Interrogatories to Defendant - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 03/29/2024)
2024-03-29
1
REDACTED VERSION of 186 Letter by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 04/02/2024)
2024-04-02
1
REDACTED VERSION of 187 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 04/02/2024)
2024-04-02
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Postscript's Reply Regarding Discovery Disputes to Compel Production of Documents Responsive to Requests for Production 39, 40, 53, and 54 - re 178 Letter,. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 04/02/2024)
2024-04-02
1
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Source Code Discovery Dispute. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1, # 2 Ex. 2, # 3 Ex. 3)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 04/02/2024)
2024-04-02
1
Joint MOTION for Hearing (Videoconference to Resolve Discovery Disputes) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 04/03/2024)
2024-04-03
1
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Rahul Sarkar and SaiPranay Vellala - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 04/03/2024)
2024-04-03
1
Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for Rahul Sarkar and SaiPranay Vellala. ( re 197 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Rahul Sarkar and SaiPranay Vellala )( Payment of $ 100, receipt number ADEDC-4376314).(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 04/03/2024)
2024-04-03
1
-District Court Pro Hac Vice Fee - 02 Attorneys Credit Card Payment
2024-04-03
1
No Actions
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Stodge, Inc. d/b/a Postscript on April 26, 2024 (Amended) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 04/04/2024)
2024-04-04
1
[SEALED] ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re 155 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Stodge Inc..Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 4/11/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 04/04/2024)
2024-04-04
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION re 200 Answering Brief in Opposition of Bethany Bengfort by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 04/04/2024)
2024-04-04
1
SO ORDERED D.I. 197 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Rahul Sarkar and SaiPranay Vellala filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 4/4/2024. (dlb)
2024-04-04
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2024-04-04
1
No Actions
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 11-14) filed by Stodge Inc..(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 04/05/2024)
2024-04-05
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Objections and Responses to Defendant's Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 04/08/2024)
2024-04-08
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Supplemental Objections and Responses to Defendant's Interrogatories (Nos. 1-20) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 04/09/2024)
2024-04-09
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories; (2) Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories (No. 16); (3) Defendant and Counter-Claimant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Third Supplemental Initial Disclosures (Rule 26); and (4) Defendant and Counter-Claimant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Third Supplemental Initial Disclosures Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the Default Standard filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 04/09/2024)
2024-04-09
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Subsequent Development on Discovery Dispute - re 194 Letter,. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 04/10/2024)
2024-04-10
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Amended Subpoena and Amended Notice of Deposition of Sara Varni filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 04/10/2024)
2024-04-10
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Objections and Responses to Defendant's Fifth Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 22-23) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 04/10/2024)
2024-04-10
1
REPLY BRIEF re 155 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 04/11/2024)
2024-04-11
1
REDACTED VERSION of 200 Answering Brief in Opposition by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 04/11/2024)
2024-04-11
1
REDACTED VERSION of 201 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 04/11/2024)
2024-04-11
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to file an interim status report to 10 days after the Court issues its Claim Construction Order - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 04/12/2024)
2024-04-12
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Supplemental Identification of Invalidity References filed by Stodge Inc..(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 04/12/2024)
2024-04-12
1
SO ORDERED D.I. 212 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to file an interim status report to 10 days after the Court issues its Claim Construction Order filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 4/12/2024. (dlb)
2024-04-12
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2024-04-12
1
No Actions
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Objections and Responses to Defendant's Fourth Set of Interrogatories (No. 21) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 04/17/2024)
2024-04-17
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Resolution of Certain Discovery Disputes - re 206 Letter. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 04/18/2024)
2024-04-18
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant's April 18, 2024 letter, (D.I. 215), appreciates that the parties have resolved their discovery dispute regarding Attentive's responses to Postscript's Requests for Production Nos. 39, 40, 53 and 54. The Court hereby ORDERS that during the May 13, 2024 videoconference, the Court will only hear argument regarding the parties' dispute about Defendant's source code production (to the extent that the Court does not resolve it before the videoconference). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 4/18/2024. (dlb) (Entered: 04/18/2024)
2024-04-18
1
Oral Order
2024-04-18
1
No Actions
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's First Set of Requests for Admission and Authentication filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 04/19/2024)
2024-04-19
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Sixth Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Attentive Mobile Inc. (No. 24) and (2) Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Attentive Mobile Inc. (Nos. 86-92) filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 04/19/2024)
2024-04-19
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' joint motion regarding discovery disputes, (D.I. 175 ), as it relates to Plaintiff's motion regarding the scope of ESI discovery ("Plaintiff's Motion" or "motion"), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 151 ; D.I. 160 ; D.I. 173 ), hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART as follows: (1) With regard to the portion of the motion that asks Defendant to identify at least 10 custodians most likely to have discoverable information pursuant to paragraph 3(a) of the Default Standard, (D.I. 151 at 2), it is DENIED as MOOT, as Defendant has already done so, (D.I. 160 at 1 & ex. 1).; (2) With regard to the portion of the motion that requests that, pursuant to paragraph 5(b) of the Default Standard, if Defendant is going to elect to use search terms to locate potentially responsive ESI, it run 10 additional search terms proposed by Plaintiff, (D.I. 151 at 2), the request is DENIED, as Defendant has elected not to use search terms to search through its custodians' ESI (and instead has indicated that it plans to use another method to do so), (D.I. 160 at 2; Default Standard at para. 5(b)).; (3) With regard to the portion of the motion that requests that, pursuant to paragraph 5(b) of the Default Standard, Defendant search the ESI of 10 custodians, that request is GRANTED. The Default Standard requires that, unless good cause is shown otherwise, Defendant will search the ESI of the 10 custodians most likely to have discoverable information in their possession. (Default Standard, paras. 3(a) and 5(b); United States v. Gilead Scis., Inc., Civil Action No. 19-2103-MN, D.I. 247 (D. Del. Dec. 21, 2021)) Defendant has not shown good cause to deviate from that 10-person presumption. Instead, in its answering brief, Defendant repeatedly flips that burden, as it consistently suggests that it does not need to search 10 custodians' documents because Plaintiff was "unable to identify" any reason why it should do so, because Plaintiff was unable to "identify any 'holes'" in Defendant's prior productions. (D.I. 160 at 2) Since Defendant had the burden to justify a deviation from the 10-custodian limit, this was the wrong path; Defendant needed to affirmatively put forward information and/or evidence to explain to the Court why 10 custodians were not needed here (e.g., by way of providing examples of how production of certain custodians' ESI might be duplicative of that of other custodians' ESI, or by way of explaining why it would be unduly burdensome to search 10 custodians' documents from a financial or resource perspective). It did not do this. (D.I. 160 at 1-2; see also D.I. 151, ex. A at 1/23/24 e-mail from Mr. Saulsbury (e-mail cited by Defendant as providing an explanation as to why Plaintiff's ESI proposals were unduly "cumulative," in which nothing more than the conclusory statement was offered to the effect that this was so)) Therefore, Defendant shall promptly advise Plaintiff of the 10 custodians whose ESI will be reviewed, and shall complete a search of the ESI of those 10 custodians (in whatever manner it has chosen that does not involve the use of search terms, e.g., manual search of all ESI) pursuant to paragraph 5(b) of the Default Standard.; and (4) With regard to Plaintiff's request that the Court set a date for substantial completion of ESI discovery, (D.I. 151 at 2), absent further Court order, that date shall be 14 days from today's date. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 04/22/2024. (smg) (Entered: 04/22/2024)
2024-04-22
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court has advised the parties to "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." (D.I. 149 ) One of those Guidelines (Guideline # 3) requires the parties to highlight in yellow those portions of their exhibits to discovery dispute filings that are relevant to the dispute. Neither side has done so here with regard to the discovery disputes captured by D.I. 175 and the briefing provided relating to those disputes; this made it harder for the Court to review those disputes. The Court asks that the parties follow its Guidelines in this and all other respects going forward.Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 04/22/2024. (smg) Modified on 4/22/2024 (smg). (Entered: 04/22/2024)
2024-04-22
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' joint motion regarding discovery disputes, (D.I. 175 ), as it relates to Defendant's motion regarding its interrogatories ("ROGs") Nos. 6 and 20 ("Defendant's Motion or "motion"), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 150 ; D.I. 161 ; D.I. 174 ), hereby ORDERS that Defendant's Motion is GRANTED for the reasons that follow: (1) With regard to ROG 20, the Court GRANTS Defendant's request and ORDERS that within 14 days from today's date, Plaintiff must fully respond to that ROG. (D.I. 150 at 1 and Proposed Order at 1) The ROG is relevant to Defendant's invalidity case, for the reasons it states, (D.I. 150 at 1-2), and Plaintiff's current responses to the ROG do not attempt to provide the requested information, (id., ex. 1 at 71-72). The Court also agrees with Defendant that, notwithstanding the language of paragraph 7(d)(ii) in the Scheduling Order, the circumstances here require a response from Plaintiff to the ROG even if Defendant has not yet charted its invalidity contentions relating to the BustedTees art. (D.I. 174 at 1) That is because the language in paragraph 7(d)(ii) is meant to address the reality that patentees often may not yet be able to fully or credibly form their own validity position about a piece of prior art until they understand the accused infringer's position as to why the art reads on a particular patent claim. But here, Plaintiff has stated in discovery that it currently has a validity position about this art, in that it already understands why the art reads on at least portions of the patent claims at issue. (D.I. 150, ex. 1 at 10-11; D.I. 174 at 1) That said, Defendant is reminded that it must timely supplement its invalidity contentions; to the extent Plaintiff believes Defendant should be able to do so now with regard to the BustedTees art, it may press Defendant to do so, and it may seek relief from the Court if no accommodation can be reached.; and (2) With regard to ROG 6, the Court GRANTS the motion, and ORDERS that within 14 days from today's date, Plaintiff must further supplement its response to the ROG by providing a narrative articulation of "how" each cited paragraph of the Provisional Application ("Provisional") contains a written description of the respective elements of the claimed invention. (D.I. 150 at 2 and Proposed Order at 2) The ROG did not just ask Plaintiff to identify the paragraphs of the Provisional that were relevant to each claim element; it also asked for an answer as to "how" that document "provide[s]... support" for Plaintiff's position as to the correct priority date at issue. (D.I. 150, ex. 1 at 15-16) Plaintiff's current response, which cites only to paragraphs of the Provisional (and sometimes lots of those at that) without any narrative explanation of what those paragraphs have to do with the claim element at issue, (id., ex. 4), leaves Defendant "in the dark" as to Plaintiffs position, (D.I. 150 at 2). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 04/22/2024. (smg) (Entered: 04/22/2024)
2024-04-22
1
ORAL ORDER: Having resolved the discovery disputes that were set to be argued during today's videoconference, the Court hereby ORDERS that today's videoconference is CANCELED. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 04/22/2024. (smg) (Entered: 04/22/2024)
2024-04-22
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the parties to submit a joint interim status report in accordance with the case schedule for the 660 patent claims and defenses to April 29, 2024 - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 04/22/2024)
2024-04-22
1
1 - Terminate Hearings AND Oral Order
2024-04-22
1
No Actions
Oral Order
2024-04-22
1
No Actions
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Second Set of Requests for Admission filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 04/26/2024)
2024-04-26
1
Joint STATUS REPORT by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 04/29/2024)
2024-04-29
1
NOTICE of Subpoena (Mindy Regnell) - by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 04/30/2024)
2024-04-30
1
NOTICE of Subpoena to StackSocial, Inc. d/b/a StackCommerce - by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 04/30/2024)
2024-04-30
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Attentive Mobile, Inc.'s Supplemental Initial Disclosures - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 04/30/2024)
2024-04-30
1
SO ORDERED, re D.I. 223 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the parties to submit a joint interim status report in accordance with the case schedule for the 660 patent claims and defenses to April 29, 2024 filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 04/30/2024. (smg)
2024-04-30
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2024-04-30
1
No Actions
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscripts Disclosure of Final Infringement Contentions filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 05/01/2024)
2024-05-01
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Plaintiff's Fourth Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant and (2) Plaintiff's Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Defendant - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 05/02/2024)
2024-05-02
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Fourth Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Attentive Mobile Inc. (Nos. 93-94) filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 05/02/2024)
2024-05-02
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the deadline for the substantial completion of ESI and document production to May 13, 2024 - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 05/03/2024)
2024-05-03
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Notice of Deposition Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 05/03/2024)
2024-05-03
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 232 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the deadline for the substantial completion of ESI and document production to May 13, 2024 filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 05/03/2024. (smg)
2024-05-03
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2024-05-03
1
No Actions
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Cori C. Steinmann - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 05/06/2024)
2024-05-06
1
Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for Cori C. Steinmann. ( re 234 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Cori C. Steinmann )( Payment of $ 50, receipt number ADEDC-4400279).(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 05/06/2024)
2024-05-06
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's Third Set of Requests for Production, and (2) Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's Third Set of Interrogatories filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 05/06/2024)
2024-05-06
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Plaintiff's Supplemental Objections and Responses to Defendant's Interrogatories (Nos. 1-23) and (2) Plaintiff's Third Amended Infringement Contentions - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 05/06/2024)
2024-05-06
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 234 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Cori C. Steinmann filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 05/06/2024. (smg)
2024-05-06
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2024-05-06
1
No Actions
-District Court Pro Hac Vice Fee - 01 Attorney Credit Card Payment
2024-05-06
1
No Actions
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Brandon Simins on May 22, 2024 filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 05/07/2024)
2024-05-07
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Jesse Greenberg on May 20, 2024 filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 05/07/2024)
2024-05-07
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Zachary Magdovitz on May 15, 2024 filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 05/07/2024)
2024-05-07
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Dena Kaye-Phillips on May 17, 2024 filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 05/07/2024)
2024-05-07
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Heather Domenicis on May 28, 2024 filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 05/08/2024)
2024-05-08
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Brian Malkerson on May 23, 2024 filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 05/08/2024)
2024-05-08
1
Amended NOTICE of Service of Subpoena and Notice of Deposition of Sara Varni by Stodge Inc. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 05/08/2024)
2024-05-08
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that the videoconferences regarding the parties' discovery dispute, (D.I. 196 ), and Defendant's motion to strike, (D.I. 89 ), is rescheduled to May 20, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 05/13/2024. (smg) (Entered: 05/13/2024)
2024-05-13
1
NOTICE of Subpoena on Electric Eye Agency by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 05/13/2024)
2024-05-13
1
NOTICE of Subpoena on Jwalant Dholakia by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 05/13/2024)
2024-05-13
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Alexander Colin Meyer on May 22, 2024 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 05/13/2024)
2024-05-13
1
Oral Order AND ~Util - Set Hearings
2024-05-13
1
No Actions
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Attentive's Invalidity Contentions filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 05/15/2024)
2024-05-15
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Scheduling a Teleconference. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 05/16/2024)
2024-05-16
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME See Stip for Details to - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 05/17/2024)
2024-05-17
1
ORAL ORDER Setting Videoconference: The Court has reviewed the parties' May 16, 2024 letter requesting a discovery dispute teleconference regarding two discovery disputes. (D.I. 250 ) It hereby ORDERS as follows with regard to these disputes: (1) A discovery dispute videoconference using the Microsoft Teams platform is set for July 1, 2024 at 2:00 PM before Judge Christopher J. Burke.; (2) By May 24, 2024, any party seeking relief shall file with the Court a letter, not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining the issues in dispute and its position on those issues.; (3) By May 31, 2024, any party opposing the application for relief may file a letter, not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining that party's reasons for its opposition.; (4) By no later than June 7, 2024, the party seeking relief shall file with the Court a reply letter brief, not to exceed one (1) single-spaced page, in no less than 12-point font.; (5) The parties shall jointly file a Motion For Videoconference To Resolve Discovery Dispute.; (6) The parties should also 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.; (7) By no later than June 7, 2024, 2024, the parties shall send an e-mail to the Court's Courtroom Deputy, Ms. Grimes, indicating the names and e-mail addresses of all individuals who will participate in the videoconference.; and (8) The Court may choose to resolve the disputes 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 disputes, 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 05/17/2024. (smg) (Entered: 05/20/2024)
2024-05-17
1
ORAL ORDER: In light of the fact that the parties have requested the scheduling of a discovery dispute teleconference three times regarding multiple disputes, (D.I. 142 ; D.I. 168 ; D.I. 250 ), the Court hereby ORDERS that the procedures for discovery disputes set out in the Scheduling Order, (D.I. 20 ), shall be amended as follows: With regard to any further discovery disputes, the Court will hear argument regarding those disputes with counsel appearing in person in Courtroom 2A. Absent further amendment to this Order, following the July 1, 2024 discovery dispute videoconference, the Court will no longer hear argument on such disputes during a teleconference or videoconference. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 05/17/2024. (smg) (Entered: 05/20/2024)
2024-05-17
1
ORDER on D.I. 251 STIPULATION ( Fact Discovery completed by 8/23/2024. Opening Expert Reports due by 9/27/2024. Rebuttal Expert Reports due by 10/25/2024. Expert Discovery due by 11/8/2024. Dispositive Motions due by 11/26/2024. A Motion Hearing is set for 1/23/2025 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 2A before Judge Christopher J. Burke. A Pretrial Conference is set for 5/2/2025 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2A before Judge Christopher J. Burke. A 5-day Jury Trial is set for 5/19/2025 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 2A before Judge Christopher J. Burke. ) (See Order for further details and deadlines.) Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 05/20/2024. (smg) (Entered: 05/20/2024)
2024-05-20
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Attentive Mobile Inc.'s Objections and Responses to Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's First Set of Requests for Admission (Nos. 1-14) and Authentication (Nos. 1-10), (2) Attentive Mobile Inc.'s Objections and Responses to Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents (Nos. 86-92) and (3) Plaintiff's Objections and Responses to Defendant's Sixth Set of Interrogatories (No. 24) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 05/20/2024)
2024-05-20
1
Discovery Hearing
2024-05-20
1
No Actions
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Christopher J. Burke – Motion hearing held via videoconference on 5/20/2024. The Court heard the parties' arguments regarding Defendant’s motion to strike. (D.I. 89 ) The Court took the matter under advisement. The Court will take up the discovery dispute, (D.I. 196 ), on the papers. The Court ordered that by no later than one week from today, Plaintiff shall submit the follow-up letter to its March 18, 2024 letter, (D.I. 177 ), as discussed during the videoconference. (Court reporter: Deanna Warner; Clerk: M. Crawford) Appearances: M. Flynn, R. Schmid, J. Weinberg for Plaintiff; D. Silver, J. Li, R. Krishnapriyan for Defendant.(smg)
2024-05-20
1
No Actions
Oral Order AND ~Util - Set Hearings
2024-05-20
1
No Actions
Oral Order
2024-05-20
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion (“Motion”), (D.I. 196 ), regarding a discovery dispute relating to its request that Defendant “produce the full version of its source code for the accused SMS Marketing Platform[,]” (D.I. 179 at 1), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 179 ; D.I. 186 ; D.I. 195 ). The dispute turns on whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that certain withheld portions of Defendant’s source code are relevant to the claims and defenses at issue in the case. In general, Plaintiff’s arguments about relevance of the portions of the source code that it called out by name (like 56 modules imported by run.py, or source code that links the SMSRedirectTest module to certain other resources) were a bit hard to understand. And they were either not supported by citation to record evidence, or, when such evidence was cited, it did not well assist the Court in seeing how the disputed code was relevant. (See D.I. 179 ; D.I. 195 ) In contrast, Defendant’s explanations and arguments were more comprehensible, and Defendant provided a declaration from a Staff Engineer that explained why the disputed portions of source code at issue are either unrelated to the accused “two-touch” functionality in this case or simply do not exist. (See D.I. 186 at 1-2; D.I. 187 at paras. 11-13, 15-19) Therefore, other than what the Court addresses hereafter, the Motion is DENIED. The exception is that as to one endpoint at issue (api/subscriber/opt-in), Defendant offered to provide the code as a compromise. (D.I. 186 at 2) The Court ORDERS that Defendant do so on a timely basis, if it has not done so already. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 05/21/2024. (smg) (Entered: 05/21/2024)
2024-05-21
1
Oral Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions
2024-05-21
1
No Actions
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Christopher C. Campbell, Ryan A. Schmid, Britton F. Davis, and Brian Eutermoser - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 05/23/2024)
2024-05-23
1
Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for Christopher C. Campbell, Ryan A. Schmid, Britton F. Davis, and Brian Eutermoser. ( re 257 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Christopher C. Campbell, Ryan A. Schmid, Britton F. Davis, and Brian Eutermoser )( Payment of $ 200, receipt number ADEDC-4414011).(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 05/23/2024)
2024-05-23
1
NOTICE requesting Clerk to remove Stephen Scaife as co-counsel.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 05/23/2024)
2024-05-23
1
Notice - Other
2024-05-23
1
Pro Hac Vice Attorneys Brian Hill, Rahul Sarkar, Cori C. Steinmann, SaiPranay Vellala, and Jonathan Weinberg for Attentive Mobile 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. Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-01163-CJB, 1:23-cv-00087-CJB(mpb)
2024-05-23
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, re 257 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Christopher C. Campbell, Ryan A. Schmid, Britton F. Davis, and Brian Eutermoser filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 05/23/2024. (smg)
2024-05-23
1
No Actions
Add Attorneys - PHV only
2024-05-23
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2024-05-23
1
No Actions
-District Court Pro Hac Vice Fee - 04 Attorneys Credit Card Payment
2024-05-23
1
No Actions
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Discovery Dispute - re 250 Letter, 252 Oral Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-J, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) Modified on 5/28/2024 (smg). (Entered: 05/24/2024)
2024-05-24
1
CORRECTING ENTRY: Previously filed notice has been deleted. Entry was filed in error. (smg)
2024-05-24
1
No Actions
- CORRECTING ENTRY
2024-05-24
1
No Actions
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael J. Flynn regarding Supplemental Letter Brief on "burying" as ordered by D.I. 253. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 05/27/2024)
2024-05-27
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Attentive Mobile Inc.'s Objections and Responses to Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Second Set of Requests for Admission (Nos. 15-21) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 05/28/2024)
2024-05-28
1
Pro Hac Vice Attorney Christopher C. Campbell for Attentive Mobile 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. (oam)
2024-05-28
1
No Actions
Pro Hac Vice Attorney Ryan A. Schmid for Attentive Mobile 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. (oam)
2024-05-28
1
No Actions
Pro Hac Vice Attorney Britton F. Davis for Attentive Mobile 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. (oam)
2024-05-28
1
No Actions
Pro Hac Vice Attorney Brian Eutermoser for Attentive Mobile 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. (oam)
2024-05-28
1
No Actions
Add Attorneys - PHV only
2024-05-28
1
No Actions
NOTICE: Per Magistrate Judge Burke's Standing Order Regarding Courtesy Copies, which requires two (2) courtesy copies of all briefs (including letter briefs), as well as any documents filed in support of such briefs (i.e., appendices, exhibits, declarations, affidavits, tutorials, etc.) and one (1) copy of any other document filed (e.g., letters and stipulations), please submit to the Clerk's Office a copy of D.I. # 260 . (smg)
2024-05-29
1
No Actions
Deficiency re Courtesy Copies (CJB cases)
2024-05-29
1
No Actions
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael J. Flynn regarding discovery dispute - re 260 Letter,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit E, # 3 Exhibit G, # 4 Exhibit H, # 5 Exhibit I)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 05/31/2024)
2024-05-31
1
REDACTED VERSION of 260 Letter, by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 05/31/2024)
2024-05-31
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's Fourth Set of Interrogatories (No. 24); (2) Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production (Nos. 46 & 48); (3) Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's Fourth Set of Requests for Production; and (4) Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories (No. 1) filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 06/03/2024)
2024-06-03
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Attentive Mobile Inc.'s Objections and Responses to Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Fourth Set of Requests for Production of Documents (Nos. 93-94) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 06/03/2024)
2024-06-03
1
Official Transcript of Oral Argument on Motion to Strike held on 5/20/24 before Judge Christopher Burke. Court Reporter Deanna Warner, Email: deanna_warner@ded.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or order/purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 6/25/2024. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/5/2024. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/3/2024. (Warner, Deanna) Modified on 6/4/2024 (smg). (Entered: 06/04/2024)
2024-06-04
1
NOTICE of Amended Subpoenas to StackSocial, Inc. d/b/a StackCommerce, Mindy Regnell and Jwalant Dholakia; and Notice of Subpoena to Alexander Colin Meyer by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 06/06/2024)
2024-06-06
1
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Reply Discovery Dispute - re 250 Letter, 252 Oral Order. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) Modified on 6/11/2024 (smg). (Entered: 06/07/2024)
2024-06-07
1
Notice - Other
2024-06-07
1
REDACTED VERSION of 263 Letter by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A, E and G-I)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 06/07/2024)
2024-06-07
1
REDACTED VERSION of 263 Letter by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A, E and G-I)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 06/07/2024)
2024-06-07
2
- CORRECTING ENTRY
2024-06-07
1
No Actions
CORRECTING ENTRY: Previous Notice of Subpoena has been removed, to be refiled in appropriate action. (smg)
2024-06-07
1
No Actions
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Fifth Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Attentive Mobile Inc. (Nos. 95-100) filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 06/10/2024)
2024-06-10
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Colin Turner on June 14, 2024 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 06/12/2024)
2024-06-12
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Alex Beller on June 18, 2024 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 06/12/2024)
2024-06-12
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Mike Manheimer on June 20, 2024 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 06/12/2024)
2024-06-12
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Chris Brubaker on July 11, 2024 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 06/12/2024)
2024-06-12
1
REDACTED VERSION of 269 Letter by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 06/14/2024)
2024-06-14
1
Amended NOTICE of Attentive Mobile Inc. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(B)(6) by Stodge Inc. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 06/20/2024)
2024-06-20
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Adam Turner on July 9, 2024 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 06/20/2024)
2024-06-20
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Supplemental Objections and Responses to Defendant's Third Set of Interrogatories (No. 20) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 06/28/2024)
2024-06-28
1
[SEALED] NOTICE of Subsequent Authority by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1, # 2 Ex. 2)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 06/28/2024)
2024-06-28
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that by no later than 10:00 a.m. today, the parties shall file the joint motion for videoconference to resolve discovery dispute that was required by the Court's May 17, 2024 oral order. (D.I. 252) Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 7/1/24. (mlc) (Entered: 07/01/2024)
2024-07-01
1
ORAL ORDER: With regard to today's videoconference, (D.I. 252), the Court hereby advises the parties that it will resolve the disputes on the papers today. Today's videoconference is hereby CANCELED. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 07/01/2024. (smg) (Entered: 07/01/2024)
2024-07-01
1
Joint MOTION to Resolve Discovery Disputes - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 07/01/2024)
2024-07-01
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant's motion regarding two discovery disputes ("Motion"), (D.I. 283 ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 260 ; D.I. 263 ; D.I. 269 ), hereby ORDERS that with regard to the first dispute, in which Defendant seeks an additional Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on certain topics, after taking into account the relevant legal standards, see Oy v. Verizon Servs. Corp., Civil Action No. 12-715-CJB, 2013 WL 5675516, at *1-2 (D. Del. Oct. 15, 2013), the Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART as to this dispute in the manner and for the reasons that follow: (1) With regard to Plaintiff's assertion that the Motion may not be brought in light of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) - because Defendant's counsel did not contemporaneously object to the witness' lack of preparation during the deposition - the Court will not deny the Motion on that ground. The Court has not before encountered an argument that this aspect of Rule 30 requires that the party taking the deposition make such an objection in the moment or lose the ability to object on lack-of-preparedness grounds later. And Plaintiff provided no citation to caselaw or to portions of the Rule in an effort to explain its view that this is required. (In other words, Plaintiff could be right about what the Rule requires in this scenario, but it was its obligation to show the Court whyit was right, and it failed to do so here.). (D.I. 263 at 1); (2) As to the merits, with regard to Topic 2, the Court does not find the witness' testimony or preparation to have been so deficient so as to warrant further questioning. On that topic, the witness (Eric Miao, Plaintiff's co-founder), did provide relevant testimony regarding the research and development of Plaintiffs products. (Id., ex. A at 21-23, 29, 33, 35-38) Defendants issue seems to be Mr. Miao's answers regarding the substance of his co-inventors' contributions, (D.I. 260 at 2), and though he did not have every bit of information on that score, Mr. Miao did provide substantive responses as to that sub-issue as well, (D.I. 263, ex. A at 39-41). So the Court cannot say that his preparation was deficient on Topic 2.; (3) With regard to the remaining topics in dispute, however, the Court agrees that Mr. Miao could have anticipated the questions at issue, and that he did not have much or any information to share regarding the portions of those topics cited by Defendant. That is, as to Topics 13, 19, 24, 32 and 33, the Court agrees with Defendant that the purportedly deficient answers about third-party Klaviyo would fall within Topic 32 and that Mr. Miao had no response to offer there. (Id., ex. A at 130-31, 175-76) And as to questions about why customers chose Plaintiff's products, Mr. Miao did not have this information either (though he suggested that Plaintiff's salespeople would). (Id. at 98-99) As to Topic 20, Mr. Miao could not provide any information about Plaintiff's investigation of Onsite Opt-In (though he noted that Plaintiff's competitive intelligence team could). (Id. at 179-80) As to Topic 28, Mr. Miao could not provide any specifics on the development timeline for Plaintiff's accused products, including as to critical bugs (though he suggested that Plaintiff's engineering team could). (Id. at 219, 229) And as to Topic 37, Mr. Miao could not identify or discuss any customers that used the products (nor does Plaintiff point the Court to any other testimony in which Mr. Miao spoke about those customers in any way). (Id. at 204-05; D.I. 263 at 2); and (4) The parties should meet and confer as to the specifics of a further Rule 30(b)(6) deposition/depositions, which should be limited to Topics 13, 19, 20, 24, 28, 32-33, and 37 and should not last more than two hours total. Any request for costs by Defendant, (D.I. 260 at 3), is DENIED. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 07/01/2024. (smg) Modified on 7/1/2024 (smg). (Entered: 07/01/2024)
2024-07-01
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant’s motion regarding two discovery disputes (“Motion”), (D.I. 283 ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 260 ; D.I. 263 ; D.I. 269 ), hereby ORDERS that with regard to the second dispute, by which Defendant seeks an order requiring Plaintiff to revise and supplement its infringement contentions in certain respects, the Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART in the manner and for the reasons that follow: (1) To the extent Defendant, in its opening brief, identified an aspect of a claim limitation that it thought was not addressed clearly enough in the contentions, the Court generally agrees with Defendant that the contentions could and should be clearer in those regards. Thus, it will order Plaintiff to accomplish this by revising its contentions in certain ways. The Court is not requiring Plaintiff to revise its contentions as to: (a) issues that Defendant did not specifically address in its opening brief; or (b) new issues that Defendant raised for the first time in its reply brief.; (2) To that end, by no later than seven days from today’s date, Plaintiff shall supplement its infringement contentions as follows: (a) Identify the “means for causing” regarding element 15B of the 897 patent that is being referenced on D.I. 263, ex. H at 73 and 89 (not by identifying what is “responsible for” or “constructs” the “means for causing” but by identifying what the “means for causing” actually is), by stating “The means for causing is _____” and providing a fulsome description.; (b) Identify how a “custom text message” being referenced on D.I. 263, ex. H at 67-68 is populated “based on the user data” referenced therein, by stating “The custom text message is populated based on the user data cited herein, in that _____” and by providing a fulsome description.; (c) Identify what is the “request to retrieve an identifier” regarding element 23B of the 074 patent that is being referenced on D.I. 263, ex. I at 96 & 103, by stating “The request to receive an identifier here is satisfied by ____” and by providing a fulsome description.; and (d) Identify the “client server” regarding element 1A of the 887 patent being referenced on D.I. 263, ex. G at 17, by stating “The client server is ___” (which may be as simple as clearly identifying the Shopify website as meeting that requirement). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 07/01/2024. (smg) (Entered: 07/01/2024)
2024-07-01
1
Oral Order
2024-07-01
1
No Actions
1 - Terminate Hearings AND Oral Order
2024-07-01
1
No Actions
[SEALED] STATEMENT re 280 Notice (Other) Supplement and/or Response to Plaintiff Attentive Mobile, Inc.'s Notice of Supplemental Authority by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 07/03/2024)
2024-07-03
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Infringement Contentions - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 07/08/2024)
2024-07-08
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Attentive Mobile Inc.'s Objections and Responses to Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Fifth Set of Requests for Production of Documents (Nos. 95-100) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 07/10/2024)
2024-07-10
1
REDACTED VERSION of 286 Statement by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 07/10/2024)
2024-07-10
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge INc. d/b/a Postscript's Sixth Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Attentive Mobile Inc. (Nos. 101-106) filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 07/12/2024)
2024-07-12
1
Amended NOTICE of Service and Notice of Deposition by Stodge Inc. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 07/17/2024)
2024-07-17
1
Amended NOTICE of Deposition to Jesse Greenberg Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(B)(1) by Stodge Inc. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 07/17/2024)
2024-07-17
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Brian Long on August 13, 2024 filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 07/17/2024)
2024-07-17
1
Amended NOTICE of Deposition to Brian Malkerson Pursuant to Fed. R.Civ. P. 30(b)(1) by Stodge Inc. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 07/17/2024)
2024-07-17
1
Amended NOTICE of Deposition to Jesse Greenberg Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(B)(1) by Stodge Inc. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 07/18/2024)
2024-07-18
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Seventh Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Attentive Mobile Inc. (No. 25); (2) Defendant and Counter-Claimant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Fourth Supplemental Initial Disclosures Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the Default Standard; and (3) Defendant and Counter-Claimant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Fourth Supplemental Initial Disclosures filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 07/19/2024)
2024-07-19
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Plaintiff's Final Infringement Contentions and (2) Plaintiff Attentive Mobile's First Set of Requests for Admission and Authentication to Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 07/22/2024)
2024-07-22
1
NOTICE of Deposition to AMit Jhawar Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(B)(1) by Stodge Inc. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 07/22/2024)
2024-07-22
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Second Supplemental Response and Objections to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories (No. 16) filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 07/23/2024)
2024-07-23
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Supplemental Response and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories (No. 6) filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 07/30/2024)
2024-07-30
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Attentive Mobile, Inc.'s Supplemental Initial Disclosures and (2) Plaintiff's Objections and Responses to Defendant's Amended Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 07/30/2024)
2024-07-30
1
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Aditya V. Kamdar - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certification for Aditya V. Kamdar)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/05/2024)
2024-08-05
1
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Aditya V. Kamdar - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certification for Aditya V. Kamdar)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/05/2024)
2024-08-05
2
Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for Aditya V. Kamdar. ( re 302 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Aditya V. Kamdar )( Payment of $ 50, receipt number ADEDC-4468613).(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/05/2024)
2024-08-05
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Patrick Lew on August 7, 2024 filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/05/2024)
2024-08-05
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Defendant Stodge, Inc. d/b/a Postscript on August 19, 2024 (Second Amended) filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 08/05/2024)
2024-08-05
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 302 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Aditya V. Kamdar filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/5/2024. (smg)
2024-08-05
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2024-08-05
1
No Actions
-District Court Pro Hac Vice Fee - 01 Attorney Credit Card Payment
2024-08-05
1
No Actions
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Subpoena and Notice of Depositon of Ryan Tsang filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/07/2024)
2024-08-07
1
NOTICE of Amended Subpoena to Mindy Regnell by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 08/08/2024)
2024-08-08
1
NOTICE of Amended Subpoena to Mindy Regnell by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 08/08/2024)
2024-08-08
2
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Scheduling a Teleconference. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/08/2024)
2024-08-08
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court has reviewed the parties' August 8, 2024 letter requesting a discovery dispute teleconference regarding one discovery dispute. (D.I. 308 ) It hereby ORDERS as follows with regard to this dispute: (1) In light of the parties' request for the dispute to be considered on an expedited basis, the Court will plan to resolve the dispute on the papers.; (2) By August 14, 2024, the party seeking relief shall file with the Court a letter, not to exceed one (1) single-spaced page, in no less than 12-point font, outlining the issues in dispute and its position on those issues.; (3) By August 19, 2024, the party opposing the application for relief may file a letter, not to exceed one (1) single-spaced page, in no less than 12-point font, outlining that party's reasons for its opposition.; (4) By August 21, 2024, the party seeking relief shall file with the Court a reply letter brief, not to exceed one (1) single-spaced page, in no less than 12-point font.; (5) By August 21, 2024, the parties shall jointly file a Motion To Resolve Discovery Dispute.; and (6) The parties should also 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 8/9/2024. (smg) (Entered: 08/09/2024)
2024-08-09
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Notice of Deposition of Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) filed by Stodge Inc..(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2024)
2024-08-09
1
Oral Order
2024-08-09
1
No Actions
NOTICE of Deposition to Brian Long Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(B)(1) by Stodge Inc. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/12/2024)
2024-08-12
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Attentive Mobile Inc.'s Objections and Responses to Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Sixth Set of Requests for Production of Documents (Nos. 101-106) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 08/12/2024)
2024-08-12
1
Notice of Service
2024-08-12
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Subpoena and Notice of Depositon of Tim Brady filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/12/2024)
2024-08-12
1
Pro Hac Vice Attorney Aditya V. Kamdar for Stodge 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)
2024-08-12
1
No Actions
Add Attorneys - PHV only
2024-08-12
1
No Actions
Amended NOTICE of Deposition to Jesse Greenberg Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(B)(1) by Stodge Inc. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/13/2024)
2024-08-13
1
NOTICE of Service of Subpoena and Notice of Deposition of James Lapic by Stodge Inc. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/13/2024)
2024-08-13
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver regarding Discovery Dispute Concerning Postscript's Request for Modification of the Protective Order - re 308 Letter, 309 Oral Order,,,,,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/14/2024)
2024-08-14
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver regarding Discovery Dispute Concerning Postscript's Request for Modification of the Protective Order - re 308 Letter, 309 Oral Order,,,,,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/14/2024)
2024-08-14
2
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver regarding Discovery Dispute Concerning Postscript's Request for Modification of the Protective Order - re 308 Letter, 309 Oral Order,,,,,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/14/2024)
2024-08-14
2
DECLARATION re 316 Letter, Declaration of David Carter, Esq. by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/14/2024)
2024-08-14
1
NOTICE of Subpoena and Deposition of Tim Brady - by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 08/15/2024)
2024-08-15
1
NOTICE: Per Magistrate Judge Burke's Standing Order Regarding Courtesy Copies, which requires two (2) courtesy copies of all briefs (including letter briefs), as well as any documents filed in support of such briefs (i.e., appendices, exhibits, declarations, affidavits, tutorials, etc.) and one (1) copy of any other document filed (e.g., letters and stipulations), please submit to the Clerk's Office a copy of D.I. # 316 and 317 . (smg)
2024-08-15
1
No Actions
Deficiency re Courtesy Copies (CJB cases)
2024-08-15
1
No Actions
[SEALED] NOTICE of Supplemental Authority Regarding Claim Construction by Stodge Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/16/2024)
2024-08-16
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant and Counter-Claimant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Fifth Supplemental Initial Disclosures filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/16/2024)
2024-08-16
1
Amended NOTICE of Service of Subpoena and Notice of Deposition of Sara Varni by Stodge Inc. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/19/2024)
2024-08-19
1
Amended NOTICE of Service of Subpoena and Notice of Deposition of James Lapic by Stodge Inc. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/19/2024)
2024-08-19
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Fifth Supplemental Response and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories (No. 6) filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/19/2024)
2024-08-19
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Objections and Responses to Defendant's Seventh Set of Interrogatories (No. 25) filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 08/19/2024)
2024-08-19
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Bryan Lence on August 23, 2024 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 08/19/2024)
2024-08-19
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Steadman Dinning on August 23, 2024 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 08/19/2024)
2024-08-19
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Opposition to Postscript's Motion to Modify the Protective Order. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 08/19/2024)
2024-08-19
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Admission and Authentication filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/19/2024)
2024-08-19
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Reply In Support of Postscript's Request for Modification of the Protective Order (D.I. 308, 309, 316). (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/21/2024)
2024-08-21
1
Joint MOTION to Resolve Discovery Dispute re 327 Letter, 329 Letter, 316 Letter, - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/21/2024)
2024-08-21
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's Third Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 20-21) filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/21/2024)
2024-08-21
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding request for the scheduling of a discovery conference. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 08/22/2024)
2024-08-22
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Defendant Stodge's Request for a Discovery Conference. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/22/2024)
2024-08-22
1
REDACTED VERSION of 319 Notice (Other) by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/23/2024)
2024-08-23
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Supplemental Objections and Responses to Defendant's Interrogatories (Nos. 1-23) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 08/26/2024)
2024-08-26
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Postscript Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's Interrogatories filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/26/2024)
2024-08-26
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court has reviewed the parties' August 22, 2024 letters requesting discovery dispute conferences as to five new disputes, (D.I. 332 ; D.I. 333 ); this will mean that the parties have brought 12 different discovery disputes to the Court for resolution since February. (See D.I. 142 ; D.I. 168 ; D.I. 250 ; D.I. 308 ; see also D.I. 216 ) The Court wants to ensure that the parties have sufficiently attempted to resolve their disputes before bringing them to the Court. In light of this, the Court hereby ORDERS that the parties shall have one further meet and confer to see if they can resolve some or all of these five new disputes before the Court will set a briefing schedule. The meet and confer should include: (1) Delaware counsel for each side; (2) outside counsel involved with the disputes; and (3) the attorney on each side who is leading the trial team. By no later than August 30, 2024, the parties shall file a joint letter of no longer than one page indicating whether the parties have resolved any of the five new disputes and whether any of the disputes remain ripe for a discovery dispute hearing. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/26/2024. (mpb) (Entered: 08/26/2024)
2024-08-26
1
Oral Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines
2024-08-26
1
No Actions
[SEALED] Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Amend Invalidity Contentions - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Flynn, Michael) Modified on 9/4/2024 to be recoded as a motion(smg). (Entered: 08/28/2024)
2024-08-28
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' discovery dispute motion (the "Motion"), (D.I. 330 ), and the parties' letter briefs relating thereto, (D.I. 316; D.I. 327; D.I. 329), in which Defendant moves to modify the Protective Order ("PO") to permit its in-house attorney David Carter (who joined Defendant eight months after the PO was executed) to view documents produced under the "Outside Attorneys Eyes Only" ("OAEO") designation, hereby GRANTS the Motion for the reasons that follow: (1) A party seeking a modification to a protective order (here, Defendant) regarding an attorney's access to otherwise protected information carries the burden of demonstrating "good cause" for the modification. PhishMe, Inc. v. Wombat Sec. Techs., Inc., Civil Action No. 16-403-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 4138961, at *2 (D. Del. Sept. 18, 2017). In determining whether good cause has been shown, the Court must balance two factors: (a) the risk of inadvertent disclosure or competitive misuse of a party's confidential information against (b) the potential harm the affected party would face, were it to be unable to share confidential information with the employees/counsel of its choosing. Id.; (2) As to the first factor, Defendant has significant evidence in its favor, which suggests that the risk of inadvertent disclosure or competitive misuse is not great. This issue turns on the extent to which Mr. Carter participates in competitive decision-making--that is, in making decisions about matters like pricing, product design and the like that are assessed in light of similar information about a competitor. Id. at *3. On that front, Mr. Carter has submitted an unrebutted declaration in which he states that he does not make decisions with respect to pricing of products or product strategy, nor (relevant to this patent case) does he prosecute patents; the declaration also states that Mr. Carter does not manage employees who engage in such activities. (D.I. 317 at para. 5) Instead, Mr. Carter's role is limited to "managing litigation and ensuring regulatory compliance[,]" with the latter role primarily consisting of ensuring that Defendant complies with the Telephone Consumer Privacy Act ("TCPA"). (Id. at paras. 3-4) Thus, Mr. Carter is not significantly involved in competitive decision-making for Defendant. See, e.g., Brit. Telecommc'ns PLC v. IAC/InterActiveCorp, 330 F.R.D. 387, 393-94 (D. Del. 2019) (explaining that where an attorney's role is limited to "supervising litigation and evaluating the legal risks associated with U.S. litigation[,]" that attorney "is not significantly involved in competitive decision-making"); R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Quark, Inc., No. CIVA 06-032 JJF, 2007 WL 61885, at *2 (D. Del. Jan. 4, 2007) ("Generally, unrebutted statements made by counsel asserting that he does not participate in competitive decision[-]making, which the court has no reason to doubt, form a reasonable basis to conclude that counsel is isolated from competitive decision[-]making.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); cf. Evertz Microsys. Ltd. v. Lawo Inc., C.A. No. 19-302-MN-JLH, 2019 WL 5864173, at *3 (D. Del. Nov. 8, 2019) (finding that the record did not suggest that the plaintiff's long-time outside counsel were competitive decision-makers for plaintiff, where the counsel did not make pricing or product design decisions or have any involvement therein). Although Plaintiff suggests that Mr. Carter's focus on TCPA compliance somehow increases the risk of inadvertent disclosure, (D.I. 327 at 1), the Court does not understand how that is so from the record before it. And while Plaintiff notes that Defendant's in-house legal team is small (with only three attorneys including Mr. Carter) and that the two parties are competitors, (id.), in light of Mr. Carter's lack of involvement in areas that might most easily benefit from competitive misuse, Plaintiff's position as to this factor is just not strong.; (3) As to the second factor, while the record is not robust, Defendant argues that Mr. Carter needs to have access to OAEO material in order to "advise [Defendant] on litigation and settlement strategy at a critical juncture in the case[.]" (D.I. 316 at 1; see also D.I. 317 at para. 3) The Court agrees that in light of Mr. Carter's role as the in-house counsel who manages litigation, there would be some prejudice to Defendant if the Motion were to be denied. PhishMe, Inc., 2017 WL 4138961, at *8 ("It is no doubt difficult for Mr. McGee to fully convey to his internal clients PhishMe's potential exposure here, or to provide them with a detailed assessment of the merits, without having exposure to AEO Material."). Defendant further points out that Mr. Carter has specialized knowledge about the TCPA (unlike outside counsel), which is at issue in the case. (D.I. 316 at 1; see also D.I. 317 at paras. 2, 4) This is another good argument as to why Defendant would face harm were it not able to have Mr. Carter access OAEO material. PhishMe, Inc., 2017 WL 4138961, at *8 (recognizing that a showing that the relevant in-house counsel had highly specialized knowledge that outside counsel could not replicate would be a factor weighing in favor of access).; (4) In view of the record before the Court, the Court agrees with Defendant that the need for Mr. Carter to have access to OAEO outweighs the minimal risk of inadvertent disclosure.; and (5) By no later than September 3, 2024, the parties shall submit a proposed amended protective order reflecting the ruling herein. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/29/2024. (mlc) (Entered: 08/29/2024)
2024-08-29
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 338 Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend Invalidity Contentions - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/29/2024. (smg)
2024-08-29
1
No Actions
Oral Order
2024-08-29
1
No Actions
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to submit a joint letter regarding the discovery issues that remain in dispute to September 5, 2024 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 08/30/2024)
2024-08-30
1
Amended PROPOSED ORDER Stipulated Protective Order by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/03/2024)
2024-09-03
1
AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/3/2024. (smg) (Entered: 09/04/2024)
2024-09-03
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 340 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to submit a joint letter regarding the discovery issues that remain in dispute to September 5, 2024 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/3/2024. (smg)
2024-09-03
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2024-09-03
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2024-09-04
1
No Actions
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding the parties response to the Court's Oral Order dated August 26, 2024 (D.I. 337). (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/05/2024)
2024-09-05
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Subpoena and Notice of Deposition of Randy Kohn filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 09/09/2024)
2024-09-09
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of Joel Davidson on September 16, 2024 filed by Stodge Inc..(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/10/2024)
2024-09-10
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' September 5, 2024 letter, (D.I. 343 ), appreciates that the parties have resolved two of their discovery disputes. With respect to each side's remaining discovery dispute, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) By September 13, 2024, any party seeking relief shall file with the Court a letter, not to exceed two (2) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining the issues in dispute and its position on those issues.; (2) By September 18, 2024, any party opposing the application for relief may file a letter, not to exceed two (2) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining that party's reasons for its opposition.; (3) By September 23, 2024, the party seeking relief shall file with the Court a reply letter brief, not to exceed one (1) single-spaced page, in no less than 12-point font.; (4) With respect to each dispute, the moving party shall file a Motion To Resolve Discovery Dispute.; (5) The parties should also 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.; (6) The Court will plan to resolve the disputes on the papers, unless: (a) it determines after reviewing the briefing that oral argument is needed; or (b) any party advises the Court in advance that, were argument to be set, a newer attorney will argue the dispute(s), see Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys,https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/StandingOrder2017.pdf. If either of those circumstances, occurs, then the Court will schedule oral argument on the dispute(s) in the future. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/10/2024. (smg) (Entered: 09/10/2024)
2024-09-10
1
Official Transcript of Markman Hearing held on January 9, 2024 before Judge Christopher J. Burke. Court Reporter/Transcriber Bonnie Archer,Email: bonnie_archer@ded.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or order/purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/1/2024. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/11/2024. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/9/2024. (Archer, Bonnie) (Entered: 09/10/2024)
2024-09-10
1
Oral Order
2024-09-10
1
No Actions
Amended NOTICE of Service of Subpoena and Notice of Deposition of Randy Kohn by Stodge Inc. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 09/11/2024)
2024-09-11
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties’ motions for claim construction, (D.I. 63 & D.I. 64 in Civil Action No. 22-1163 (the “22-1163 case”) and D.I. 68 & D.I. 69 in Civil Action No. 23-87 (the “23-87 case”)), and the briefing related thereto, having considered the legal standards relating to claim construction, see Vytacera Bio, LLC v. CytomX Therapeutics, Inc., Civil Action No. 20-333-LPS-CJB, 2021 WL 4621866, at *2-3 (D. Del. Oct. 7, 2021), having held a Markman hearing on January 9, 2024, (D.I. 191 in the 22-1163 case and D.I. 347 in the 23-87 case (hereafter, “Tr.”)), and noting that it will cite hereafter only to docket index numbers from the 22-1163 case for convenience, hereby addresses the construction of term 1 (“Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)”) as follows: (1) The parties’ first dispute over the term is about whether the claimed URI must follow “the syntax defined by Section 3 of the Internet Engineering Task Force’s RFC 3986 standard [‘RFC 3986’]” (as Defendants propose). (D.I. 77 at 2) The Court declines to adopt that proposal, because: (a) Neither RFC 3986, nor Section 3 therein, is anywhere mentioned in the relevant patents-in-suit.; (b) RFC 3986’s Section 3 includes 9-10 full pages of text, (see D.I. 70, ex. 1 at POSTSCRIPT00002496-2505; Tr. at 50), and at least facially, Defendants’ proposal would seem to incorporate all of the “syntax” that is referenced on those pages and turn them into required elements of the claims at issue. This seems clearly overbroad; indeed, even Defendants do not really seem to think that this type of wholesale incorporation of every aspect of Section 3 is appropriate. (Tr. at 55); and (c) There is a dispute between the parties’ experts about whether a URI must always follow all of the syntax of RFC 3986. (See D.I. 70, ex. 1 at para. 34; id., ex. 2 at para. 28) In fact, it was not always entirely clear to the Court whether Defendants’ expert believes that a usable URI must always do so (since one paragraph of the expert’s report could be read to suggest otherwise). (Id., ex. 1 at para. 35; see also D.I. 70 at 19; Tr. at 43, 47) In any event, having not seen the respective experts testify live about this subject matter, the Court is not convinced that Defendants’ expert’s view is more credible than Plaintiff’s expert’s view on this matter. All that being said, the Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff’s proposed construction is infirm in that it does not speak to the “[u]niform” nature of a “Uniform Resource Identifier”; the Court’s ultimate construction should give effect to the word “[u]niform” too. (D.I. 70 at 11-12; Tr. at 29) To that end, there is no dispute that at least some aspects of any URI’s syntax must be commonly-used (i.e., must be uniform), e.g., that a URI must include a scheme. (Tr. at 32-34, 52, 54) For this reason, the Court’s construction will note that a URI has “some form of common syntax.” (Id. at 52) Beyond this, however, it is unclear to the Court what other aspects of RFC 3986 (if any) are absolutely required to be a part of this common or uniform syntax arrangement. And so at this time, the Court will add no more limiters to the term’s meaning in this regard.; (2) The parties’ second dispute was over whether a URI must be a “compact series of characters” (as Defendants contend). (D.I. 77 at 2) During the Markman hearing, Defendants’ counsel confirmed that this position (i.e., requiring a “compact” series) was not “crucial” to any issue in the case; counsel noted that Defendants would not “stand on that limitation” needing to be a part of a final construction. (Tr. at 9-10) For Plaintiff’s part, its proposed construction was “a link that identifies a resource.” As to that proposal, there is no dispute that a URI “identifies a resource,” (D.I. 70 at 14, 22), but there was a dispute as to whether it should properly be referred to as “a link,” (Tr. at 35-37; see also, e.g., D.I. 70 at 13-17). In light of this, Plaintiff proposed at the Markman hearing that a URI be described as “a string of characters that identifies a resource[.]” (Tr. at 37; see also D.I. 70 at 12-13 (citing D.I. 62, ex. 10 at 11); Tr. at 54, 56) This proposal appears to be accurate and undisputed, (id.), and so the Court will include it in its final construction.; (3) For all of the above reasons, the Court construes term 1 to mean “a string of characters that identifies a resource and that has some form of common syntax”.; and (4) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to respond, (D.I. 171 in the 23-87 case), is DENIED as MOOT, as there is nothing about the Notice to which it relates that impacted the Court’s thinking regarding the proper construction of this term. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/12/2024. Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-01163-CJB, 1:23-cv-00087-CJB(smg) (Entered: 09/12/2024)
2024-09-12
1
ORAL ORDER: With regard to the parties’ motions for claim construction, (D.I. 63 & D.I. 64 in the 22-1163 case and D.I. 68 & D.I. 69 in the 23-87 case), and citing herein only to docket index numbers from the 22-1163 case for convenience (unless otherwise noted), the Court hereby addresses the construction of term 2 (“means for causing”), which is found in claim 15 of the 897 patent (“claim 15”), as follows: (1) The sole dispute here as to this means-plus-function term is over the correct corresponding structure. (D.I. 70 at 26-28; Tr. at 67-68) The issue is whether the structure is limited to “a URI deeplinking to a messaging application” configured to cause performance of the claimed functions (as Defendants contend), or whether the structure should instead more broadly be identified as “a link” that is configured to cause performance of the claimed functions (as Plaintiff contends). (D.I. 77 at 2) There is no dispute that a “URI deeplinking to a messaging application” is a type of structure that can perform the relevant function at issue, (D.I. 70 at 28, 32; Tr. at 82); the question is “what more” than that, if anything, can do so, (Tr. at 67), and more specifically, whether the structure can be “a link” that does not include a URI, (id. at 81). In the Court’s view, in light of the intrinsic record, Plaintiff has the better of the arguments here.; (2) This is so in large part due to the specification’s disclosures. For example, in column 3 of the 897 patent, it is explained that the claimed function is effectuated “[w]hen the link is clicked [and] a custom-rendered deeplink is initiated”; the patent then goes on to say that “[i]n some implementations, deep linking uses a uniform resource identifier (URI)” to help do this work. (897 patent, col. 3:7-15 (emphasis added)) This portion of the patent, then, appears to indicate that there are “some implementations” where the structure that causes the performance of the function at issue does not utilize a URI and instead only makes use of some type of a “link.” Indeed, as Plaintiff notes, other parts of the specification similarly seem to describe the item that causes the function at issue to occur by referencing only a type of link (such as a “sign-up link”); these portions do not explicitly state that this sign-up link makes use of a URI. (See, e.g., id., cols. 7:31-33; 8:67-9:4; 14:21-24; 15:35-38; see also D.I. 70 at 32) Defendants appear to concede that these specification excerpts are a bit problematic for their position, but they wave them away by suggesting that they simply do not “lay out every step of the process” or that they “don’t tell you the structure that performs [or causes] the deep linking[.]” (Tr. at 68, 72, see also id. at 69, 75) But that is not clear to the Court at all. As the Court noted above, if anything, these portions of the specification seem to read exactly the way Plaintiff says they do: i.e., they indicate that sometimes the structure that performs the “causing” function in claim 15 involves use of a “link” that does not include a URI, and sometimes it involves use of a link that does include a URI. (Id. at 74, 81); (3) It is also noteworthy that while claim 15 includes the “means for causing” term, dependent claim 16 further specifies that the “means for causing comprises a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)[.]” (897 patent, col. 24:64-65) This description nicely aligns with Plaintiff’s position: i.e., that the structure that performs the function at issue could comprise a URI, but is not required to, and that it could also implicate a link that does not include a URI. (D.I. 70 at 29); (4) The Court is a bit concerned that Plaintiff’s argument here is in tension with certain arguments it seemed to be making at the motion to dismiss stage of the case (wherein Plaintiff’s briefing on Section 101 issues could have been read to suggest that all claims of all patents-in-suit involved use of a link containing a URI that helps initiate the deeplinking process). (23-87 case, D.I. 16 at 5; 23-87 case, D.I. 59 at 7-8, 14; Tr. at 88-89) But Plaintiff’s statements at the pleading stage on this front were not clear enough to amount to estoppel or waiver. (Tr. at 90-92) And if the Court’s construction here provides an avenue for Defendants to further challenge certain claims at a later stage pursuant to Section 101, (id. at 94-95), then so be it.; and (5) For these reasons, as to the “means for causing” term, the Court will adopt the jointly-agreed upon portions of the construction set out on D.I. 70 at 26, and as to corresponding structure, it finds that the structure is “a link configured to cause performance of the claimed functions.” Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/12/2024. Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-01163-CJB, 1:23-cv-00087-CJB(smg) (Entered: 09/12/2024)
2024-09-12
1
Oral Order
2024-09-12
1
No Actions
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's Interrogatories (Nos. 17 and 19) and (2) Defendant Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's Interrogatory (No. 23) filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 09/13/2024)
2024-09-13
1
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Discovery Disputes - re 346 Oral Order,,,,,,,. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1, # 2 Ex. 2, # 3 Ex. 3, # 4 Ex. 4, # 5 Ex. 5)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/13/2024)
2024-09-13
1
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver regarding Postscript's Discovery Disputes - re 343 Letter, 333 Letter, 346 Oral Order. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) Modified on 9/13/2024 (smg). (Entered: 09/13/2024)
2024-09-13
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION re 353 Letter, Declaration of Steadman Dinning by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/13/2024)
2024-09-13
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION re 353 Letter, Declaration of Bryan Lence by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/13/2024)
2024-09-13
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION re 353 Letter, Declaration of Aditya V. Kamadar by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A - F, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/13/2024)
2024-09-13
1
Deficiency re Redacted Documents
2024-09-13
1
No Actions
REDACTION NOTICE: In accordance with section G of the Administrative Procedures Governing Filing and Service by Electronic Means, redacted versions of sealed documents shall be filed electronically within 7 days of the filing of the sealed document. The records of this case do not reflect the filing of a redacted version of DI # 338 . (smg)
2024-09-13
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: With regard to the parties’ motions for claim construction, (D.I. 63 & D.I. 64 in Civil Action No. 22-1163 (the “22-1163 case”) and D.I. 68 & D.I. 69 in Civil Action No. 23-87 (the “23-87 case”)), and citing herein only to docket index numbers from the 22-1163 case for convenience (unless otherwise noted), the Court hereby addresses the construction of term 3 (“integration tag”). Despite two chances to brief this term, and after a long (and at times frustrating for the Court) discussion about the term during the Markman hearing, (see, e.g., D.I. 191 (hereafter, “Tr.”) at 138-46), the relevant record still has plenty of holes. Below, the Court will do the best it can with what it has been given.: (1) First, the parties dispute whether the term is a “coined” term. (D.I. 84 at 2-3, 5) Unfortunately, they have presented the Court with no record evidence as to whether this is so or not (e.g., no declaration regarding a POSITA’s perspective on the question). So the Court cannot make a finding there one way or the other; herein, it will simply utilize the general rules of claim construction set out in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).; (2) With regard to Defendants’ proposed addition that the integration tag must “when executed, cause[] a user mobile device to send a request to a click-to-text server for, and receive from the click-to-text server, promotional messages associated with a client[,]” (D.I. 84 at 2), the Court will not adopt that position. Defendants argue that this addition is appropriate because in three places, the patents’ specification describes an integration tag in just this way. (Id. at 5 (citing 887 patent, cols. 11:61-65, 14:37-41, 16:52-55)) But in each of those instances, other surrounding language suggests that what is being described in that paragraph is what an integration tag can do in “some implementations[,]” or features that the tag “can” have (not must have). (887 patent, cols. 11:59, 14:35, 16:50); see also Nexeon Ltd. v. EaglePicher Techs. LLC, Civil Action No. 15-cv-955-RGA, 2018 WL 1942199, at *7 (D. Del. Apr. 25, 2018) (rejecting the defendants’ attempt to limit the claims to a preferred embodiment and, in support, noting that the asserted patent “uses the permissive language that the particle ‘may be crystalline’ rather than stating that the particle ‘is’ or ‘must be’ crystalline”); CIF Licensing, LLC v. Agere Sys., 565 F. Supp. 2d 533, 546 (D. Del. 2008) (noting that in the claim construction context, the patent’s use of the “phrase ‘can be’ is permissive, rather than mandatory”). The Court must be mindful to heed the Federal Circuit’s guidance not to import limitations from preferred embodiments into the claims. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323; (Tr. at 117, 126-27, 147). Moreover, as Plaintiff notes, when the claims refer to an integration tag, they tend to further articulate what functions the tag must help cause, including functions relating to promotional messages or interactions with a click-to-text server. (See, e.g., 887 patent, cols. 21:46-49, 24:1-8; 074 patent, col. 21:10-21) This suggests that “when the applicants intended to claim [functions that the integration tag must perform as it relates to, e.g., a promotional message] they knew how to do so and did.” (D.I. 84 at 4); (3) Lastly, the parties dispute whether an integration tag should be described as “an HTML <script> tag integrated with a webpage that includes or points to code (including code in interpreted programming languages, such as JavaScript” (Plaintiff) or “code (including code in interpreted programming languages, such as JavaScript and code within HTML <script> tags)” (Defendants). These respective descriptors were developed by the parties after the Markman hearing. But unfortunately, in their post-Markman supplemental letter, the parties did not: (a) clearly set out the differences between the two proposals; or (b) provide much record support as to the correctness of those respective positions (to the extent that they are in conflict). (D.I. 84 at 2 (Plaintiff asserting that Defendants had previously agreed to its proposal here at one point, and calling Defendants’ new proposal “seemingly broader”) (emphasis added); id. at 6 & n.7) The Court can offer that it does not seem correct to construe the term as “code... that...” (as Defendants request), since the patent tells us at times that an integration tag is something that “includes code[.]” (887 patent, cols. 11:62; 16:52-53; 24:2 (emphasis added)) Beyond that, however, the Court has little to go on to determine the extent to which the precise wording of the parties’ dueling proposals are correct (or even the extent to which they are in conflict with each other).; and (4) As a result, at least for now, the Court will order only that the term be provided its plain and ordinary meaning. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/16/2024. Associated Cases: 1:23-cv-00087-CJB, 1:22-cv-01163-CJB(smg) (Entered: 09/16/2024)
2024-09-16
1
ORAL ORDER: With regard to the parties’ motions for claim construction, (D.I. 63 & D.I. 64 in Civil Action No. 22-1163 (the “22-1163 case”) and D.I. 68 & D.I. 69 in Civil Action No. 23-87 (the “23-87 case”)), and citing herein only to docket index numbers from the 22-1163 case for convenience (unless otherwise noted), the Court hereby addresses the construction of term 4 (“means for displaying an invitation to subscribe to a text messaging subscription service via a first application”) as follows: (1) The sole dispute here is over the corresponding structure for the term. (D.I. 84 at 6) More specifically, Plaintiff proposes that the structure is “a tag” configured to cause performance of the claimed function and Defendants propose that it is “an integration tag” configured to do the same. (Id.) There is no dispute that an integration tag can perform the function; the dispute is whether any other structure (i.e., some other type(s) of “tag”) can too. (Id. at 7; see also D.I. 70 at 43); (2) As an initial matter, the arguments that Plaintiff makes in its supplemental letter (about why the <button>, <svg>, <polygon> and <iframe> tags are structure that perform the claimed function) were nowhere found in Plaintiff’s portion of the Joint Claim Construction Brief, (see D.I. 70 at 43-47), and they certainly should have been, (D.I. 84 at 8). Thus, they are waived and/or forfeited. See, e.g., Edgewell Pers. Care Brands, LLC v. Albaad Massuot Yitzhak, Ltd., Civil Action No. 15-1188-RGA, 2017 WL 1900736, at *4 (D. Del. May 9, 2017).; (3) Even if they were not waived and/or forfeited, these arguments were not persuasive. That is because, for the reasons Defendants say, (D.I. 84 at 8), Plaintiff never adequately explained how any of the patents’ references to these tags demonstrate or make clear how the tags play any role in performing the function at issue.; (4) The fact that dependent claim 16 of the 897 patent says that the “means for displaying comprises an integration tag” is potentially helpful for Plaintiff (to the extent that it could hint that other structures also can perform this displaying function). (897 patent, col. 24:43-45, 24:63-65) But as Defendants note, (D.I. 70 at 46 (citing Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d 1533, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1991))), those other structures would still need to be clearly set out in the specification and linked with the performance of the function. And they were not here.; and (5) For these reasons, the Court construes the term in the agreed-upon manner set out in D.I. 84 at 6 and additionally finds that the corresponding structure is “an integration tag configured to cause performance of the claimed function.” Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/16/2024. Associated Cases: 1:23-cv-00087-CJB, 1:22-cv-01163-CJB(smg) (Entered: 09/16/2024)
2024-09-16
1
ORAL ORDER: With regard to the parties’ motions for claim construction, (D.I. 63 & D.I. 64 in Civil Action No. 22-1163 (the “22-1163 case”) and D.I. 68 & D.I. 69 in Civil Action No. 23-87 (the “23-87 case”)), and citing herein only to docket index numbers from the 22-1163 case for convenience (unless otherwise noted), the Court hereby addresses the construction of term 5 (“webpage”) as follows: (1) There is little dispute, based on the record, that a webpage is a page accessible over the World Wide Web, that is within a website. Indeed, this is indicated both by Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ proposed constructions, and by a lot of the evidence that they cite. (D.I. 70 at 47-48; id., ex. 4 at 561; id., ex. 5 at 1381; see also 887 patent, col. 11:67); (2) Defendants want the construction to indicate that a “webpage” must always be one “specific” webpage, (D.I. 70 at 47), but the Court disagrees that this is appropriate. The intent of this proposal seems to be to require that an integration tag must always be individualized to a “specific” webpage, (id. at 49), but that type of requirement seems off base. Claim 1 of the 887 patent, for example, makes reference to “a” webpage, and both the patent, (see 887 patent, col. 4:33-39; D.I. 70 at 50), and Federal Circuit caselaw, see 01 Communique Lab’y, Inc. v. LogMeIn, Inc., 687 F.3d 1292, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012); (D.I. 70 at 53), indicates that this is thus a reference to “one or more” webpages. And the patent certainly suggests that one or more webpages can house the integration tag at issue in claim 1. (D.I. 70 at 50-51 (citing 887 patent, cols. 12:63-13:3)); (3) The fact that the patents’ specification references a “site integration tag[,]” (887 patent, col. 11:60), does not convince the Court otherwise. It is far from clear that the presence of this term means that an “integration tag” must be associated with only one page on a website, (D.I. 70 at 54-55); the patent is just not very explicit as to exactly what a “site integration tag” is, or how it differs from an “integration tag” (if it does at all).; and (4) Therefore, the Court will construe “webpage” to mean “a page accessible over the World Wide Web, that is within a website.” Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/16/2024. Associated Cases: 1:23-cv-00087-CJB, 1:22-cv-01163-CJB(smg) (Entered: 09/16/2024)
2024-09-16
1
ORAL ORDER: With regard to the parties’ motions for claim construction, (D.I. 63 & D.I. 64 in Civil Action No. 22-1163 (the “22-1163 case”) and D.I. 68 & D.I. 69 in Civil Action No. 23-87 (the “23-87 case”)), and pursuant to the parties’ agreement, (D.I. 84 at 9), the Court hereby construes term 6 (“identifier associated with at least one of the webpage or the user data”) to mean “information (such as a string of characters or keyword) having a designed association with at least one of: (1) the webpage; or (2) the user data.” Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/16/2024. Associated Cases: 1:23-cv-00087-CJB, 1:22-cv-01163-CJB(smg) (Entered: 09/16/2024)
2024-09-16
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Attentive's Amended Final Invalidity Contentions- filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/16/2024)
2024-09-16
1
ORAL ORDER: With regard to the parties’ motions for claim construction, (D.I. 63 & D.I. 64 in Civil Action No. 22-1163 (the “22-1163 case”) and D.I. 68 & D.I. 69 in Civil Action No. 23-87 (the “23-87 case”)), and citing herein only to docket index numbers from the 22-1163 case for convenience (unless otherwise noted), the Court hereby addresses the construction of term 7 (“custom [text] message”) as follows: (1) Facially, the parties’ dispute here is over whether a construction for the term should require that the “editable parts” of the text message must be “customized[.]” (D.I. 70 at 63) But more specifically, the dispute seems to be about whether one can have a “custom [text] message” if the only aspect of the message that is customized is the destination or recipient address (i.e., via the adding in of a particular recipient phone number to the message); Defendants say that you cannot, and that only if the “editable parts” of the message are customized (by which they mean “a message body or other ‘editable portions’ of a text message”—but not the “destination address”) will the message be a “custom [text] message.” (Id. at 65-66, 69); (2) Defendants’ main point here is that “simply populating the ‘destination address’ cannot be what makes the text message custom as all text messages require a destination.” (Id. at 69-70; see also id. at 66) There is some rhetorical force to that position, but in the end, the Court has to be guided by what the patents say on this score. And there: (a) When the claims of the patents discuss what it means to populate a “custom message” they appear to do so by not only describing how a “message body” can be customized, but also how an “address associated” with the recipient for the message can be customized. (See, e.g., 887 patent, col. 21:59-64); and (b) When the specification discusses the concept of customization, it specifically explains how a “phone number [e.g., the recipient phone number] can be customized (or defined or populated) based on client’s preferences [such as by determining whether the number is a] short code cellular number or a long code cellular number.” (Id., col. 7:54-60 (emphasis added); see also D.I. 70 at 69) So according to the patents, and contrary to Defendants’ position, a text message can be customized based solely or in part on how its recipient address is selected and inputted.; (3) The Court does not agree with Defendants that such a ruling would necessarily render portions of claim 24 of the 897 patent (i.e., the claim’s requirement that the method “automatically populate a custom text message with a destination address for a recipient of the... message”) superfluous. (897 patent, col. 26:10-12; see also D.I. 70 at 66) Just as Plaintiff argues, it appears that this portion of the claim is simply dictating what part of the text message must be customized. (D.I. 70 at 68-69); and (4) With the Court having resolved the dispute here, and with Plaintiff’s alternative construction simply amounting to re-arranging the words of the claim term (which is not helpful), (id. at 63), the Court will simply order that the term be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/16/2024. Associated Cases: 1:23-cv-00087-CJB, 1:22-cv-01163-CJB(smg) (Entered: 09/17/2024)
2024-09-16
1
ORAL ORDER: With regard to the parties’ motions for claim construction, (D.I. 63 & D.I. 64 in Civil Action No. 22-1163 (the “22-1163 case”) and D.I. 68 & D.I. 69 in Civil Action No. 23-87 (the “23-87 case”)), and citing herein only to docket index numbers from the 22-1163 case for convenience (unless otherwise noted), the Court hereby addresses the construction of term 8 (“authenticate the mobile device” / “authenticate a user of the mobile device”) as follows: (1) The briefing here was challenging at times, due to Plaintiff’s approach. For one thing, Plaintiff failed to propose an actual construction for the term in response to Defendants’ proposal (Defendants propose that the term means: “verify the identity of the mobile device” / “verify the identity of a user of the mobile device”). (D.I. 70 at 70, 72-73) For another, Plaintiff spent most of the early portions of its briefing arguing that no construction was needed because purportedly the “claims themselves specify how authentication is performed[,]” (id. at 70), when, in reality, while the claims specify that authentication must be “based on” certain data, they do not explain what “must be done” in order to authenticate the mobile device or the user, (id. at 73). In other words, while the claims further explain what information is used to authenticate, the dispute here was over what it means to authenticate (i.e., using that information).; (2) Eventually, Plaintiff got around to saying what it thinks the term means in this regard, which is: “to identify a user or mobile device’s subscription” (as opposed to verifying the identity of the user or mobile device). (Id. at 75-76 (emphasis added)) One problem with Plaintiff’s proposal in that regard was that it is based entirely on two lines in the Provisional Application, (id.), and, as Defendants note, it is not at all clear that those two lines are actually explaining what it means to “authenticate” a mobile device or a user in the context of the claims, (id. at 78). Another problem with the proposal, as Defendants also note, is that it does not seem to gibe with the structure of the claims—since in the claims the required authentication is occurring (at least at times) before the user has officially subscribed to anything. (Id. at 77-78); (3) Defendants’ proposal, on the other hand, is consistent with the meaning ascribed to “authenticate” or “authentication” in various technical dictionaries, (id. at 73-74 (citing id., ex. 8 at 110; id., ex. 9 at 175)), and also appears to be in line with how the term is used in the claims.; and (4) Therefore, the Court will construe “authenticate the mobile device” / “authenticate a user of the mobile device” to mean “verify the identity of the mobile device” / “verify the identity of a user of the mobile device.” Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/16/2024. Associated Cases: 1:23-cv-00087-CJB, 1:22-cv-01163-CJB(smg) (Entered: 09/17/2024)
2024-09-16
1
Oral Order
2024-09-16
1
No Actions
REDACTED VERSION of 338 MOTION to Amend/Correct - by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/17/2024)
2024-09-17
1
Oral Order
2024-09-17
1
No Actions
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding In Opposition to Attentive's Discovery Disputes - re 352 Letter, 346 Oral Order,,,,,,,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/18/2024)
2024-09-18
1
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael J. Flynn regarding Discovery Disputes. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1-4)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/18/2024)
2024-09-18
1
REDACTED VERSION of 353 Letter, by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/20/2024)
2024-09-20
1
REDACTED VERSION of 353 Letter, by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/20/2024)
2024-09-20
2
REDACTED VERSION of 354 Declaration Declaration of Steadman Dinning by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/20/2024)
2024-09-20
1
REDACTED VERSION of 355 Declaration Declaration of Bryan Lence by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/20/2024)
2024-09-20
1
REDACTED VERSION of 356 Declaration Declaration of Aditya V. Kamadar by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A-F)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/20/2024)
2024-09-20
1
REDACTED VERSION of 356 Declaration Declaration of Aditya V. Kamadar by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A-F)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/20/2024)
2024-09-20
2
REDACTED VERSION of 352 Letter by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1, # 2 Ex. 2, # 3 Ex. 3, # 4 Ex. 4, # 5 Ex. 5)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/20/2024)
2024-09-20
1
REDACTED VERSION of 352 Letter by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1, # 2 Ex. 2, # 3 Ex. 3, # 4 Ex. 4, # 5 Ex. 5)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/20/2024)
2024-09-20
2
REDACTED VERSION of 352 Letter by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1, # 2 Ex. 2, # 3 Ex. 3, # 4 Ex. 4, # 5 Ex. 5)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/20/2024)
2024-09-20
2
REDACTED VERSION of 352 Letter by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1, # 2 Ex. 2, # 3 Ex. 3, # 4 Ex. 4, # 5 Ex. 5)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/20/2024)
2024-09-20
2
REDACTED VERSION of 352 Letter by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1, # 2 Ex. 2, # 3 Ex. 3, # 4 Ex. 4, # 5 Ex. 5)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/20/2024)
2024-09-20
2
REDACTED VERSION of 352 Letter by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1, # 2 Ex. 2, # 3 Ex. 3, # 4 Ex. 4, # 5 Ex. 5)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/20/2024)
2024-09-20
2
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Discovery Dispute - re 365 Letter,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 6, # 2 Exhibit 7)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/23/2024)
2024-09-23
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Discovery Dispute - re 365 Letter,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 6, # 2 Exhibit 7)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/23/2024)
2024-09-23
2
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Discovery Dispute - re 365 Letter,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 6, # 2 Exhibit 7)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/23/2024)
2024-09-23
2
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Postscript's Discovery Disputes - re 366 Letter, 356 Declaration, 343 Letter, 333 Letter, 355 Declaration, 346 Oral Order,,,,,,, 353 Letter, 354 Declaration. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/23/2024)
2024-09-23
1
MOTION to Resolve Discovery Dispute re 365 Letter, 372 Letter, 352 Letter - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/23/2024)
2024-09-23
1
MOTION to Resolve Discovery Dispute - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/23/2024)
2024-09-23
1
REDACTED VERSION of 365 Letter, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/25/2024)
2024-09-25
1
REDACTED VERSION of 366 Letter by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/25/2024)
2024-09-25
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding scheduling a discovery teleconference. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/27/2024)
2024-09-27
1
STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Regarding Expert Reports - by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/27/2024)
2024-09-27
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Plaintiff's Supplemental Objections and Responses to Defendant's Interrogatories (Nos. 1-23) and (2) Plaintiff's First Supplemental Objections and Responses to Defendant's Requests for Production (Nos. 1-85) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/27/2024)
2024-09-27
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 379 Stipulation and Order Regarding Expert Reports filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/27/2024. (smg)
2024-09-27
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2024-09-27
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: The Court has reviewed the parties' September 27, 2024 letter requesting a discovery dispute conference as to three new disputes, (D.I. 378 ); this will mean that the parties have brought 13 different discovery disputes to the Court for resolution since February. (See D.I. 142 ; D.I. 168 ; D.I. 250 ; D.I. 308 ; D.I. 332 ; D.I. 333 ; see also D.I. 216 ; 343 ) That is a large number of disputes, even for a patent case. Again, the Court wants to ensure that the parties have sufficiently attempted to resolve their disputes before bringing them to the Court. In light of this, the Court hereby ORDERS that the parties shall have one further meet and confer to see if they can resolve some or all of these three new disputes before the Court will set a briefing schedule. The meet and confer should include: (1) Delaware counsel for each side; (2) outside counsel involved with the disputes; and (3) the attorney on each side who is leading the trial team. By no later than October 4, 2024, the parties shall file a joint letter of no longer than one page indicating whether the parties have resolved any of the three new disputes and whether any of the disputes remain ripe for a discovery dispute hearing. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/30/2024. (smg) (Entered: 09/30/2024)
2024-09-30
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael J. Flynn regarding Motion to Compel Deposition. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/30/2024)
2024-09-30
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' September 30, 2024 letter, (D.I. 382 ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) By October 3, 2024, Plaintiff shall file with the Court a letter, not to exceed two (2) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining the issues in dispute and its position on those issues.; (2) By October 9, 2024, Ms. Regnell shall file with the Court a letter, not to exceed two (2) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining her reasons for her opposition.; (3) By October 11, 2024, Plaintiff shall file with the Court a reply letter brief, not to exceed one (1) single-spaced page, in no less than 12-point font.; (4) Plaintiff shall file its motion to compel by no later than October 9, 2024.; (5) The parties should also 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.; (6) The Court will plan to resolve the dispute on the papers, unless: (a) it determines after reviewing the briefing that oral argument is needed; or (b) any party advises the Court in advance that, were argument to be set, 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. If either of those circumstances, occurs, then the Court will schedule oral argument on the dispute in the future. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/30/2024. (smg) (Entered: 09/30/2024)
2024-09-30
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Opening Expert Report of Barbara Frederiksen Regarding Invalidity of and Non-Infringing Alternatives to U.S. Patent Nos. 11,416,887 and 11,553,074 and Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 and Appendixes A-C and (2) Defendant Postscript's Disclosure of David Carter Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C) filed by Stodge Inc..(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/30/2024)
2024-09-30
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s affirmative defenses of inequitable conduct and unclean hands (“affirmative defenses”) to Defendant’s infringement counterclaim (“Motion”), (D.I. 89 ), the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 90 ; D.I. 103 ; D.I. 113 ; D.I. 177 ; D.I. 184 ; D.I. 261 ), and having considered the relevant legal standards, see Targus Int’l LLC v. Victorinox Swiss Army, Inc., Civil Action No. 20-464-RGA, 2020 WL 7264199, at *2 (D. Del. Dec. 10, 2020), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED in the manner and for the reasons that follow: (1) Plaintiff has two theories of inequitable conduct that apply to both affirmative defenses. The first is that the named inventors and prosecuting attorneys “buried” certain third-party prior art references (the “Klaviyo References”) when they submitted them to the Examiner, such that the Examiner did not consider them in assessing the patentability of the relevant claims of what became the ‘660 patent. Resolution of the Motion as to this theory was delayed and made more difficult by the fact that, in the first instance, neither side provided the Court with a full picture of the relevant law regarding a “burying” claim like this one. (D.I. 267 (“Tr.”) at 4-14; D.I. 165 ; D.I. 261 ) But even assuming that a burying theory of inequitable conduct is still potentially cognizable, (id.), this particular burying claim is not, as on these pleaded facts, Plaintiff has not and cannot plausibly allege that Defendant made a material misrepresentation to the PTO and had specific intent to deceive that office. This is not only because Defendant submitted the Klaviyo References to the Examiner once, and not only because Defendant re-submitted them to the Examiner a second time, but also because the Examiner (at least) twice stated that he had, in fact, actually considered those references, prior to allowing the patent at issue. (D.I. 70 at 26-27, at paras. 45-47; D.I. 90, ex. B at ECF pps. 57, 72, 74; id., ex. C at 2; id., ex. D at 7; D.I. 184 at 1; Tr. at 15, 19, 23) Under these circumstances (and even taking into account the Examiner’s later complaint that Defendant had submitted a large number of irrelevant references regarding the patent application), (D.I. 70 at 26-27, at para. 47), it just is not feasible to argue (as Plaintiff does) that Defendant hid the references from the Examiner, such that the Examiner did not see or sufficiently consider them, and that this led to the wrongful grant of a patent that would never have issued had the Examiner actually been presented with and reviewed those references, (Tr. at 45-47). The Court cannot countenance a theory that relies on an assertion that the Examiner repeatedly made statements (i.e., to the effect that he was presented with and considered the references) that were not correct, or that he did not really mean. Cf. Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (noting that when an Examiner indicates that he considered certain references, “[a]bsent proof to the contrary, we assume that [he] did consider the references”); (D.I. 184 at 2; Tr. at 27, 58). There is no viable way to re-plead this theory, and so the grant here is with prejudice.; (2) With regard to the second theory, which is that the named inventors sought claims that they knew were not supported by the specification, the Court also GRANTS the Motion, here without prejudice to re-plead. The Court concludes that as currently written, the claim does not plausibly set out materiality or intent to deceive, simply because the allegations are unduly vague and insufficiently clear as to what exactly is being asserted. The affirmative defenses indicate that the inventors “intentionally drafted the claims [of the patent at issue] to be broader than the technology they allegedly invented[,]” (D.I. 70 at 23, at para. 32), but do not provide enough information about this assertion (nor do they sufficiently link this assertion to earlier statements in the Answer), so that the Court can understand how exactly the claims are said to have been “drafted” in this “broader” way, and how, inter alia, that is material to patentability. (D.I. 90 at 2; Tr. at 21-22, 30, 57) Indeed, during oral argument, Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged that the “articulation of [this] theory was probably not the best” and that Plaintiff could more clearly set out the theory, were it given a chance to amend. (Tr. at 49-50); and (3) To the extent that Plaintiff wishes to file a motion for leave to amend as to this second theory, it must do so by no later than October 15, 2024. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/30/2024. (smg) (Entered: 09/30/2024)
2024-09-30
1
Oral Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions
2024-09-30
1
No Actions
Oral Order
2024-09-30
1
No Actions
REDACTED VERSION of 373 Letter, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 10/01/2024)
2024-10-01
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Expert Report of Douglas Kidder Regarding Damages and Exhibits DGK-1 DGK-10 filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 10/02/2024)
2024-10-02
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Regnell deposition - re 381 Oral Order. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Ex. B, # 3 Ex. C, # 4 Ex. D, # 5 Ex. E, # 6 Ex. F, # 7 Ex. G, # 8 Ex. H, # 9 Ex. I, # 10 Ex. J, # 11 Ex. K)(Flynn, Michael) Modified on 10/4/2024 (smg). (Entered: 10/03/2024)
2024-10-03
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Regnell deposition - re 381 Oral Order. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Ex. B, # 3 Ex. C, # 4 Ex. D, # 5 Ex. E, # 6 Ex. F, # 7 Ex. G, # 8 Ex. H, # 9 Ex. I, # 10 Ex. J, # 11 Ex. K)(Flynn, Michael) Modified on 10/4/2024 (smg). (Entered: 10/03/2024)
2024-10-03
2
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Regnell deposition - re 381 Oral Order. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Ex. B, # 3 Ex. C, # 4 Ex. D, # 5 Ex. E, # 6 Ex. F, # 7 Ex. G, # 8 Ex. H, # 9 Ex. I, # 10 Ex. J, # 11 Ex. K)(Flynn, Michael) Modified on 10/4/2024 (smg). (Entered: 10/03/2024)
2024-10-03
2
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Regnell deposition - re 381 Oral Order. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Ex. B, # 3 Ex. C, # 4 Ex. D, # 5 Ex. E, # 6 Ex. F, # 7 Ex. G, # 8 Ex. H, # 9 Ex. I, # 10 Ex. J, # 11 Ex. K)(Flynn, Michael) Modified on 10/4/2024 (smg). (Entered: 10/03/2024)
2024-10-03
2
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Regnell deposition - re 381 Oral Order. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Ex. B, # 3 Ex. C, # 4 Ex. D, # 5 Ex. E, # 6 Ex. F, # 7 Ex. G, # 8 Ex. H, # 9 Ex. I, # 10 Ex. J, # 11 Ex. K)(Flynn, Michael) Modified on 10/4/2024 (smg). (Entered: 10/03/2024)
2024-10-03
2
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Regnell deposition - re 381 Oral Order. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Ex. B, # 3 Ex. C, # 4 Ex. D, # 5 Ex. E, # 6 Ex. F, # 7 Ex. G, # 8 Ex. H, # 9 Ex. I, # 10 Ex. J, # 11 Ex. K)(Flynn, Michael) Modified on 10/4/2024 (smg). (Entered: 10/03/2024)
2024-10-03
2
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Regnell deposition - re 381 Oral Order. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Ex. B, # 3 Ex. C, # 4 Ex. D, # 5 Ex. E, # 6 Ex. F, # 7 Ex. G, # 8 Ex. H, # 9 Ex. I, # 10 Ex. J, # 11 Ex. K)(Flynn, Michael) Modified on 10/4/2024 (smg). (Entered: 10/03/2024)
2024-10-03
2
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Regnell deposition - re 381 Oral Order. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Ex. B, # 3 Ex. C, # 4 Ex. D, # 5 Ex. E, # 6 Ex. F, # 7 Ex. G, # 8 Ex. H, # 9 Ex. I, # 10 Ex. J, # 11 Ex. K)(Flynn, Michael) Modified on 10/4/2024 (smg). (Entered: 10/03/2024)
2024-10-03
2
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Regnell deposition - re 381 Oral Order. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Ex. B, # 3 Ex. C, # 4 Ex. D, # 5 Ex. E, # 6 Ex. F, # 7 Ex. G, # 8 Ex. H, # 9 Ex. I, # 10 Ex. J, # 11 Ex. K)(Flynn, Michael) Modified on 10/4/2024 (smg). (Entered: 10/03/2024)
2024-10-03
2
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Regnell deposition - re 381 Oral Order. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Ex. B, # 3 Ex. C, # 4 Ex. D, # 5 Ex. E, # 6 Ex. F, # 7 Ex. G, # 8 Ex. H, # 9 Ex. I, # 10 Ex. J, # 11 Ex. K)(Flynn, Michael) Modified on 10/4/2024 (smg). (Entered: 10/03/2024)
2024-10-03
2
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Regnell deposition - re 381 Oral Order. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Ex. B, # 3 Ex. C, # 4 Ex. D, # 5 Ex. E, # 6 Ex. F, # 7 Ex. G, # 8 Ex. H, # 9 Ex. I, # 10 Ex. J, # 11 Ex. K)(Flynn, Michael) Modified on 10/4/2024 (smg). (Entered: 10/03/2024)
2024-10-03
2
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Regnell deposition - re 381 Oral Order. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Ex. B, # 3 Ex. C, # 4 Ex. D, # 5 Ex. E, # 6 Ex. F, # 7 Ex. G, # 8 Ex. H, # 9 Ex. I, # 10 Ex. J, # 11 Ex. K)(Flynn, Michael) Modified on 10/4/2024 (smg). (Entered: 10/03/2024)
2024-10-03
2
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to file a joint letter indicating whether the parties have resolved any of the three disputes and whether any of the disputes remain ripe for a discovery dispute hearing to October 8, 2024 - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 10/04/2024)
2024-10-04
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 389 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to file a joint letter indicating whether the parties have resolved any of the three disputes and whether any of the disputes remain ripe for a discovery dispute hearing to October 8, 2024 filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/7/2024. (smg)
2024-10-07
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2024-10-07
1
No Actions
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the deadline for the parties to file a joint letter indicating whether the parties have resolved any of the three disputes and whether any of the disputes remain ripe for a discovery dispute hearing to October 9, 2024 - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 10/08/2024)
2024-10-08
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the deadline for the parties to file a joint letter indicating whether the parties have resolved any of the three disputes and whether any of the disputes remain ripe for a discovery dispute hearing to October 10, 2024 - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 10/09/2024)
2024-10-09
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Robert M. Vrana regarding a response in opposition to Plaintiff's Letter seeking to compel deposition - re 388 Letter,. (Vrana, Robert) (Entered: 10/09/2024)
2024-10-09
1
DECLARATION of Hannah Jiam in support of D.I. 392 Letter by Mindy Regnell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through E)(Vrana, Robert) Modified on 10/11/2024 (smg). (Entered: 10/09/2024)
2024-10-09
1
DECLARATION of Hannah Jiam in support of D.I. 392 Letter by Mindy Regnell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through E)(Vrana, Robert) Modified on 10/11/2024 (smg). (Entered: 10/09/2024)
2024-10-09
2
DECLARATION of Mike Manheimer in support of D.I. 392 Letter by Mindy Regnell. (Vrana, Robert) Modified on 10/11/2024 (smg). (Entered: 10/09/2024)
2024-10-09
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 390 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the deadline for the parties to file a joint letter indicating whether the parties have resolved any of the three disputes and whether any of the disputes remain ripe for a discovery dispute hearing to October 9, 2024 filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/9/2024. (smg)
2024-10-09
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2024-10-09
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 391 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the deadline for the parties to file a joint letter indicating whether the parties have resolved any of the three disputes and whether any of the disputes remain ripe for a discovery dispute hearing to October 10, 2024 filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/9/2024. (smg)
2024-10-09
1
No Actions
MOTION to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 10/10/2024)
2024-10-10
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to file a joint letter indicating whether the parties have resolved any of the three disputes and whether any of the disputes remain ripe for a discovery dispute hearing to October 15, 2024 - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 10/10/2024)
2024-10-10
1
SO ORDERED
2024-10-10
1
No Actions
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Reply in Support of Request to Compel Deposition - re 381 Oral Order,,,,, 392 Letter. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. L, # 2 Ex. M)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 10/11/2024)
2024-10-11
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 396 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to file a joint letter indicating whether the parties have resolved any of the three disputes and whether any of the disputes remain ripe for a discovery dispute hearing to October 15, 2024 filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/11/2024. (smg)
2024-10-11
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2024-10-11
1
No Actions
Joint Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Remaining Discovery Disputes - re 378 Letter. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 10/15/2024)
2024-10-15
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' October 15, 2024 letter, (D.I. 398 ), appreciates that the parties have resolved two of their discovery disputes. With respect to the remaining discovery dispute, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) By October 22, 2024, the party seeking relief shall file a letter, not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining the issues in dispute and its position on those issues.; (2) By October 28, 2024, the party opposing the application for relief shall file a letter, not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining that party's reasons for its opposition.; (3) By October 31, 2024, the party seeking relief shall file a reply letter brief, not to exceed one (1) single-spaced page, in no less than 12-point font.; (4) By October 31, 2024, the parties shall file a Motion To Resolve Discovery Dispute.; (5) The parties should also 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.; (6) The Court will plan to resolve the dispute on the papers, unless: (a) it determines after reviewing the briefing that oral argument is needed; or (b) any party advises the Court in advance that, were argument to be set, 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. If either of those circumstances, occurs, then the Court will schedule oral argument on the dispute in the future. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/16/2024. (smg) (Entered: 10/16/2024)
2024-10-16
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant's motion for a protective order precluding the depositions of Bryan Lence and Steadman Dinning ("Motion"), (D.I. 375 ), the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 353 ; D.I. 366 ; D.I. 373 ), and having considered the relevant legal standards, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED as Defendant has demonstrated that good cause exists for such an order. The Court so concludes for the reasons that follow: (1) Plaintiff asserts that the depositions at issue are needed because they are relevant to its claims for willful infringement and to the issue of copying. (D.I. 366 at 1) In its opening brief, however, Defendant had cogently explained, citing to relevant declarations when necessary, why, in its view: (a) the depositions could not be relevant to those issues, because Mr. Lence and Mr. Dinning: (i) were both hired by Defendant well after the allegedly infringing functionality was created, (ii) had viewed Plaintiff's platform only one or two times, and (iii) did so prior to the issuance of the patents-in-suit; and (b) the depositions would bring with them some amount of burden and expense to the deponents and/or Defendant. (D.I. 353 at 2; D.I. 354 ; D.I. 355 ; D.I. 356 ; see also D.I. 373 at 1); and (2) Thus, in light of this showing, in its answering brief, Plaintiff needed to make a clear, specific statement of relevance. That is, Plaintiff needed to say something like: "Despite the record Defendant has cited, Plaintiff believes that these depositions are relevant to the issue of willfulness and copying because Plaintiff's theory as to willfulness/copying is X and in light of the record, Plaintiff believes that Mr. Lence and Mr. Dinning will provide testimony as to Y; if they do, that will in turn bolster or relate to Plaintiff's theories in Z fashion." But Plaintiff did not do so. Instead, in its answering brief, it responded on relevance essentially in one paragraph, (D.I. 366 at 1-2), in which it made (at best) elliptical and vague suggestions as to why the depositions might be relevant-leaving the Court to try to fill in the blanks on its own. That is not the Court's role. Nor is it appropriate for a party to withhold that type of clarity and specificity and then spring it on Defendant and the Court at a future hearing; that is so for many reasons, including that (as is the case here) such a hearing may never occur. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/16/2024. (smg) (Entered: 10/16/2024)
2024-10-16
1
Oral Order
2024-10-16
1
No Actions
Oral Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions
2024-10-16
1
No Actions
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Postscript's Motion to Compel Production of Attentive Wiki Documents. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 10/22/2024)
2024-10-22
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION re 401 Letter, of Aditya V. Kamdar by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-5, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 10/22/2024)
2024-10-22
1
MOTION to Strike New Opinions in the Infringement Report of Nathaniel Polish - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Rule 7.1.1. Certification)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 10/23/2024)
2024-10-23
1
MOTION to Strike New Opinions in the Infringement Report of Nathaniel Polish - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Rule 7.1.1. Certification)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 10/23/2024)
2024-10-23
2
MOTION to Strike New Opinions in the Infringement Report of Nathaniel Polish - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Rule 7.1.1. Certification)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 10/23/2024)
2024-10-23
2
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. - re 403 MOTION to Strike New Opinions in the Infringement Report of Nathaniel Polish. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 10/23/2024)
2024-10-23
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION re 403 MOTION to Strike New Opinions in the Infringement Report of Nathaniel Polish of Hannah Jiam by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-G, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 10/23/2024)
2024-10-23
1
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Eric C. Wiener - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certification for Eric C. Wiener)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 10/24/2024)
2024-10-24
1
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Eric C. Wiener - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certification for Eric C. Wiener)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 10/24/2024)
2024-10-24
2
Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for Eric C. Wiener. ( re 406 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Eric C. Wiener )( Payment of $ 50, receipt number ADEDC-4532019).(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 10/24/2024)
2024-10-24
1
-District Court Pro Hac Vice Fee - 01 Attorney Credit Card Payment
2024-10-24
1
No Actions
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Expert Report of Douglas Kidder Regarding Damages and Exhibits filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 10/28/2024)
2024-10-28
1
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Opposition to Postscript's Motion to Compel - re 401 Letter,. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 10/28/2024)
2024-10-28
1
REDACTED VERSION of 409 Letter by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 10/29/2024)
2024-10-29
1
NOTICE requesting Clerk to remove Ryan A. Schmid as co-counsel. Reason for request: no longer with the firm. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 10/29/2024)
2024-10-29
1
REDACTED VERSION of 401 Letter, by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 10/30/2024)
2024-10-30
1
REDACTED VERSION of 402 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 10/30/2024)
2024-10-30
1
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Opposition to Postscript Motion to Strike - re 403 MOTION to Strike New Opinions in the Infringement Report of Nathaniel Polish. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Ex. B, # 3 Ex. C, # 4 Ex. D)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 10/30/2024)
2024-10-30
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 406 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Eric C. Wiener filed by Stodge Inc.. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/30/2024. (smg)
2024-10-30
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2024-10-30
1
No Actions
REDACTED VERSION of 404 Letter by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 10/31/2024)
2024-10-31
1
REDACTED VERSION of 405 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Pt. 2 of 2)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 10/31/2024)
2024-10-31
1
REDACTED VERSION of 405 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Pt. 2 of 2)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 10/31/2024)
2024-10-31
2
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Reply Postscript's Motion to Compel Production of Attentive Wiki Documents - re 378 Letter, 409 Letter, 398 Letter, 401 Letter, 399 Oral Order,,,,,,,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 6, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 10/31/2024)
2024-10-31
1
ORAL ORDER: With respect to the parties' discovery dispute, (see D.I. 399 ), the Court hereby ORDERS that, as required by the Court’s October 16, 2024 Oral Order, the parties shall file a joint "Motion to Resolve Discovery Dispute" by no later than November 4, 2024. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/1/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/01/2024)
2024-11-01
1
Joint MOTION to Resolve Discovery Dispute re 402 Declaration, 417 Letter, 409 Letter, 401 Letter, - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/01/2024)
2024-11-01
1
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Motion to Strike Portions of Postscript's Opening Invalidity Report. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Ex. B, # 3 Ex. C, # 4 Ex. D)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 11/01/2024)
2024-11-01
1
Oral Order
2024-11-01
1
No Actions
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney David Carter - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certification for David Carter)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
2024-11-04
1
Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for David Carter. ( re 421 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney David Carter )( Payment of $ 50, receipt number ADEDC-4539266).(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
2024-11-04
1
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Reply In Support of Motion to Strike Certain New Opinions in the Infringement Report of Nathaniel Polish - re 403 MOTION to Strike New Opinions in the Infringement Report of Nathaniel Polish. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
2024-11-04
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION re 423 Letter, of Raghav Krishnapriyan by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit H, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
2024-11-04
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that by no later than November 4, 2024, Plaintiff shall file, with respect to its Motion to Strike Portions of Postscript's Opening Invalidity Report, (see opening letter brief at D.I. 420 ): (1) a separate Motion; (2) a Rule 7.1.1. Statement; and (3) a proposed Order. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/4/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
2024-11-04
1
MOTION to Strike New Opinions in the Invalidity Report of Barbara Frederiksen (see D.I. 420) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
2024-11-04
1
MOTION to Strike Certain New Opinions in the Rebuttal Reports of David Kennedy/ Larry Tedesco and Nathaniel Polish - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Rule 7.1.1. Certification)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
2024-11-04
1
MOTION to Strike Certain New Opinions in the Rebuttal Reports of David Kennedy/ Larry Tedesco and Nathaniel Polish - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Rule 7.1.1. Certification)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
2024-11-04
2
MOTION to Strike Certain New Opinions in the Rebuttal Reports of David Kennedy/ Larry Tedesco and Nathaniel Polish - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Rule 7.1.1. Certification)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
2024-11-04
2
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding In Support of - re 427 MOTION to Strike Certain New Opinions in the Rebuttal Reports of David Kennedy/ Larry Tedesco and Nathaniel Polish. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
2024-11-04
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION re 427 MOTION to Strike Certain New Opinions in the Rebuttal Reports of David Kennedy/ Larry Tedesco and Nathaniel Polish of Bethany Bengfort by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-L, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
2024-11-04
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s discovery dispute motion (“Motion”), (D.I. 374 ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 352 ; D.I. 365 ; D.I. 372 ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) With regard to issue # 1, Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED, in that Defendant shall produce, for its 25 top customers by revenue, (D.I. 365 at 1), “[business intelligence] reports on an individual merchant basis regarding the number of subscribers that enrolled for promotional messages via certain broad categories of opt-in methods[,]” (D.I. 352, ex. 1 at 2), and shall do so by no later than 7 days from today’s date. Plaintiff explained why such discovery can be relevant to its infringement allegations, (D.I. 352 at 1), and Defendant has noted how it is possible for it to produce such documents, (D.I. 352, ex. 1 at 2). To the extent that the discovery leaves it still somewhat unclear how many of the enrollments relate to the accused two-touch technology, that is a problem for Plaintiff to attempt to surmount on another day.; (2) With regard to issue #2, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request appears to relate to an assertion that third-party providers do something that in turn relates to Defendant’s customers’ opt-in decisions. (D.I. 352 at 1-2) Both the Court and Defendant do not understand how this states a theory that Defendant is guilty of infringement, nor how such a theory was previously disclosed sufficiently in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions. (D.I. 365 at 1-2) And Plaintiff never really well explained the answer to either of those two questions. (D.I. 372 at 1); and (3) With regard to issue #3, Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED, and Defendant shall produce the documents at issue no later than 7 days from today’s date. Plaintiff explained how the materials are relevant to rebut a defense of Defendant, (D.I. 352 at 2), and Defendant’s response mainly focused on its own request for documents, (D.I. 365 at 2), which is not at issue here. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/4/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
2024-11-04
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Strike New Opinions in the Infringement Report of Nathaniel Polish (“Motion”), (D.I. 403 ), hereby ORDERS that the Court will plan to resolve the Motion on the papers, unless: (a) it determines after reviewing the briefing that oral argument is needed; or (b) any party advises the Court in advance that, were argument to be set, 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. If either of those circumstances occurs, then the Court will schedule oral argument on the Motion in the future. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/4/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
2024-11-04
1
Oral Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions
2024-11-04
1
No Actions
Oral Order
2024-11-04
1
No Actions
-District Court Pro Hac Vice Fee - 01 Attorney Credit Card Payment
2024-11-04
1
No Actions
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the deadlines for the parties to submit public redacted versions of Plaintiff's Opposition to Postscript Motion to Strike (D.I. 414) and Reply Letter to the Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. Regarding Postscript's Motion to Compel Production of Attentive Wiki Documents (D.I. 417) to November 12, 2024 - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/07/2024)
2024-11-07
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 421 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney David Carter filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/7/2024. (smg)
2024-11-07
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2024-11-07
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 432 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the deadlines for the parties to submit public redacted versions of Plaintiff's Opposition to Postscript Motion to Strike (D.I. 414 ) and Reply Letter to the Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. Regarding Postscript's Motion to Compel Production of Attentive Wiki Documents (D.I. 417 ) to November 12, 2024 - filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/7/2024. (smg)
2024-11-07
1
No Actions
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding scheduling a discovery teleconference. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/08/2024)
2024-11-08
1
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Postscript's Opposition to Attentive's Motion to Strike Portions of Postscript's Opening Invalidity Report - re 420 Letter. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/08/2024)
2024-11-08
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION re 434 Letter, of Hannah Jiam by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-12, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/08/2024)
2024-11-08
1
SO ORDERED
2024-11-08
1
No Actions
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Plaintiff's Reply re Motion to Strike Postscript's Opening Invalidity Report. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 11/12/2024)
2024-11-12
1
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Opposition to Postscript Motion to Strike Opinions in Attentive Rebuttal Reports (D.I. 427). (Attachments: # 1 Exs. M - S)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 11/12/2024)
2024-11-12
1
REDACTED VERSION of 423 Letter, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/12/2024)
2024-11-12
1
REDACTED VERSION of 424 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/12/2024)
2024-11-12
1
REDACTED VERSION of 428 Letter, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/12/2024)
2024-11-12
1
REDACTED VERSION of 417 Letter, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/12/2024)
2024-11-12
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the deadline for the parties to submit public redacted version of the Declaration of Bethany Bengfort In Support of Postscript's Motion to Strike Certain New Opinions in the Rebuttal Reports of David Kennedy/Larry Tedesco and Nathaniel Polish (D.I. 429) to November 14, 2024 - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/12/2024)
2024-11-12
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael J. Flynn regarding Plaintiff Attentive Mobile Inc.'s Request for Teleconference - re 426 MOTION to Strike New Opinions in the Invalidity Report of Barbara Frederiksen (see D.I. 420). (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 11/12/2024)
2024-11-12
1
Pro Hac Vice Attorney Eric C. Wiener for Stodge 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. (cdd)
2024-11-12
1
No Actions
Add Attorneys - PHV only
2024-11-12
1
No Actions
Pro Hac Vice Attorney David Carter for Stodge 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. (cdd)
2024-11-12
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike New Opinions in the Invalidity Report of Barbara Frederiksen (“Motion”), (D.I. 426 ), hereby ORDERS that the Court will plan to resolve the Motion on the papers, unless: (a) it determines after reviewing the briefing that oral argument is needed; or (b) any party advises the Court in advance that, were argument to be set, 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. If either of those circumstances occurs, then the Court will schedule oral argument on the Motion in the future. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/13/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/13/2024)
2024-11-13
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court has reviewed the parties' November 8, 2024 letter requesting a discovery dispute conference as to two new disputes, (D.I. 433 ); this will mean that the parties have now brought 14 different discovery disputes to the Court for resolution since February. (See D.I. 142 ; D.I. 168 ; D.I. 250 ; D.I. 308 ; D.I. 332 ; D.I. 333 ; D.I. 378 ; D.I. 382 ; D.I. 433 ; see also D.I. 216 ; D.I. 343 ; D.I. 398 ) The parties also have filed 3 pending motions to strike. (D.I. 403 ; D.I. 426 ; D.I. 427 ) This is a very large number of disputes, even for a patent case. Accordingly, the parties should be aware that in reviewing the new discovery disputes, the Court will consider whether (depending on the outcome) ordering the payment of expenses, including attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5), is appropriate. With regard to the two new discovery disputes, they seem to raise the same issue (i.e., whether each side should be required to produce Board decks). (D.I. 433 ) Therefore, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) By November 19, 2024, Plaintiff shall file a letter, not to exceed two (2) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining the issues in dispute and its position on those issues.; (2) By November 26, 2024, Defendant shall file a letter, not to exceed two (2) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining its position on the issues in dispute.; (3) By December 3, 2024, Plaintiff shall file a reply letter brief, not to exceed one (1) single-spaced page, in no less than 12-point font.; (4) By December 6, 2024, Defendant shall file a sur-reply letter brief, not to exceed one (1) single-spaced page, in no less than 12-point font.; (5) By December 6, 2024, the parties shall file a Motion To Resolve Discovery Dispute.; (6) The parties should also 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.; and (7) The Court will plan to resolve the disputes on the papers, unless: (a) it determines after reviewing the briefing that oral argument is needed; or (b) any party advises the Court in advance that, were argument to be set, a newer attorney will argue the disputes, see Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/StandingOrder2017.pdf. If either of those circumstances, occurs, then the Court will schedule oral argument on the disputes in the future. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/13/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/13/2024)
2024-11-13
1
NOTICE of Subsequent Development by Mindy Regnell (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Vrana, Robert) (Entered: 11/13/2024)
2024-11-13
1
NOTICE of Subsequent Development by Mindy Regnell (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Vrana, Robert) (Entered: 11/13/2024)
2024-11-13
2
Oral Order
2024-11-13
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2024-11-13
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 442 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the deadline for the parties to submit public redacted version of the Declaration of Bethany Bengfort In Support of Postscript's Motion to Strike Certain New Opinions in the Rebuttal Reports of David Kennedy/Larry Te desco and Nathaniel Polish (D.I. 429 ) to November 14, 2024 filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/13/2024. (smg)
2024-11-13
1
No Actions
REDACTED VERSION of 429 Declaration, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/14/2024)
2024-11-14
1
Deficiency re Courtesy Copies (CJB cases)
2024-11-14
1
No Actions
NOTICE: Per Magistrate Judge Burke's Standing Order Regarding Courtesy Copies, which requires two (2) courtesy copies of all briefs (including letter briefs), as well as any documents filed in support of such briefs (i.e., appendices, exhibits, declarations, affidavits, tutorials, etc.) and one (1) copy of any other document filed (e.g., letters and stipulations), please submit to the Clerk's Office two copies of D.I. # 446 . (smg)
2024-11-14
1
No Actions
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Reply In Support of Motion to Strike Certain New Opinions in the Rebuttal Reports of David Kennedy/ Larry Tedesco and Nathaniel Polish - re 427 MOTION to Strike Certain New Opinions in the Rebuttal Reports of David Kennedy/ Larry Tedesco and Nathaniel Polish. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/15/2024)
2024-11-15
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION re 448 Letter, of Bethany Bengfort by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit T-V, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/15/2024)
2024-11-15
1
NOTICE of Subsequent Development by Mindy Regnell (CORRECTED) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Vrana, Robert) (Entered: 11/15/2024)
2024-11-15
1
NOTICE of Subsequent Development by Mindy Regnell (CORRECTED) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Vrana, Robert) (Entered: 11/15/2024)
2024-11-15
2
REDACTED VERSION of 434 Letter, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/15/2024)
2024-11-15
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Strike Certain New Opinions in the Rebuttal Reports of David Kennedy/Larry Tedesco and Nathaniel Polish (“Motion”), (D.I. 427 ), hereby ORDERS that the Court will plan to resolve the Motion on the papers, unless: (a) it determines after reviewing the briefing that oral argument is needed; or (b) any party advises the Court in advance that, were argument to be set, 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. If either of those circumstances occurs, then the Court will schedule oral argument on the Motion in the future. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/18/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/18/2024)
2024-11-18
1
REDACTED VERSION of 435 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 11/18/2024)
2024-11-18
1
Oral Order
2024-11-18
1
No Actions
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Notice of Newer Attorney to Argue Motion - re 452 Oral Order,,,. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/19/2024)
2024-11-19
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding resolution of discovery disputes - re 433 Letter, 445 Oral Order,,,,,,,,,,,. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 11/19/2024)
2024-11-19
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' November 19, 2024 letter, (D.I. 455 ), hereby ORDERS that the briefing deadlines set forth in the Court's November 13, 2024 Oral Order are vacated. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/19/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/20/2024)
2024-11-19
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having considered Defendant’s letter indicating that a newer attorney would argue its pending Motion to Strike Certain New Opinions in the Rebuttal Reports of David Kennedy/Larry Tedesco and Nathaniel Polish (“Motion”), (D.I. 454 ), and pursuant to the Court's Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) A videoconference to hear argument on the Motion, (D.I. 427 ), is set for December 9, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. before Judge Christopher J. Burke via the Microsoft Teams platform. By no later than December 2, 2024, the parties shall send an e-mail to the Court's Courtroom Deputy, Ms. Grimes, indicating the names and e-mail addresses of all individuals who will participate in the hearing.; and (2) The Court will ensure that sufficient time is permitted for argument, and will permit experienced counsel to provide assistance when appropriate. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/19/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/20/2024)
2024-11-19
1
Oral Order
2024-11-20
1
No Actions
Oral Order AND ~Util - Set Hearings
2024-11-20
1
No Actions
REDACTED VERSION of 448 Letter, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/22/2024)
2024-11-22
1
REDACTED VERSION of 449 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/22/2024)
2024-11-22
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Response to Notice of Subsequent Development (D.I. 446, 450). (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Ex. B)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 11/25/2024)
2024-11-25
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Response to Notice of Subsequent Development (D.I. 446, 450). (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Ex. B)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 11/25/2024)
2024-11-25
2
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Response to Notice of Subsequent Development (D.I. 446, 450). (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Ex. B)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 11/25/2024)
2024-11-25
2
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for Certain Case Deadlines to (See Stipulation for Details) - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 11/25/2024)
2024-11-25
1
ORAL ORDER: It has become clear to the Court that for a hearing on summary judgment and/or Daubert motions to be most fruitful and focused, it makes best sense to require the parties to each select one motion that they will offer argument on to the Court. This will allow for a detailed and focused argument regarding what the parties believe to be their most important motion, and will allow the Court to meaningfully prepare for argument. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that by no later than January 13, 2025, the parties shall submit a joint letter advising the Court of the motion that each respective side selects to be argued at the January 23, 2025 hearing. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/27/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/27/2024)
2024-11-27
1
ORAL ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that to the extent that the parties have not already attempted mediation, the parties shall engage in in-person mediation in good faith. The parties are to jointly hire an agreed-upon mediator. The precise timing of mediation efforts is left to the discretion of the parties, but the mediation conference shall occur no later than January 31, 2025 (unless the parties stipulate to a later date and such date is approved by the Court). No later than one week after the mediation, the parties shall submit a joint statement that identifies the mediator, the lead counsel for each party at the mediation and the length of the mediation, as well as a certification by the lead counsel that they have engaged in the mediation efforts in good faith. The joint statement should not disclose the substance of any offers, counteroffers, or other negotiations. If the parties anticipate any further mediation efforts will be conducted after the deadline to submit the joint statement, the parties shall indicate that in their submission and state when those efforts are expected to occur. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/27/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/27/2024)
2024-11-27
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Non-Party Mindy Regnell to Appear for a Deposition ("Motion"), (D.I. 395 ), which the Court will also effectively treat as a motion to quash (“motion to quash”) brought by Ms. Regnell, see MV Louisville, LLC v. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-00506-RGJ-CHL, 2022 WL 4225766, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 13, 2022), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 388 ; D.I. 392 ; D.I. 397 ; D.I. 450 ; D.I. 460 ), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is DENIED (and that the motion to quash, relatedly, is GRANTED), for the reasons that follow: (1) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 requires discovery to be relevant to a party's claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). And Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A) requires courts to “quash or modify a subpoena that... subjects a person to undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). “When analyzing whether a subpoena places an undue burden on a nonparty, courts consider issues [including] relevance[.]” Ebert v. C.R. Bard, Inc., Civil No. 1:13-MC-277, 2014 WL 1365889, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 7, 2014); see also In re TQ Delta, Civil Action No. 17-mc-328-RGA, 2018 WL 5033756, at *2 (D. Del. Oct. 17, 2018).; (2) Defendant argues, inter alia, that Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated that Ms. Regnell has non-duplicative knowledge of any relevant facts. (D.I. 392 at 2) The Court agrees with Defendant on this point. In Plaintiff’s opening brief, it set out two reasons why Ms. Regnell has relevant, unique knowledge regarding disputed issues in the case. First, Plaintiff asserted that Ms. Regnell could explain “how Postscript obtained Attentive’s pricing documents[.]” (D.I. 388 at 2) In its answering brief, Defendant responded that "the issue of whether or how Postscript might have obtained Attentive's pricing documents has no relevance whatsoever to Attentive's patent infringement claims against Postscript[.]" (D.I. 392 at 2) In its reply brief, Plaintiff never responded to this point. (D.I. 397 at 1) And so the Court is left wondering how any explanation of how Defendant obtained Plaintiff’s pricing documents is relevant to the claims and defenses in the case. The other reason Plaintiff gave regarding Ms. Regnell's unique knowledge is that she can testify about “how, why and when information was obtained by and documents were created by Ms. Regnell.” (Id.; D.I. 388 at 2) But Plaintiff shed no meaningful further light on what documents it is referring to, what information is in these documents, or how that information is relevant to the claims and defenses at issue here. (See D.I. 388 at 2 (Plaintiff asserting in its opening brief that Ms. Regnell can also testify about “multiple documents that relate to Postcript’s pricing and competition with Attentive that Ms. Regnell authored or had in her possession” but failing to provide the Court with any such documents or a declaration that would make this anything more than vague attorney argument)); and (3) Having failed to demonstrate why Ms. Regnell has non-duplicative knowledge of any relevant facts, a grant of the Motion would place an undue burden on Ms. Regnell. Therefore, the Motion must be denied, and the motion to quash granted. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/27/2024. (smg) (Entered: 12/02/2024)
2024-11-27
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 461 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for Certain Case Deadlines to (See Stipulation for Details) filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/27/2024. (smg)
2024-11-27
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED AND ~Util - Set Deadlines
2024-11-27
1
No Actions
Oral Order
2024-11-27
1
No Actions
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver regarding request for the scheduling of a discovery dispute teleconference. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/02/2024)
2024-12-02
1
Oral Order
2024-12-02
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: The Court has reviewed the parties' December 2, 2024 letter requesting a discovery dispute conference as to one new dispute, (D.I. 465 ); this will mean that the parties have now brought well over a dozen different discovery disputes to the Court for resolution since February. (See D.I. 142 ; D.I. 168 ; D.I. 250 ; D.I. 308 ; D.I. 332 ; D.I. 333 ; D.I. 378 ; D.I. 382 ; D.I. 433 ; D.I. 465 ; see also D.I. 216 ; D.I. 343 ; D.I. 398 ; D.I. 455 ) The parties also have filed three pending motions to strike. (D.I. 403 ; D.I. 426 ; D.I. 427 ) As the Court has previously indicated, this is a very large number of disputes, even for a patent case. (D.I. 381 ; D.I. 445 ; see also D.I. 337 ) Accordingly, the parties should be aware that in reviewing the new discovery dispute, the Court will consider whether (depending on the outcome) ordering the payment of expenses, including attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5), is appropriate. With respect to the new discovery dispute, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) By December 6, 2024, the party seeking relief shall file a letter, not to exceed two (2) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining the issues in dispute and its position on those issues.; (2) By December 11, 2024, the party opposing the application for relief shall file a letter, not to exceed two (2) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining that party's reasons for its opposition.; (3) By December 16, 2024, the party seeking relief shall file a reply letter brief, not to exceed one (1) single-spaced page, in no less than 12-point font.; (4) By December 16, 2024, the parties shall file a Motion To Resolve Discovery Dispute.; (5) The parties should also 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.; and (6) The Court will plan to resolve the dispute on the papers, unless: (a) it determines after reviewing the briefing that oral argument is needed; or (b) any party advises the Court in advance that, were argument to be set, 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. If either of those circumstances, occurs, then the Court will schedule oral argument on the dispute in the future. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/3/2024. (smg) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
[SEALED] MOTION for Summary Judgment on Attentive's Claims of Infringement of the '887, '897, and '074 Patents (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 1) - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
[SEALED] MOTION for Summary Judgment on Invalidity of Attentive's '887, '897, and '074 patents (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 2) - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
[SEALED] MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Obviousness of Postscript's '660 Patent (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 3) - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
OPENING BRIEF in Support re 469 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 12/17/2024. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
[SEALED] MOTION for Summary Judgment that Clark, Orr, and Samuel Do Not Anticipate Postscript's '660 Patent (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 4) - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
STATEMENT re 469 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
DECLARATION re 469 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Declaration of Brian D. Hill) - by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1-4)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
[SEALED] STATEMENT re 467 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Attentive's Claims of Infringement of the '887, '897, and '074 Patents (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 1) by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
[SEALED] OPENING BRIEF in Support re 476 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 12/17/2024. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
[SEALED] STATEMENT re 476 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
[SEALED] STATEMENT re 468 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Invalidity of Attentive's '887, '897, and '074 patents (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 2) by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION re 476 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 (Declaration of SaiPranay Vellala) by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1-4)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
[SEALED] STATEMENT re 470 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Obviousness of Postscript's '660 Patent (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 3) by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
[SEALED] OPENING BRIEF in Support re 482 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 12/17/2024. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
[SEALED] STATEMENT re 472 MOTION for Summary Judgment that Clark, Orr, and Samuel Do Not Anticipate Postscript's '660 Patent (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 4) by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
[SEALED] STATEMENT re 482 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION re 482 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 (Declaration of Rahul Sarkar) by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1-5)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
[SEALED] OPENING BRIEF in Support re 470 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Obviousness of Postscript's '660 Patent (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 3), 467 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Attentive's Claims of Infringement of the '887, '897, and '074 Patents (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 1), 472 MOTION for Summary Judgment that Clark, Orr, and Samuel Do Not Anticipate Postscript's '660 Patent (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 4), 468 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Invalidity of Attentive's '887, '897, and '074 patents (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 2) filed by Stodge Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 12/17/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION re 470 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Obviousness of Postscript's '660 Patent (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 3), 467 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Attentive's Claims of Infringement of the '887, '897, and '074 Patents (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 1), 472 MOTION for Summary Judgment that Clark, Orr, and Samuel Do Not Anticipate Postscript's '660 Patent (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 4), 468 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Invalidity of Attentive's '887, '897, and '074 patents (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 2) of Barbara Frederiksen by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION re 487 Opening Brief in Support,,, of Hannah Jiam by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-10, # 2 Exhibit 11-17, # 3 Exhibit 18, # 4 Exhibit 19, # 5 Exhibit 20 - Pt.1 of 2, # 6 Exhibit 20 - Pt. 2 of 2, # 7 Exhibit 21-25, # 8 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Attachment 1 replaced on 12/10/2024) (smg). (Attachment 1 replaced on 12/30/2024) (smg). (Attachment 2 replaced on 12/30/2024) (smg). (Entered: 12/03/2024)
2024-12-03
1
Oral Order
2024-12-03
1
No Actions
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Discovery Dispute - re 465 Letter, 466 Oral Order,,,,,,,,,,. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/06/2024)
2024-12-06
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION re 490 Letter, Declaration of Hannah Jiam In Support of Opening Letter Brief Regarding Discovery Dispute by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A-C, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/06/2024)
2024-12-06
1
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Christopher J. Burke - Videoconference hearing held on 12/9/2024 regarding Defendant's Motion to Strike Certain New Opinions in the Rebuttal Reports of David Kennedy/Larry Tedesco and Nathaniel Polish, (D.I. 427 ). The Court heard the parties' arguments regarding the motion. The Court denied as moot the portion of the motion asserting that the reports advance a new prior art theory. The Court took the remainder of the motion under advisement. (Court reporter: Deanna Warner; Clerk: M. Crawford) Appearances: M. Flynn and B. Eutermoser for Plaintiff; Joyce, J. Li and B. Bengfort for Defendant. (smg)
2024-12-09
1
No Actions
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to file the public versions of their Motions for Summary Judgment, Opening Briefs, Statements of Fact and Supporting Declarations filed at D.I. 467-468, 470, 472, 475, 477-481 and 483-489 to December 17, 2024 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/10/2024)
2024-12-10
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the remaining unresolved portion of Defendant’s motion to strike (“motion”) certain opinions found in the rebuttal reports of Plaintiff’s damages experts Mr. David Kennedy/Mr. Larry Tedesco and of Plaintiff’s non-infringement expert Dr. Nathaniel Polish, (D.I. 427 ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 428 ; D.I. 437 ; D.I. 448 ), and having held a videoconference on the motion on December 9, 2024, hereby ORDERS that this portion of the motion—relating to Plaintiff’s theory (“the theory”) that limits the royalty base for damages for the 660 patent to messages sent to recipients who clicked a previous message and did not purchase—is DENIED in the manner and for the reasons that follow: (1) The first step here is to determine whether Plaintiff’s theory (and an Excel spreadsheet containing data in support of the theory, or “the spreadsheet”) was put forward in an untimely fashion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. The Court concludes it was not. Plaintiff argues that the theory and spreadsheet are not untimely because it was only first tipped off to the need to put forward the theory/spreadsheet when it saw Defendant’s opening expert report on damages, in which Defendant’s damages expert opined that every message sent using Plaintiff’s accused platform was relevant to the purported royalty base. (D.I. 437 at 2) Defendant attempts to counter this assertion and explain why Plaintiff should have been aware much earlier (i.e., during the fact discovery period) of Defendant’s damages position in this regard—and of the need to combat that position by disclosing the theory/spreadsheet during fact discovery. In trying to make this case, Defendant cites to its responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory (“ROG”) No. 20; Defendant says it disclosed its relevant damages position as to the royalty base in its answers to ROG No. 20. (D.I. 448 at 1) But the Court has read those responses, (D.I. 449, ex. T at 8-9, 12), which (like Plaintiff’s ROG responses as to damages-related questions) were pretty bare bones. And the Court does not see where in those responses, Defendant clearly explained that the damages base for its reasonable royalty calculations would include revenues relating to the increase in all campaign-related messages sent in the relevant time period. Indeed, the two ROG responses (the second of which was provided just weeks before expert discovery began) do not explicitly address the relevant royalty base at all.; and (2) With Plaintiff having not made an untimely response, the motion must be denied. That said, the reality is that Plaintiff produced the spreadsheet during expert discovery, which is very late in the game. And Plaintiff has offered Defendant the ability to take a deposition of Plaintiff’s employee who prepared the spreadsheet. (D.I. 437 at 5) That seems fair and equitable in light of the circumstances here. Therefore, the Court will also ORDER that Defendant may take this deposition, with the details regarding timing and length of the deposition to be worked out by the parties. If a supplemental expert report is needed, the parties can work out the logistics as to that too. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/10/2024. (smg) (Entered: 12/10/2024)
2024-12-10
1
REDACTED VERSION of 490 Letter, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/10/2024)
2024-12-10
1
REDACTED VERSION of 491 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/10/2024)
2024-12-10
1
CORRECTING ENTRY: Attachment 1 to D.I. 489 has been replaced per request of filing counsel to replace incorrect exhibit. (smg)
2024-12-10
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 492 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to file the public versions of their Motions for Summary Judgment, Opening Briefs, Statements of Fact and Supporting Declarations filed at D.I. 467-468, 470, 472, 475, 477-481 and 483-489 to December 17, 2024 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/10/2024. (smg)
2024-12-10
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2024-12-10
1
No Actions
Oral Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions
2024-12-10
1
No Actions
- CORRECTING ENTRY
2024-12-10
1
No Actions
Motion Hearing
2024-12-10
1
No Actions
Official Transcript of Motion to Strike held on 12/9/24 before Judge Christopher Burke. Court Reporter Deanna Warner, Email: deanna_warner@ded.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or order/purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 1/1/2025. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/13/2025. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/11/2025. (Warner, Deanna) (Entered: 12/11/2024)
2024-12-11
1
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Opposition to Postscript's Request to Strike the Confidentiality Designation of Portions of Daniel Blynn's Deposition. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/11/2024)
2024-12-11
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Brian Eutermoser in response to D.I. 497 Letter by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) Modified on 12/16/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/11/2024)
2024-12-11
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Daniel S. Blynn in response to D.I. 497 Letter by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) Modified on 12/16/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/11/2024)
2024-12-11
1
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Discovery Dispute Reply - re 465 Letter. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/16/2024)
2024-12-16
1
DECLARATION of Hannah Jiam re D.I. 500 Letter by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D)(Silver, Daniel) Modified on 12/16/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/16/2024)
2024-12-16
1
DECLARATION of Hannah Jiam re D.I. 500 Letter by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D)(Silver, Daniel) Modified on 12/16/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/16/2024)
2024-12-16
2
DECLARATION of Alexandra M. Joyce, Esq. re D.I. 500 Letter by Stodge Inc. (Silver, Daniel) Modified on 12/16/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/16/2024)
2024-12-16
1
MOTION to Resolve Discovery Dispute re 497 Letter, 499 Declaration, 500 Letter, 498 Declaration, 502 Declaration, 491 Declaration, 490 Letter, 501 Declaration - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/16/2024)
2024-12-16
1
STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 12/17/2024)
2024-12-17
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the deadline for the parties to file the public versions of their Motions for Summary Judgment, Opening Briefs, Statements of Fact, and Supporting Declarations filed at D.I. 467-468, 470, 472, 475, 477-481 and 483-489 to December 30, 2024 - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 12/17/2024)
2024-12-17
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 505 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the deadline for the parties to file the public versions of their Motions for Summary Judgment, Opening Briefs, Statements of Fact, and Supporting Declarations filed at D.I. 467-468, 470, 472, 475, 477-481 and 483-489 to December 30, 2024 filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/18/2024. (smg)
2024-12-18
1
No Actions
NOTICE: Per Magistrate Judge Burke's Standing Order Regarding Courtesy Copies, which requires two (2) courtesy copies of all briefs (including letter briefs), as well as any documents filed in support of such briefs (i.e., appendices, exhibits, declarations, affidavits, tutorials, etc.) and one (1) copy of any other document filed (e.g., letters and stipulations), please submit to the Clerk's Office two copies of D.I. # 497, 498, and 499 . (smg)
2024-12-18
1
No Actions
Deficiency re Courtesy Copies (CJB cases)
2024-12-18
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2024-12-18
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 504 Stipulation filed by Stodge Inc. (Summary Judgment/Daubert motions related to damages and non-infringing alternatives: December 20, 2024. Summary Judgment/Daubert oppositions related to damages and non-infringing alternatives: January 8, 2025. Summary Judgment/Daubert replies related to damages and non-infringing alternatives: January 16, 2025.) Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/19/2024. (smg)
2024-12-19
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED AND ~Util - Set Deadlines
2024-12-19
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: The Court hereby advises the parties that this case is currently double-booked for trial on May 19, 2025, and the other case would take precedence if both cases are ready to be tried on that date. That said, the Court also has other weeks available for trial soon thereafter (these include the weeks of June 2, 2025; June 9, 2025; June 23, 2025; August 25, 2025; September 8, 2025; and September 15, 2025). If the parties wish to have their own dedicated week for trial, the Court can move the trial date. The Court hereby ORDERS that the parties shall meet and confer and submit a joint letter by no later than January 3, 2025 indicating whether there is joint agreement to move the trial (and if so, which of the weeks listed above would jointly work for the parties). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/20/2024. (smg) (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
[SEALED] ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re 470 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Obviousness of Postscript's '660 Patent (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 3), 467 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Attentive's Claims of Infringement of the '887, '897, and '074 Patents (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 1), 472 MOTION for Summary Judgment that Clark, Orr, and Samuel Do Not Anticipate Postscript's '660 Patent (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 4), 468 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Invalidity of Attentive's '887, '897, and '074 patents (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 2) filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 12/27/2024. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
[SEALED] Plaintiff And Counterclaim-Defendant Attentive Mobile, Inc.'s Concise STATEMENT Of Facts In Support Of Its Response To Postscript's D.I. 467 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Attentive's Claims of Infringement of the '887, '897, and '074 Patents (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 1) by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Flynn, Michael) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
RESPONSE in Opposition to D.I. 479 Postscript's Concise Statement Of Facts In Support Of D.I. 468 Motion For Summary Judgment On Invalidity Of Attentives '887, '897, And '074 Patents (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 2) - by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Flynn, Michael) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
Concise STATEMENT of Facts In Support of D.I. 509 Plaintiff Attentive Mobile Inc.'s Opposition To D.I. 468 Postscript's Motion For Summary Judgment On Invalidity Of Attentive's '887, '897, And '074 Patents (No. 2) and D.I. 479 Postscript's Concise Statement Of Facts -- by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Flynn, Michael) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
RESPONSE in Opposition to D.I. 481 Postscript's Concise Statement Of Facts In Support Of D.I. 470 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Obviousness of Postscript's '660 Patent (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 3) by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Flynn, Michael) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
Concise STATEMENT Of Facts In Support of D.I. 511 Response in Opposition to D.I. 481 Postscript's Concise Statement Of Facts In Support Of D.I. 470 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Obviousness of Postscript's '660 Patent (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 3) by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Flynn, Michael) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
RESPONSE In Opposition to D.I. 484 Postscript's Concise Statement Of Facts In Support Of D.I. 472 MOTION for Summary Judgment that Clark, Orr, and Samuel Do Not Anticipate Postscript's '660 Patent (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 4) -- by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Flynn, Michael) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
Concise STATEMENT Of Facts In Support of D.I. 513 Response In Opposition to D.I. 484 Postscript's Concise Statement Of Facts In Support Of D.I. 472 MOTION for Summary Judgment that Clark, Orr, and Samuel Do Not Anticipate Postscript's '660 Patent (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 4) -- by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Flynn, Michael) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Rahul Sarkar in Support of D.I. 511 Statement, D.I. 514 Statement, D.I. 512 Statement, D.I. 509 Statement, D.I. 510 Statement, D.I. 513 Statement, D.I. 508 Statement by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A-D)(Flynn, Michael) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
[SEALED] ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re 469 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 filed by Stodge Inc..Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 12/27/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
RESPONSE In Opposition to D.I. 473 Plaintiff's Concise Statement of Facts by Stodge Inc. (Silver, Daniel) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
[SEALED] Concise STATEMENT of Facts in Support of D.I. 517 RESPONSE In Opposition to D.I. 473 Plaintiff's Concise Statement of Facts - by Stodge Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
MOTION to Preclude the Damages Opinions of Douglas Kidder - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
[SEALED] OPENING BRIEF in Support re 519 MOTION to Preclude the Damages Opinions of Douglas Kidder - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 1/3/2025. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Sara Doudar in Support of D.I. 516 Answering Brief in Opposition by Stodge Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-14, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Brian Eutermoser in Support of D.I. 519 MOTION to Preclude the Damages Opinions of Douglas Kidder by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. 1-8)(Flynn, Michael) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re 482 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 filed by Stodge Inc..Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 12/27/2024. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
RESPONSE in Opposition to D.I. 485 Concise Statement of Facts in Support of D.I. 482 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 by Stodge Inc. (Silver, Daniel) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
[SEALED] Concise STATEMENT of Facts in Support of D.I. 524 Response in Opposition to D.I. 485 Concise Statement of Facts in Support of D.I. 482 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
DECLARATION of Alexander Meyer in Support of D.I. 523 Answering Brief in Opposition - by Stodge Inc. (Silver, Daniel) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
DECLARATION of Colin Turner in Support of D.I. 523 Answering Brief in Opposition by Stodge Inc. (Silver, Daniel) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
DECLARATION of Dan Glazer in Support of D.I. 523 Answering Brief in Opposition by Stodge Inc. (Silver, Daniel) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Joyce C. Li in Support of D.I. 523 Answering Brief in Opposition by Stodge Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-F, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
[SEALED] ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re 476 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 filed by Stodge Inc..Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 12/27/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
[SEALED] RESPONSE in Opposition to D.I. 478 Attentive Mobile Inc.'s Concise Statement of Facts In Support of D.I. 476 Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 by Stodge Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
[SEALED] Concise STATEMENT of Facts in Support of D.I. 530 Answering Brief in Opposition by Stodge Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Bethany Bengfort in Support of D.I. 530 Answering Brief in Opposition, by Stodge Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-8, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
MOTION for Summary Judgment on Damages - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
MOTION for Summary Judgment on Damages - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
2
[SEALED] Concise STATEMENT of Facts in Support of D.I. 534 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Damages by Stodge Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Damages Expert Mr. David Kennedy Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Rule 7.1.1. Certification)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Damages Expert Mr. David Kennedy Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Rule 7.1.1. Certification)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
2
MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Damages Expert Mr. David Kennedy Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Rule 7.1.1. Certification)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
2
MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Technical Expert Dr. Nathaniel Polish Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Rule 7.1.1. Certification)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Technical Expert Dr. Nathaniel Polish Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Rule 7.1.1. Certification)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
2
MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Technical Expert Dr. Nathaniel Polish Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Rule 7.1.1. Certification)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
2
MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's TCPA Expert Mr. Daniel Blynn Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Rule 7.1.1. Certification)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's TCPA Expert Mr. Daniel Blynn Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Rule 7.1.1. Certification)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
2
MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's TCPA Expert Mr. Daniel Blynn Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Rule 7.1.1. Certification)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
2
[SEALED] OPENING BRIEF in Support re 537 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Technical Expert Dr. Nathaniel Polish Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert, 536 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Damages Expert Mr. David Kennedy Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert, 538 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's TCPA Expert Mr. Daniel Blynn Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert, 534 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Damages filed by Stodge Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 1/3/2025. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Eric C. Wiener in Support of D.I. 537 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Technical Expert Dr. Nathaniel Polish Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert, 536 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Damages Expert Mr. David Kennedy Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert, 538 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's TCPA Expert Mr. Daniel Blynn Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert, 534 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Damages by Stodge Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-14, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Adam Turner in Support of D.I. 537 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Technical Expert Dr. Nathaniel Polish Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert, 536 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Damages Expert Mr. David Kennedy Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert, 538 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's TCPA Expert Mr. Daniel Blynn Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert, 534 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Damages by Stodge Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Douglas Kidder in Support of D.I. 537 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Technical Expert Dr. Nathaniel Polish Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert, 536 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Damages Expert Mr. David Kennedy Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert, 538 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's TCPA Expert Mr. Daniel Blynn Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert, 534 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Damages by Stodge Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) Modified on 12/26/2024 (smg). (Entered: 12/20/2024)
2024-12-20
1
Oral Order
2024-12-20
1
No Actions
REDACTED VERSION of 500 Letter by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 12/23/2024)
2024-12-23
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the deadline to file the public versions of their Answering Briefs in Opposition to Motions for Summary Judgment, their Opening Briefs in Support of their Motions for Summary Judgment and Daubert related to damages, Statements of Fact, and Supporting Declarations filed at D.I. 507, 508, 515, 516, 518, 520-522, 525, 529-533, 535, and 539-542 to January 8, 2025 - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/23/2024)
2024-12-23
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 544 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the deadline to file the public versions of their Answering Briefs in Opposition to Motions for Summary Judgment, their Opening Briefs in Support of their Motions for Summary Judgment and Daubert related to damages, Statements of Fact, and Supporting Declarations filed at D.I. 507, 508, 515, 516, 518, 520-522, 525, 529-533, 535, and 539-542 to January 8, 2025 filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/26/2024. (smg)
2024-12-26
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2024-12-26
1
No Actions
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to submit a joint letter to January 10, 2025 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/30/2024)
2024-12-30
1
REDACTED VERSION of 477 Opening Brief in Support, by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/30/2024)
2024-12-30
1
REDACTED VERSION of 478 Statement by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/30/2024)
2024-12-30
1
REDACTED VERSION of 480 Declaration by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. 1-4)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/30/2024)
2024-12-30
1
REDACTED VERSION of 480 Declaration by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. 1-4)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/30/2024)
2024-12-30
2
REDACTED VERSION of 483 Opening Brief in Support, by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/30/2024)
2024-12-30
1
REDACTED VERSION of 485 Statement by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/30/2024)
2024-12-30
1
REDACTED VERSION of 486 Declaration by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. 1-5)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/30/2024)
2024-12-30
1
REDACTED VERSION of 486 Declaration by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. 1-5)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/30/2024)
2024-12-30
2
CORRECTING ENTRY: Attachment 1 and 2 to D.I. 489 have been replaced per request of filing counsel to replace incorrect exhibits. (smg)
2024-12-30
1
No Actions
- CORRECTING ENTRY
2024-12-30
1
No Actions
REDACTED VERSION of 467 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Attentive's Claims of Infringement of the '887, '897, and '074 Patents (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 1) by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/31/2024)
2024-12-31
1
REDACTED VERSION of 468 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Invalidity of Attentive's '887, '897, and '074 patents (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 2) by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/31/2024)
2024-12-31
1
REDACTED VERSION of 470 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Obviousness of Postscript's '660 Patent (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 3) by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/31/2024)
2024-12-31
1
REDACTED VERSION of 472 MOTION for Summary Judgment that Clark, Orr, and Samuel Do Not Anticipate Postscript's '660 Patent (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 4) by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/31/2024)
2024-12-31
1
REDACTED VERSION of 475 Statement, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/31/2024)
2024-12-31
1
REDACTED VERSION of 479 Statement, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/31/2024)
2024-12-31
1
REDACTED VERSION of 481 Statement by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/31/2024)
2024-12-31
1
REDACTED VERSION of 484 Statement, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/31/2024)
2024-12-31
1
REDACTED VERSION of 487 Opening Brief in Support,,, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/31/2024)
2024-12-31
1
REDACTED VERSION of 488 Declaration,,, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/31/2024)
2024-12-31
1
REDACTED VERSION of 489 Declaration, by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1-10, # 2 Ex. 11-17, # 3 Ex. 18, # 4 Ex. 19, # 5 Ex. 20 pt. 1, # 6 Ex. 20 pt. 2, # 7 Ex. 21-25)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/31/2024)
2024-12-31
1
REDACTED VERSION of 489 Declaration, by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1-10, # 2 Ex. 11-17, # 3 Ex. 18, # 4 Ex. 19, # 5 Ex. 20 pt. 1, # 6 Ex. 20 pt. 2, # 7 Ex. 21-25)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/31/2024)
2024-12-31
2
REDACTED VERSION of 489 Declaration, by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1-10, # 2 Ex. 11-17, # 3 Ex. 18, # 4 Ex. 19, # 5 Ex. 20 pt. 1, # 6 Ex. 20 pt. 2, # 7 Ex. 21-25)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/31/2024)
2024-12-31
2
REDACTED VERSION of 489 Declaration, by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1-10, # 2 Ex. 11-17, # 3 Ex. 18, # 4 Ex. 19, # 5 Ex. 20 pt. 1, # 6 Ex. 20 pt. 2, # 7 Ex. 21-25)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/31/2024)
2024-12-31
2
REDACTED VERSION of 489 Declaration, by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1-10, # 2 Ex. 11-17, # 3 Ex. 18, # 4 Ex. 19, # 5 Ex. 20 pt. 1, # 6 Ex. 20 pt. 2, # 7 Ex. 21-25)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/31/2024)
2024-12-31
2
REDACTED VERSION of 489 Declaration, by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1-10, # 2 Ex. 11-17, # 3 Ex. 18, # 4 Ex. 19, # 5 Ex. 20 pt. 1, # 6 Ex. 20 pt. 2, # 7 Ex. 21-25)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/31/2024)
2024-12-31
2
REDACTED VERSION of 489 Declaration, by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1-10, # 2 Ex. 11-17, # 3 Ex. 18, # 4 Ex. 19, # 5 Ex. 20 pt. 1, # 6 Ex. 20 pt. 2, # 7 Ex. 21-25)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/31/2024)
2024-12-31
2
REDACTED VERSION of 489 Declaration, by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1-10, # 2 Ex. 11-17, # 3 Ex. 18, # 4 Ex. 19, # 5 Ex. 20 pt. 1, # 6 Ex. 20 pt. 2, # 7 Ex. 21-25)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/31/2024)
2024-12-31
2
1 - Terminate Deadlines AND SO ORDERED AND ~Util - Set Deadlines
2024-12-31
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 545 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to submit a joint letter to January 10, 2025 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/31/2024. (smg)
2024-12-31
1
No Actions
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to file public versions of D.I. 507, 508, 515, 516, 518, 520-522, 525, 529-533, 535, and 539-542 to January 15, 2025 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/08/2025)
2025-01-08
1
[SEALED] ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re 519 MOTION to Preclude the Damages Opinions of Douglas Kidder filed by Stodge Inc..Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 1/15/2025. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/08/2025)
2025-01-08
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Eric C. Wiener re 564 Answering Brief in Opposition, by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-E, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/08/2025)
2025-01-08
1
[SEALED] ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re 537 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Technical Expert Dr. Nathaniel Polish Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert, 536 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Damages Expert Mr. David Kennedy Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert, 538 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's TCPA Expert Mr. Daniel Blynn Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert, 534 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Damages - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 1/15/2025. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/08/2025)
2025-01-08
1
[SEALED] Attentive's RESPONSE in Opposition to D.I. 535 Concise Statement of Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on Damages Issues) by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Flynn, Michael) Modified on 1/14/2025 (smg). (Entered: 01/08/2025)
2025-01-08
1
[SEALED] Attentive's Concise STATEMENT of Facts in Support of D.I. 566 Answering Brief in Opposition Postscript's Motion for Summary Judgment on Damages Issues (D.I. 534, 536, 537, 538 ) by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) Modified on 1/14/2025 (smg). (Entered: 01/08/2025)
2025-01-08
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Brian Eutermoser re 568 Statement, by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. A-L)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/08/2025)
2025-01-08
1
[SEALED] REPLY BRIEF re 470 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Obviousness of Postscript's '660 Patent (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 3), 467 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Attentive's Claims of Infringement of the '887, '897, and '074 Patents (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 1), 472 MOTION for Summary Judgment that Clark, Orr, and Samuel Do Not Anticipate Postscript's '660 Patent (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 4), 468 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Invalidity of Attentive's '887, '897, and '074 patents (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 2) filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/09/2025)
2025-01-09
1
[SEALED] STATEMENT re 517 Statement, 467 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Attentive's Claims of Infringement of the '887, '897, and '074 Patents (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 1) Defendant/Counterclaimant's Response to Plaintiff/ CounterClaim-Defendant Attentive Mobile Inc.'s Concise Statement of Facts In Support of It's Response to Postscript's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of the'887, '897 and '074 Patents by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/09/2025)
2025-01-09
1
[SEALED] STATEMENT re 510 Statement, 468 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Invalidity of Attentive's '887, '897, and '074 patents (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 2) Defendant/Counterclaimant's Response to Plaintiff/Counter-Claim-Defendant Attentive Moblie Inc's Concise Statement Of Facts In Support Of It's Opposition To Postscript's Motion For Summary Judgment On Invalidity Of Attentives '887, '897 And '074 Patents (No. 2) by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/09/2025)
2025-01-09
1
[SEALED] STATEMENT re 512 Statement, 470 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Obviousness of Postscript's '660 Patent (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 3) Defendant/Counterclaimant's Response To Plaintiff/Counter-Claim-Defendant Attentive Moblie Inc's Concise Statement Of Facts In Support Of It's Opposition To Postscript's Motion For Summary Judgment Of Non-Obviousness Of Postscript's '660 Patent (No. 3) by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/09/2025)
2025-01-09
1
[SEALED] STATEMENT re 514 Statement, 472 MOTION for Summary Judgment that Clark, Orr, and Samuel Do Not Anticipate Postscript's '660 Patent (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 4) Defendant/Counterclaimant's Response To Plaintiff/Counter-Claim-Defendant Attentive Moblie Inc's Concise Statement Of Facts In Support Of It's Opposition To Postscript's Motion For Summary Judgment That Clark, Orr, And Samuel Do Not Anticipate Postcripts '660 Parent (No. 4) by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/09/2025)
2025-01-09
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Hannah Jiam re 570 Reply Brief,,, by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 26-31 Pt. 1 of 2, # 2 Exhibit 26-31 Pt. 2 of 2, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/09/2025)
2025-01-09
1
[SEALED] REPLY BRIEF re 469 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/09/2025)
2025-01-09
1
[SEALED] STATEMENT re 518 Statement, (Response To Postscript's Concise Statement Of Facts In Support Of Its Opposition To Attentive's Motion For Summary Judgment Of Invalidity Of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 Under 35 U.S.C. § 101) - by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/09/2025)
2025-01-09
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Brian D. Hill re 576 Reply Brief by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. 5-9)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/09/2025)
2025-01-09
1
[SEALED] REPLY BRIEF re 476 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/09/2025)
2025-01-09
1
[SEALED] STATEMENT re 532 Statement (Attentive's Response To Postscript's Concise Statement Of Facts In Support Of Opposition To Attentive Mobile Inc's Motion For Summary Judgment Of Noninfringement Of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660) - by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/09/2025)
2025-01-09
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of SaiPranay Vellala re 579 Reply Brief - by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. 5-6)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/09/2025)
2025-01-09
1
[SEALED] REPLY BRIEF re 482 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/09/2025)
2025-01-09
1
[SEALED] STATEMENT re 582 Reply Brief (Plaintiff And Counterclaim-Defendant Attentive Mobile, Inc.'s Concise Statement Of Facts In Support Of Its Reply To Its Motion For Summary Judgment Of Invalidity Of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102) - by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/09/2025)
2025-01-09
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Rahul Sarkar re 583 Statement, by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1, # 2 Ex. 2)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/09/2025)
2025-01-09
1
SO ORDERED
2025-01-09
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED D.I. 563 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to file public versions of D.I. 507, 508, 515, 516, 518, 520-522, 525, 529-533, 535, and 539-542 to January 15, 2025 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 1/9/25. (mlc)
2025-01-09
1
No Actions
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding the parties' response to the Court's December 20, 2024 Oral Order (D.I. 506). (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/10/2025)
2025-01-10
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' January 10, 2025 letter, (D.I. 585 ), hereby ORDERS that by no later than January 16, 2025, the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint letter that sets out all of the weeks that the parties jointly have available for trial in the calendar year 2025. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 01/13/2025. (smg) (Entered: 01/13/2025)
2025-01-13
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding motions to be argued at the January 23, 2025 hearing - re 462 Oral Order. (Flynn, Michael) Modified on 1/16/2025 (smg). (Entered: 01/13/2025)
2025-01-13
1
Oral Order
2025-01-13
1
No Actions
REDACTED VERSION of 566 Answering Brief in Opposition,, by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/15/2025)
2025-01-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 567 Statement by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/15/2025)
2025-01-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 568 Statement, by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/15/2025)
2025-01-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 569 Declaration by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. A-L)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/15/2025)
2025-01-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 569 Declaration by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. A-L)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/15/2025)
2025-01-15
2
REDACTED VERSION of 516 Answering Brief in Opposition, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/15/2025)
2025-01-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 518 Statement, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/15/2025)
2025-01-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 521 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/15/2025)
2025-01-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 525 Statement, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/15/2025)
2025-01-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 529 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/15/2025)
2025-01-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 530 Answering Brief in Opposition, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/15/2025)
2025-01-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 531 Statement, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/15/2025)
2025-01-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 532 Statement by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/15/2025)
2025-01-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 533 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/15/2025)
2025-01-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 535 Statement by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/15/2025)
2025-01-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 539 Opening Brief in Support,, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/15/2025)
2025-01-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 540 Declaration,, by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-14)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/15/2025)
2025-01-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 540 Declaration,, by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-14)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/15/2025)
2025-01-15
2
REDACTED VERSION of 541 Declaration,, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/15/2025)
2025-01-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 542 Declaration,, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/15/2025)
2025-01-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 522 Declaration by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. 1-8)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/16/2025)
2025-01-16
1
REDACTED VERSION of 522 Declaration by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. 1-8)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/16/2025)
2025-01-16
2
[SEALED] REPLY BRIEF re 537 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Technical Expert Dr. Nathaniel Polish Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert, 536 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Damages Expert Mr. David Kennedy Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert, 538 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's TCPA Expert Mr. Daniel Blynn Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert, 534 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Damages filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/16/2025)
2025-01-16
1
[SEALED] STATEMENT re 607 Reply Brief,, 568 Statement, Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Concise Statement of Facts In Support of It's Opposition to Postscript's Motion for Summary Judgment on Damages Issues by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/16/2025)
2025-01-16
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Eric C. Wiener re 607 Reply Brief,, by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 15-21, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/16/2025)
2025-01-16
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the parties to file the public versions of Postscript's Answering Brief in Opposition to Attentive's Daubert Motion to Preclude the Damages Opinions of Douglas Kidder and Postscript's Reply Brief in Support of its Motions for Summary Judgment, Statements of Fact, and Supporting Declarations filed at D.I. 564-565 and 570-575 to January 21, 2025 - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 01/16/2025)
2025-01-16
1
[SEALED] REPLY BRIEF re 519 MOTION to Preclude the Damages Opinions of Douglas Kidder filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/16/2025)
2025-01-16
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Brian Eutermoser re 611 Reply Brief by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1-5)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/16/2025)
2025-01-16
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael J. Flynn regarding response to the Court's January 13, 2025 Oral Order - re 586 Oral Order,. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/16/2025)
2025-01-16
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver regarding Availability for Trial - re 613 Letter, 586 Oral Order,. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/17/2025)
2025-01-17
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 610 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the parties to file the public versions of Postscript's Answering Brief in Opposition to Attentive's Daubert Motion to Preclude the Damages Opinions of Douglas Kidder and Postscript's Reply Brief in Support of its Motions for Summary Judgment, Statements of Fact, and Supporting Declarations filed at D.I. 564-565 and 570-575 to January 21, 2025 filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 01/17/2025. (smg)
2025-01-17
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2025-01-17
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the pending joint motion to resolve discovery dispute (“motion”), (D.I. 419 ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 401 ; D.I. 409 ; D.I. 417 ), hereby ORDERS that the motion (via which Defendant requests that the Court order Plaintiff to produce “all versions of the wiki documents at issue”), (D.I. 401 at 3), is DENIED for now. That is because in order to make a determination as to whether some or all portions of the wiki documents at issue are privileged, the Court will need to review the documents in camera. (D.I. 409 at 1) By no later than January 22, 2025, Plaintiff shall: (1) submit all versions of the wiki documents that are in its possession to the Court for in camera review; and (2) for administrative purposes, file a one-page “Motion for In Camera Review.” Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 01/21/2025. (smg) (Entered: 01/21/2025)
2025-01-21
1
MOTION for Exemption of Persons from the District of Delaware's May 17, 2024 Standing Order on Personal Devices - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/21/2025)
2025-01-21
1
MOTION for Exemption of Persons from the District of Delaware's May 17, 2024 Standing Order on Personal Devices - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/21/2025)
2025-01-21
2
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties’ recent letters regarding trial scheduling, (D.I. 613 ; D.I. 614 ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) Thursday’s hearing on certain summary judgment and Daubert motions is CANCELED and will be rescheduled at a later date. Because it is appears very possible that trial will not proceed on May 19, 2025, it does not make sense for the Court to now hold argument on these summary judgment/Daubert motions at this time, particularly in light of the fact that the parties have filed so many other pending motions that the Court still needs to resolve. (D.I. 403 ; D.I. 426 ; D.I. 503 ; see also D.I. 155); (2) With regard to trial scheduling, the parties have advised the Court that the only other weeks in 2025 that they are jointly available for trial are the weeks of October 20 and October 27. (D.I. 613 ; D.I. 614 ) Unfortunately, the Court has promised both of those weeks to parties in another case already.; and (3) Of the additional weeks in 2025 that Plaintiff is available for trial, (see D.I. 613 ), the Court could schedule trial to begin on June 9 or August 25. By no later than January 24, 2025, Defendant shall provide the Court a letter of no longer than two single-spaced pages explaining with specificity why it is unavailable for trial on each of those two weeks. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 01/21/2025. (smg) (Entered: 01/21/2025)
2025-01-21
1
REDACTED VERSION of 564 Answering Brief in Opposition, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/21/2025)
2025-01-21
1
REDACTED VERSION of 565 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/21/2025)
2025-01-21
1
1 - Terminate Hearings AND Oral Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions
2025-01-21
1
No Actions
Oral Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions
2025-01-21
1
No Actions
MOTION for In Camera Review re 615 Oral Order. - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Flynn, Michael) Modified on 1/23/2025 (smg). (Entered: 01/22/2025)
2025-01-22
1
REDACTED VERSION of 570 Reply Brief,,, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/22/2025)
2025-01-22
1
REDACTED VERSION of 571 Statement,, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/22/2025)
2025-01-22
1
REDACTED VERSION of 572 Statement,, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/22/2025)
2025-01-22
1
REDACTED VERSION of 573 Statement,, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/22/2025)
2025-01-22
1
REDACTED VERSION of 574 Statement,, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/22/2025)
2025-01-22
1
REDACTED VERSION of 575 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/22/2025)
2025-01-22
1
REDACTED VERSION of 576 Reply Brief by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/22/2025)
2025-01-22
1
REDACTED VERSION of 577 Statement, by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/22/2025)
2025-01-22
1
REDACTED VERSION of 578 Declaration by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. 5-9)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/22/2025)
2025-01-22
1
REDACTED VERSION of 578 Declaration by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. 5-9)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/22/2025)
2025-01-22
2
REDACTED VERSION of 579 Reply Brief by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/22/2025)
2025-01-22
1
REDACTED VERSION of 580 Statement, by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/22/2025)
2025-01-22
1
REDACTED VERSION of 582 Reply Brief by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/22/2025)
2025-01-22
1
REDACTED VERSION of 583 Statement, by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/22/2025)
2025-01-22
1
REDACTED VERSION of 584 Declaration by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1, # 2 Ex. 2)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/22/2025)
2025-01-22
1
REDACTED VERSION of 584 Declaration by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1, # 2 Ex. 2)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/22/2025)
2025-01-22
2
REDACTED VERSION of 584 Declaration by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1, # 2 Ex. 2)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/22/2025)
2025-01-22
2
REDACTED VERSION of 581 Declaration by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/23/2025)
2025-01-23
1
REDACTED VERSION of 611 Reply Brief by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/23/2025)
2025-01-23
1
REDACTED VERSION of 612 Declaration by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/23/2025)
2025-01-23
1
REDACTED VERSION of 607 Reply Brief,, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/23/2025)
2025-01-23
1
REDACTED VERSION of 608 Statement, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/23/2025)
2025-01-23
1
REDACTED VERSION of 609 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/23/2025)
2025-01-23
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Postscript's Trial Availability - re 617 Oral Order. (Joyce, Alexandra) Modified on 1/27/2025 (smg). (Entered: 01/24/2025)
2025-01-24
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having previously reviewed the parties’ joint motion to resolve discovery dispute, (D.I. 419 ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 401 ; D.I. 409 ; D.I. 417 ), and also having considered the parties’ motion for in camera review (“in camera motion”), (D.I. 620 ), hereby GRANTS the in camera motion, and having now reviewed the documents that Plaintiff submitted in camera via its January 22, 2025 letter (“letter”), hereby ORDERS as follows regarding Defendant’s request for production of those documents: (1) As to Document Nos. 1-3 cited in Plaintiff’s letter, Defendant’s request is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Some portion of these three (identical or near-identical) documents amount to communications between Plaintiff’s counsel and Plaintiff’s employees, wherein counsel is educating the employees on legal issues (i.e., on Plaintiff’s legal rights and potential liabilities) relating to this case, and (relatedly) at times telling the employees what not to say to third parties. Those portions of the documents thus amount to the provision of primarily legal advice and do not appear to be intended to be shared with third parties. They need not be produced, as they are protected by the attorney-client privilege. That said, in light of their content and in light of the record, (see D.I. 401 ), other portions of these three documents do seem clearly intended to be shared with third parties—and so those portions of the documents should be produced (Plaintiff can redact the rest of the documents prior to production). See, e.g., Allianz Glob. Invs. GmbH v. Bank of Am. Corp., 609 F. Supp. 3d 287, 289-90 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (citing cases). Using Document No. 1 (CTRL02680530_MA_0001) as an example, Plaintiff must produce: (a) from “So we can say” to “vendors.” (on page 1); (b) from “All you can say” to “on our patents.” (on page 1-2); (c) from “Q. What if I identify” to “our patents.” (on page 2); (d) from “Q. What can I” to “ongoing litigation.” (on page 2); (e) from “Q. I heard” to “against them.” (on page 2); (f) from “Q. What can” to “as applicable.”) (on page 2); and (g) from “B. External:” to “ongoing litigation.” (on page 3). The same is true for Document No. 11 (LEGAL-FAQs_Patents-060824-191823), and Defendant’s request is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART as well as to that document. With regard to that document, Plaintiff must produce certain portions as follows: (a) from “So we can say to prospects/clients:” to “vendors.” (on page 1-2); (b) from “If you are in a competitive situation with Emotive” to “SMS vendor.” (on page 2); (c) from “If you are in a competitive situation with Postscript” to “SMS vendor.” (on page 2); (d) from “Q. Postscript told” to “SMS vendor.” (on page 2); (e) from “Emotive told” to “SMS vendor.” (on page 2-3); (f) from “Q. I heard that Attentive” to “SMS vendor.” (on page 3); (g) from “All you can say is something” to “if you’d like.” (on page 4); (h) from “Q. What if I identify” to “our patents.” (on page 4); and (i) from “Q. What can I say” to “rights as applicable.” (on page 4); (2) As to (identical or near identical) Document Nos. 4-10, they not only appear to contain legal advice, but they also clearly appear to be in draft form, with content suggesting that attorneys were still in the midst of adding to and editing the documents (as opposed to the documents appearing to be a final version, ready for sharing with third parties). For these reasons, the Court cannot conclude that any of these documents’ content was intended to be shared with third parties, and so the request is DENIED as to these documents, which would otherwise be protected by the attorney-client privilege.; and (3) Plaintiff shall produce the above-referenced redacted documents to Defendant within 7 days of today’s date. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 01/24/2025. (smg) (Entered: 01/24/2025)
2025-01-24
1
Oral Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions
2025-01-24
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties’ recent letters regarding trial scheduling, (D.I. 613 ; D.I. 641 ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) The Court thanks both parties for working hard to make accommodations with respect to the rescheduling of trial. Trial is hereby rescheduled to begin on August 25, 2025. The parties shall meet and confer regarding accommodations for the trial testimony of Defendant’s witness, Mr. Glazer. (D.I. 641 at 1) The Court will hold a pretrial conference on August 8, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. The Court will hold a hearing on the parties’ selected summary judgment and Daubert motions on June 5, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. Three hours will be allocated for argument, to be split equally between the parties. By no later than January 31, 2025, the parties shall submit a proposed revised scheduling order incorporating these dates and any other applicable deadlines. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 01/27/2025. (smg) (Entered: 01/27/2025)
2025-01-27
1
Oral Order
2025-01-27
1
No Actions
Joint PROPOSED ORDER -- Revised Scheduling Order -- by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/31/2025)
2025-01-31
1
REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER: A Hearing on Case Dispositive and Daubert Motions is set for 6/5/2025 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 2A before Judge Christopher J. Burke. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 7/31/2025. A Pretrial Conference is set for 8/8/2025 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 2A before Judge Christopher J. Burke. A 5-day Jury Trial is set for 8/25/2025 at 09:30/09:00 AM in Courtroom 2A before Judge Christopher J. Burke. (See Order for further details and deadlines.) Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 02/03/2025. (smg) (Entered: 02/03/2025)
2025-02-03
1
Joint STATEMENT Regarding Mediation - by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 02/07/2025)
2025-02-07
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant’s discovery dispute motion (“Motion”), (D.I. 503 ), via which Defendant asks the Court to strike Plaintiff’s confidentiality designations relating to six portions (i.e., approximately 11 pages) of the deposition testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Daniel Blynn, and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 490 ; D.I. 497 ; D.I. 500 ), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is DENIED without prejudice to renew. Prior to the Motion’s filing, Defendant refused to disclose to Plaintiff what was the purpose behind the Motion (i.e., what they intend to do with the testimony at issue if they win the Motion). (D.I. 497 at 2 (citing D.I. 498 at para. 5)) And in the briefing, all Defendant said to the Court on that front was that the Motion was motivated by a desire to “promot[e] transparency and prevent[] inconsistent positions from being hidden to avoid accountability.” (D.I. 500 at 1) If public accountability and transparency is what is at issue, and in light of the fact that summary judgment and Daubert briefing in the case is now completed, the Court assumes that Defendant’s Motion must be focused on ensuring that if Mr. Blynn testifies at trial in the manner described in the six transcript portions, that such testimony will not need to be sealed. And if that is correct, then there is no rush to resolve the Motion now. Plus, the Court is not very familiar with the nature of the TCPA-related opinions that Mr. Blynn wishes to testify to—and getting more familiarity with that topic (i.e., by first resolving the Daubert motion related to Mr. Blynn), (D.I. 538 ), may help the Court to make a better decision on any later-renewed motion to strike. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 03/10/2025. (sam) (Entered: 03/10/2025)
2025-03-10
1
Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
2025-03-10
1
No Actions
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Second Notice to Attentive Mobile Inc. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) filed by Stodge Inc..(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 04/09/2025)
2025-04-09
1
NOTICE to Take Deposition of David Kennedy on April 18, 2025 filed by Stodge Inc..(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 04/09/2025)
2025-04-09
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Objections and Responses to Defendant's Second Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 04/17/2025)
2025-04-17
1
NOTICE of Change of Law Firm Affiliation for Christopher C. Campbell and Britton F. Davis - by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 05/05/2025)
2025-05-05
1
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Matthew D. Wood - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 05/21/2025)
2025-05-21
1
Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for Matthew D. Wood. ( re 652 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Matthew D. Wood )( Payment of $ 50, receipt number ADEDC-4692570).(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 05/21/2025)
2025-05-21
1
NOTICE requesting Clerk to remove Brian Eutermoser, Brian Hill, Cori C. Steinmann, SaiPranay Vellala, and Jonathan Weinberg as co-counsel. Reason for request: no longer associated with the case. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 05/21/2025)
2025-05-21
1
Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
2025-05-21
1
No Actions
-District Court Pro Hac Vice Fee - 01 Attorney Credit Card Payment
2025-05-21
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 652 Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Matthew D. Wood - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 05/21/2025. (sam)
2025-05-21
1
No Actions
NOTICE of Withdrawal of Counsel by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 05/23/2025)
2025-05-23
1
NOTICE of Change of Law Firm Affiliation for Rahul Sarkar - by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 05/27/2025)
2025-05-27
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant’s motion to strike purportedly new infringement opinions found in the opening expert report (“report”) of Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Nathaniel Polish (“Motion”), (D.I. 403 ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 404 ; D.I. 414 ; D.I. 423 ), hereby addresses the first of three disputed portions of the report regarding an allegedly new doctrine of equivalents (“DOE”) theory, which relates to the claim limitation requiring the sending of a URI from a server to the mobile device (“the URI issue”), (D.I. 404 at 2). The Court ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED in this regard for the reasons that follow: (1) The first step here is to determine whether the opinions at issue are untimely, and they are. Plaintiff does not seem to strongly argue otherwise—perhaps because it is clear that the opinions were not included in Plaintiff’s final infringement contentions (“FICs”), prior to showing up in Dr. Polish’s report. (D.I. 414 at 2 (Plaintiff, after describing the opinions at issue, going right into a Pennypack factor analysis as to the opinions); D.I. 423 at 2) That said, at one point, Plaintiff does make an argument that could be read to suggest that the opinions were timely disclosed—when it notes that the disclosure of the opinions in the report is “especially reasonable in light of the fact that this Court adopted a construction of the ‘URI’ term that neither party advanced on September 12, two weeks before Dr. Polish’s report was due[.]” (D.I. 414 at 3) But as Defendant points out, (D.I. 423 at 2), Plaintiff never explains what it was about the Court’s claim construction as to the URI term that would have taken it by surprise—such that it could plausibly assert that the construction justified the submission of new and different DOE infringement opinions, (D.I. 414 at 3). Moreover, the Court’s claim construction order as to the URI term notes that all of the components of the construction either related to matters that Plaintiff did not dispute, or involved language that Plaintiff itself proposed to the Court. (D.I. 349 ; D.I. 423 at 2) So it doesn’t make sense that the Court’s ultimate claim construction for the term would have been so unexpected to Plaintiff that it would have justified the assertion of a new infringement theory.; (2) With the opinions being untimely, the Court turns to the application of the Pennypack factors. A number of them support grant of the Motion, including: (a) Surprise and/or prejudice: Defendant would have been surprised to see these new arguments in Dr. Polish’s report, since they were not included in Plaintiff’s FICs, and it was prejudiced, because it had only a short time to respond to those arguments. (D.I. 404 at 4) Plaintiff suggests this is not so because the opinions were purportedly “virtually identical” to a theory that had been included in the FICs. (D.I. 414 at 2) But the Court agrees with Defendant that the “two theories[ ] on their face, [are] not ‘virtually identical’” because “[o]ne involves a URI being sent from a server to the mobile device, while the other does not” and because Dr. Polish includes different arguments in support of each theory. (D.I. 423 at 1); (b) Bad faith or willfulness: While the Court would not find bad faith, Plaintiff’s late addition appears willful (especially because its explanation for the late addition, described above, did not make any sense to the Court). See SZ DJI Tech. Co. v. Autel Robotics USA LLC, C.A. No. CV 16-706-LPS (Consolidated), 2021 WL 3403930, at *1 (D. Del. Aug. 4, 2021); Intell. Ventures I LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, C.A. No. 13-1668-LPS, 2017 WL 658469, at *3 (D. Del. Feb. 14, 2017).; and (c) Importance of the testimony: The opinions at issue are not the only infringement (nor even the only DOE-related infringement) theories that Plaintiff puts forward as to the relevant asserted claims. Indeed, as noted above, Plaintiff currently has a DOE theory that it thinks is “virtually identical” to these opinions. Nor does Plaintiff argue that the opinions at issue are crucial to its case.; (3) The record is less robust as to the other two Pennypack factors (i.e., the “ability to cure” factor and the “disrupting trial” factor). That said, Defendant argues that it was precluded from obtaining discovery to assist in responding to Dr. Polish’s new arguments. If any needed discovery was at all substantial, there would certainly not be time for it now (since we are in the midst of the summary judgment process, and just months from trial). (D.I. 404 at 4) At best for Plaintiff, these two factors would be neutral.; and (4) With the Pennypack factors militating in favor of Defendant, granting the Motion as to the URI issue is the right call. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 05/30/2025. (sam) (Entered: 05/30/2025)
2025-05-30
1
Oral Order
2025-05-30
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant’s motion to strike purportedly new infringement opinions found in the opening expert report (“report”) of Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Nathaniel Polish (“Motion”), (D.I. 403 ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 404 ; D.I. 414 ; D.I. 423 ), hereby addresses the second of three disputed portions of the report regarding allegedly new theories relating to the claim limitations requiring a click-to-text server to send to a client server an integration tag, (D.I. 404 at 3). The Court ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED in this regard for the reasons that follow: (1) As with the prior dispute, again, the first step here is to determine whether the opinions at issue are untimely. Again, they are. There is no question that they were not included in Plaintiff’s final infringement contentions (“FICs”), prior to appearing in Dr. Polish’s report. Plaintiff’s sole argument for why the opinions are not untimely is that Defendant added a new theory of non-infringement a few days after the FICs were due—and so Plaintiff was permitted to come up with these new infringement opinions in the report, purportedly to “respond” to the new non-infringement theory. (D.I. 414 at 1-2) However, as Defendant explains, (D.I. 423 at 1-2), Plaintiff is the party with the burden of proof as to infringement, and so it was obligated to articulate all of the ways that it thought Defendant possibly infringed the asserted claims in its infringement contentions, including the FICs—regardless of what non-infringement theories Defendant might put forward (or when Defendant first asserted them). See, e.g., TQ Delta, LLC v. Adtran, Inc., Civil Action No. 14-954-RGA, Civil Action No. 15-121-RGA, 2020 WL 4529865, at *2 (D. Del. July 31, 2020); Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 3d 1110, 1114-15 (N.D. Cal. 2017); Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 12-cv-03587-WHO, 2015 WL 757575, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2015). And there is no suggestion or showing here that Plaintiff’s new theories were spurred by the recent disclosure of non-public information, or otherwise that Plaintiff could not have posited the theories at issue back when, for example, it filed its FICs. (To the extent that Plaintiff is asserting that Defendant’s non-infringement theory at issue was untimely disclosed, that is a different issue, which is not before the Court now.).; and (2) As for the Pennypack factors, for basically the same reasons as set out in D.I. 657, they militate in favor of granting the Motion (i.e., at least because the newly-disclosed theories would have surprised and prejudiced Defendant, because they appear to have been late disclosed willfully—since Plaintiff’s primary assertion as to why they weren’t late disclosed does not hold water—and because they are but one of a number of theories of infringement pressed by Plaintiff). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 06/02/2025. (sam) (Entered: 06/02/2025)
2025-06-02
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant’s motion to strike purportedly new infringement opinions found in the opening expert report (“report”) of Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Nathaniel Polish (“Motion”), (D.I. 403 ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 404 ; D.I. 414 ; D.I. 423 ), hereby addresses the third of three disputed portions of the report, this one regarding allegedly new theories relating to the claim limitations requiring a custom text message to be “based on the user data,” (D.I. 404 at 3). The Court ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART in this regard for the reasons that follow: (1) As an initial matter, the Court notes that it appears that there were multiple incorrect citations in Plaintiff’s answering brief to relevant portions of its Final Infringement Contentions (“FICs”). The Court has attempted to correct those citations below when making reference to the FICs, which are material to the resolution of these disputes.; (2) With regard to the dispute over Dr. Polish’s opinion that the claim limitation is satisfied by a “means for causing—or URI—that is based on the user data[,]” the request is GRANTED. The theory is untimely disclosed, as it was not included in the FICs, and there is no reason why it should not have been. As for Plaintiff’s suggestion that the theory was disclosed in the FICs, the Court has reviewed the cited portions of the FICs that it appears Plaintiff is pointing to, (D.I. 405, ex. D at 73, 95), and it can find no clear statement that the “means for causing” is “based on the user data.” If that was the allegation, then Plaintiff needed to say that, clearly, in plain English—and it did not do that on the cited pages. (See D.I. 423 at 3; see also D.I. 285 ) The Pennypack factors would not save this late disclosure, for similar reasons to those articulated in D.I. 657 and D.I. 658 .; and (3) With regard to the dispute over Dr. Polish’s opinion that the custom text message is based on the user data because it contains a “sid,” the request is DENIED. Plaintiff argues that the disclosure was not untimely because the same opinion was found in its FICs—particularly those in the record here at page 73 of D.I. 405, Exhibit D. (D.I. 414 at 4) While the text in that portion of the FICs is not a model of clarity, the Court can see how the reference to the “Server_Id” (which both sides seem to agree is a reference to the “sid” in question) is there being asserted to amount to “user data” that the custom text message is “based on[.]” (D.I. 405, ex. D at 73) As a result, the theory was sufficiently disclosed in the FICs and is not untimely. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 06/02/2025. (sam) (Entered: 06/02/2025)
2025-06-02
1
Oral Order
2025-06-02
1
No Actions
Order on Motion to Strike
2025-06-02
1
No Actions
MOTION for Exemption of Persons from the District of Delaware's May 17, 2025 Standing Order on Personal Devices - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 06/03/2025)
2025-06-03
1
MOTION for an Exemption from the Standing Order Regarding Personal Electronic Devices - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 06/03/2025)
2025-06-03
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 660 MOTION for Exemption of Persons from the District of Delaware's May 17, 2025 Standing Order on Personal Devices - filed by Stodge Inc. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 06/04/2025. (sam) (Entered: 06/04/2025)
2025-06-04
1
ORDER GRANTING D.I. 661 MOTION for an Exemption from the Standing Order Regarding Personal Electronic Devices - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 06/24/2025. (sam) (Entered: 06/04/2025)
2025-06-04
1
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Christopher J. Burke - Motion Hearing held on 6/5/25. The Court heard argument regarding Plaintiff's motion to exclude damages opinion of Douglas Kidder, (D.I. 519 ), and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment No. 1, (D.I. 467 ). The Court took the motions under advisement. Appearances: M. Flynn, C. Campbell, B. Davis, M. Wood and R. Sarkar for Plaintiff; A. Joyce, T. Saulsbury, E. Wiener and H. Jiam for Defendant. (Court Reporter: Stacy Ingram; Clerk: M. Crawford) (sam)
2025-06-05
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that by no later than June 9, 2025, Plaintiff shall submit to the Court a complete version of the Opening Infringement Expert Report of Dr. Polish. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 06/06/2025. (sam) (Entered: 06/06/2025)
2025-06-06
1
NOTICE of Lodging by Stodge Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 06/06/2025)
2025-06-06
1
Motion Hearing
2025-06-06
1
No Actions
Oral Order
2025-06-06
1
No Actions
Official Transcript of Hearing held on 06-05-25 before Judge Burke. Court Reporter Stacy Ingram,Email: stacy_ingram@ded.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or order/purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 6/30/2025. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/10/2025. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/8/2025. (Ingram, Stacy) (Entered: 06/09/2025)
2025-06-09
1
[SEALED] Expert Report of Dr. Polish Regarding Infringement (Opening) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Priority Mapping - Exhibit 3, # 10 Priority Mapping - Exhibit 4)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 06/10/2025)
2025-06-10
1
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 519 Motion to Preclude. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 6/12/2025.This order has been emailed to local counsel. (mlc) Unsealed on 6/18/2025 (sam). (Entered: 06/12/2025)
2025-06-12
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Supplemental Report of Douglas Kidder Regarding Damages filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 07/01/2025)
2025-07-01
1
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Daralyn Durie, Ramsey W. Fisher, and Tannyr Pasvantis - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certifications for Daralyn Durie, Ramsey W. Fisher, and Tannyr Pasvantis)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 07/15/2025)
2025-07-15
1
Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for Daralyn Durie, Ramsey W. Fisher, and Tannyr Pasvantis. ( re 670 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Daralyn Durie, Ramsey W. Fisher, and Tannyr Pasvantis )( Payment of $ 150, receipt number ADEDC-4734576).(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 07/15/2025)
2025-07-15
1
-District Court Pro Hac Vice Fee - 03 Attorneys Credit Card Payment
2025-07-15
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 670 Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Daralyn Durie, Ramsey W. Fisher, and Tannyr Pasvantis - filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 07/16/2025. (sam)
2025-07-16
1
No Actions
Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
2025-07-16
1
No Actions
Add Attorneys - PHV only
2025-07-24
1
No Actions
Pro Hac Vice Attorney Ramsey W. Fisher, Tannyr Pasvantis, Daralyn J. Durie for Stodge 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. (cdd)
2025-07-24
1
No Actions
NOTICE of Subsequent Authority by Attentive Mobile Inc. re 539 Opening Brief in Support,, 536 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Damages Expert Mr. David Kennedy Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 07/25/2025)
2025-07-25
1
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding requesting an Emergency Status Conference. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1-8)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 07/25/2025)
2025-07-25
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Attentive's Emergency Request - re 673 Letter. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 07/28/2025)
2025-07-28
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties’ recent letters, (D.I. 673 ; D.I. 674 ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s letter requests relief, and pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.2, it therefore must be accompanied by a motion. By no later than July 29, 2025, Plaintiff shall file a 1-page motion (the “Motion”). The Court will consider Plaintiff’s letter, (D.I. 673 ), to be its opening brief in support of that Motion.; (2) By no later than close of business on July 29, 2025, Defendant shall file a responsive letter brief (if the letter is text only, it shall be no longer than 5 single-spaced pages, but if the letter includes multiple screenshots/images, then it shall be no longer than 8 single-spaced pages).; (3) By no later than 10:00 am on July 30, 2025, Plaintiff shall file a reply letter brief of no longer than 2 single-spaced pages.; and (4) A videoconference is set for July 30, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. before Judge Christopher J. Burke via the Microsoft Teams platform to hear argument on the Motion. By no later than July 29, 2025, the parties shall send an e-mail to the Court's Courtroom Deputy, Ms. Miller, indicating the names and e-mail addresses of all individuals who will participate in the hearing. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 07/28/2025. (sam) (Entered: 07/28/2025)
2025-07-28
1
Oral Order AND ~Util - Set Hearings
2025-07-28
1
No Actions
MOTION for Status Conference re 675 Oral Order - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. (Flynn, Michael) Modified on 7/30/2025 (sam). (Entered: 07/29/2025)
2025-07-29
1
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Response to Attentive's Request and Motion for an Emergency Status Conference. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 07/29/2025)
2025-07-29
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Alex Beller re 677 Letter by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-D, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 07/29/2025)
2025-07-29
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Zahraa Berro re 677 Letter by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 07/29/2025)
2025-07-29
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Colin Turner re 677 Letter by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 07/29/2025)
2025-07-29
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of G. David Carter re 677 Letter by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 07/29/2025)
2025-07-29
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Maura Gownley re 677 Letter by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 07/29/2025)
2025-07-29
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Timothy C. Saulsbury re 677 Letter by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2-3, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 07/29/2025)
2025-07-29
1
NOTICE of Lodging by Stodge Inc. re 682 Declaration, 678 Declaration (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 07/29/2025)
2025-07-29
1
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Reply in Support of Request for Emergency Status Conference - re 673 Letter. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1-5)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 07/30/2025)
2025-07-30
1
MULTI MEDIA DOCUMENT filed by Stodge Inc. in the form of a 2 USB Drives. Filing related to D.I. 684 Notice of Lodging. (Media on file in Chambers). (sam) (Entered: 07/30/2025)
2025-07-30
1
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Christopher J. Burke - Videoconference held on 7/30/2025 - The Court heard argument regarding Plaintiff's motion for a status conference and to amend the scheduling order, (D.I. 676 ). The Court took the motion under advisement and will issue an order. (Clerk: M. Crawford; Court reporter: Stacy Ingram) Appearances: M. Flynn, C. Campbell, B. Davis, R. Sarkar and M. Wood for Plaintiff; A. Joyce, T. Saulsbury and R. Krishnapriyan for Defendant. (sam)
2025-07-30
1
No Actions
Multi Media Document
2025-07-30
1
No Actions
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the Parties to File Deposition Designations (Pretrial Order Exhibits 8-9) to August 7, 2025 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 07/31/2025)
2025-07-31
1
STATEMENT Postscript's Response to Plaintiff's Notice of Subsequent Authority by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 07/31/2025)
2025-07-31
1
VERDICT SHEET by Stodge Inc. [POSTSCRIPT'S PROPOSED]. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 07/31/2025)
2025-07-31
1
[SEALED] Proposed Pretrial Order by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1-19, # 2 Exhibits 20-22)(Flynn, Michael) (Attachment 1 replaced on 8/5/2025) (slk). (Entered: 07/31/2025)
2025-07-31
1
Proposed Voir Dire by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 07/31/2025)
2025-07-31
1
Proposed Jury Instructions by Attentive Mobile Inc. --Proposed Preliminary Jury Instructions--. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 07/31/2025)
2025-07-31
1
VERDICT SHEET by Attentive Mobile Inc. -[Attentive's Proposed] Verdict Form--. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 07/31/2025)
2025-07-31
1
Proposed Jury Instructions by Attentive Mobile Inc. Proposed Final Jury Instructions. (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 07/31/2025)
2025-07-31
1
SO ORDERED
2025-07-31
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 687 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the Parties to File Deposition Designations (Pretrial Order Exhibits 8-9) to August 7, 2025 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 07/31/2025. (sam)
2025-07-31
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s pending motion, (D.I. 676 ), via which it seeks an order of the Court that would “reopen discovery and modify the case schedule” including a “90-day extension of the trial date” (the trial here is otherwise set to begin on August 25, 2025) (“Motion”), (D.I. 673 at 7). The Court has also reviewed the briefing related to the Motion, (D.I. 673 ; D.I. 677 ; D.I. 685 ), and it held a videoconference on the Motion on July 30, 2025, (“Tr.”). Having done so, the Court hereby ORDERS that the Motion is DENIED for the reasons that follow: (1) As brief background, Plaintiff here accuses a functionality of Defendant’s known as “Two Touch” (which makes use of a “popup” on a merchant’s webpage) of infringing the asserted patents. (D.I. 673 at 1; D.I. 667 at ¶¶ 131-32) Plaintiff asserts that there are two different pathways as to how Two Touch infringes, including the SMSRedirectTest() pathway, which is relevant here. (D.I. 673 at 1; D.I. 667 at ¶ 182) During the fact and expert discovery phase of the case, Plaintiff’s expert had identified a single merchant shop, Three Ships Beauty (“TSB”), that utilized the SMSRedirectTest() pathway. (D.I. 667 at ¶¶ 185-89) For its part, Defendant has represented that it discontinued the accused functionality (i.e., “Two Touch”) in June 2024 (“Defendant’s representation”). (See, e.g., D.I. 489, ex. 5 at ¶¶ 57, 60) Defendant has also asserted throughout this case (and even before June 2024) that Plaintiff’s reliance on the SMSRedirectTest() pathway fails because that pathway is not associated with Postscript’s popups, but instead is called only by an unaccused Postscript functionality (“Opt-In Links”) that utilizes third-party popups (and that specifically in the case of TSB, the popup is created by third-party Klaviyo). (D.I. 487 at 12-13; D.I. 570 at 5-6; see also D.I. 186 at 2; D.I. 195 at 1 n.2; D.I. 365 at 2); (2) With its motion, Plaintiff asserts that on June 30, 2025, it obtained new evidence indicating that Defendant is in fact still using Two Touch (the “Two Touch Evidence”)—and that it therefore “must be allowed adequate time to investigate and address Postscript’s misrepresentations, take additional discovery on the Two Touch Evidence, submit supplemental expert reports, and reopen briefing on summary judgment.” (D.I. 673 at 1) Plaintiff states that the Two Touch Evidence “matche[s] its existing” infringement theory with regard to the SMSRedirectTest() pathway. (D.I. 685 at 2; see also Tr. at 7) The Two Touch Evidence constitutes information, including code, drawn from third-party merchants’ websites. (D.I. 673 at 2-6; D.I. 685 at 1); (3) When a party moves to amend a deadline imposed by a scheduling order, the movant first has the burden of demonstrating that, per Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), there is “good cause” to do so. See GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Glenmark Pharms. Inc., Civil Action No. 14-877-LPS-CJB, 2016 WL 7319670, at *1 (D. Del. Dec 15, 2016). “Good cause exists when the [s]chedule cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.... [T]he good cause standard under Rule 16(b) hinges on diligence of the movant, and not on prejudice to the non-moving party.” ICU Med., Inc. v. RyMed Techs., Inc., 674 F. Supp. 2d 574, 578 (D. Del. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 2016 WL 7319670, at *1; and (4) The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not met its burden to demonstrate that it acted diligently in obtaining the Two Touch Evidence that forms the basis for its Motion—evidence that was only obtained in or around late June 2025. Plaintiff seems to argue that it was diligent here because Defendant’s representation had dissuaded Plaintiff from looking for evidence like the Two Touch Evidence earlier in the case. (D.I. 673 at 7; D.I. 685 at 2) But Plaintiff has known all along that, as to the SMSRedirectTest() pathway, Defendant was asserting that it is not responsible for the popups on TSB—and instead that those popups are provided by a third party. This, in turn, would mean that any representation that Defendant made in June 2024 about how it now had discontinued any use of Two Touch would not be relevant to the SMSRedirectTest() pathway—a pathway that again, Defendant had previously stated that it never used at all in connection with Two Touch. Put another way, Defendant’s representation should not have prevented Plaintiff from earlier locating additional evidence with respect to its SMSRedirectTest() pathway theory, because that representation should have been understood as being “completely unrelated” to such a theory from Defendant’s perspective. (Tr. at 28-29) And otherwise, Plaintiff simply did not have a good or understandable explanation as to why it did not do more earlier in the case to look for evidence similar to the Two Touch Evidence. (Id. at 49-51; see also id. at 22-23 (Plaintiff suggesting that it didn’t earlier locate evidence like the Two Touch Evidence in part because Postscript has 18,000 customers)) Plaintiff, therefore, has not demonstrated diligence in obtaining the Two Touch Evidence, which is the impetus behind its request to amend the Scheduling Order at this extremely late stage of the case. Thus, its Motion must be denied. See, e.g., E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Unifrax I LLC, Civil Action No. 14-1250-RGA, 2017 WL 1822279, at *2 (D. Del. May 5, 2017). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/01/2025. (sam) (Entered: 08/01/2025)
2025-08-01
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the deadline to file the public redacted version of Attentive's Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn requesting an Emergency Status Conference (D.I. 673) to August 6, 2025 - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/01/2025)
2025-08-01
1
Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
2025-08-01
1
No Actions
Motion Hearing
2025-08-01
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2025-08-04
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED D.I. 696 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the deadline to file the public redacted version of Attentive's Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn requesting an Emergency Status Conference (D.I. 673) to August 6, 2025 filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/4/2025. (mlc)
2025-08-04
1
No Actions
REDACTED VERSION of 673 Letter by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1-8)(Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 08/05/2025)
2025-08-05
1
MOTION for Exemption from the Standing Order Regarding Personal Electronic Devices - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 08/05/2025)
2025-08-05
1
MOTION for Exemption of Persons from the District of Delaware's May 17, 2024 Standing Order on Personal Devices - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/05/2025)
2025-08-05
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the deadline to file the public redacted versions of (1) Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Response to Attentive's Request and Motion for an Emergency Status Conference (D.I. 677), (2) Declaration of Alex Beller (D.I. 678), (3) Declaration of Zahraa Berro (D.I. 679), (4) Declaration of Colin Turner (D.I. 680), (5) Declaration of G. David Carter (D.I. 681), (6) Declaration of Maura Gownley (D.I. 682), and (7) Declaration of Timothy C. Saulsbury (D.I. 683) to August 12, 2025 - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/05/2025)
2025-08-05
1
SO ORDERED
2025-08-05
1
No Actions
- CORRECTING ENTRY
2025-08-05
1
No Actions
CORRECTING ENTRY: D.I. 690 Exhibits 1-19 document modified per counsel request. (slk)
2025-08-05
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED D.I. 700 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the deadline to file the public redacted versions of (1) Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Response to Attentive's Request and Motion for an Emergency Status Conference ( filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/5/2025. (mlc)
2025-08-05
1
No Actions
ORDER granting D.I. 698 MOTION for Exemption from the Standing Order Regarding Personal Electronic Devices . Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/6/2025. (mlc) (Entered: 08/06/2025)
2025-08-06
1
SO ORDERED D.I. 699 MOTION for Exemption of Persons from the District of Delaware's May 17, 2024 Standing Order on Personal Devices filed by Stodge Inc.. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/6/2025. (mlc) (Entered: 08/06/2025)
2025-08-06
1
MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding D.I. 467 Postscript's Motion for Summary Judgment No. 1. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/6/2025.This order has been emailed to local counsel. (mlc) Modified on 8/6/2025 (mlc). Unsealed on 8/14/2025 (sam). (Entered: 08/06/2025)
2025-08-06
1
ORDER related to D.I. 703 Memorandum Opinion regarding D.I. 467 Postscript's Motion for Summary Judgment No. 1. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/6/2025. (mlc) Modified on 8/6/2025 (mlc). (Entered: 08/06/2025)
2025-08-06
1
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Jason Lo and Mark Reiter - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 08/06/2025)
2025-08-06
1
Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for Jason Lo and Mark Reiter. ( re 705 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Jason Lo and Mark Reiter )( Payment of $ 100, receipt number BDEDC-4752810).(Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 08/06/2025)
2025-08-06
1
MOTION for Exemption of Persons from the District of Delaware's May 17, 2024 Standing Order on Personal Devices - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/06/2025)
2025-08-06
1
SO ORDERED D.I. 707 MOTION for Exemption of Persons from the District of Delaware's May 17, 2024 Standing Order on Personal Devices filed by Stodge Inc.. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/6/2025. (mlc) (Entered: 08/06/2025)
2025-08-06
1
MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding D.I. 467 Postscript's Motion for Summary Judgment No. 1.. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/6/2025.This order has been emailed to local counsel. (mlc) Modified on 8/6/2025 (mlc). Unsealed on 8/14/2025 (sam). (Entered: 08/06/2025)
2025-08-06
1
ORDER related to D.I. 709 Memorandum Opinion regarding D.I. 467 Postscript's Motion for Summary Judgment No. 1.. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/6/2025. (mlc) (Entered: 08/06/2025)
2025-08-06
1
REDACTED VERSION of 685 Letter by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-5)(Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 08/06/2025)
2025-08-06
1
SO ORDERED D.I. 705 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Jason Lo and Mark Reiter filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/6/2025. (mlc)
2025-08-06
1
No Actions
CORRECTING ENTRY: The docket text entries for D.I. 703, 704 and 709 have been updated consistent with the Memorandums and Order issued. No other modifications to the filings have been made. (nms)
2025-08-06
1
No Actions
- CORRECTING ENTRY
2025-08-06
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2025-08-06
1
No Actions
-District Court Pro Hac Vice Fee - 02 Attorneys Credit Card Payment
2025-08-06
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: In light of the Court's grant of Postscript's motion for summary judgment on Attentive Mobile Inc.'s claims of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,416,887, 11,416,897, and 11,553,074, (see D.I. 704 ; D.I. 710 ), the Court hereby ORDERS that the following pending motions, (D.I. 534 ; D.I. 536 ; D.I. 537 ; D.I. 538 ), are DENIED AS MOOT. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/6/2025. (mlc) (Entered: 08/07/2025)
2025-08-07
1
EXHIBIT re 690 Proposed Pretrial Order - Exhibits 8 & 9 to Joint Proposed Pretrial Order by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 8, # 2 Exhibit 9)(Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 08/07/2025)
2025-08-07
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME For the Parties to File a Public Redacted Version of the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order (D.I. 690) to August 14, 2025 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 08/07/2025)
2025-08-07
1
Oral Order
2025-08-07
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: In light of the matters that the Court addressed with the parties during today's pretrial conference, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) With regard to the issue of whether Attentive has any remaining viable claims of patent infringement against Postscript (i.e., a claim that Postscript induced infringement relating to threeshipsbeauty.com's use of a third-party Klaviyo popup), by no later than 12:00 pm EST on August 11, 2025, Postscript shall file a letter brief of no more than two single-spaced pages explaining why Attentive no longer has viable claims of infringement, including as to Postscript's assertion that: (a) Attentive waived or forfeited such an argument in light of its response to Postscript's summary judgment motion of non-infringement; and (b) Attentive did not disclose such an induced infringement theory during discovery. By no later than 12:00 pm EST on August 12, 2025, Attentive shall file a letter brief of no more than two single-spaced pages providing its position in response.; (2) By no later than close of business on August 19, 2025, the parties shall file revised proposed versions of: (a) voir dire; (b) preliminary jury instructions; (c) final jury instructions; (d) verdict form (and an accompanying letter that describes the differences between their respective forms); and (e) final pretrial order.; and (3) By no later than August 15, 2025, the parties must make a further good faith attempt, either telephonically or in person, to resolve the case via settlement. If the parties resolve the case, they shall promptly advise the Court.Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/8/2025. (mlc) (Entered: 08/08/2025)
2025-08-08
1
Pretrial Conference
2025-08-08
1
No Actions
Oral Order
2025-08-08
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED D.I. 714 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME For the Parties to File a Public Redacted Version of the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order (D.I. 690) to August 14, 2025 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/8/2025. (mlc)
2025-08-08
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2025-08-08
1
No Actions
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Christopher J. Burke - Pretrial Conference held on 8/8/2025. The Court discussed issues relating to the upcoming trial with the parties. The Court heard argument on certain of the motions in limine. The Court ordered that Postscript's motion in limine #1 be denied as moot. The Court ordered that Attentive's motion in limine #3 be denied without prejudice to renew. The Court held the remainder of the motions in limine in abeyance. (Court Reporter Stacy Ingram. Clerk: M. Crawford)Appearances: C. Clark, C. Campbell, B. Davis and R. Sarkar for Plaintiff; D. Silver, T. Saulsbury, R. Fisher and H. Jiam for Defendant. (mlc)
2025-08-08
1
No Actions
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver regarding Response to the Court's August 8, 2025 Oral Order - re 715 Oral Order,,,,,,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/11/2025)
2025-08-11
1
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Benjamin Hershkowitz and Jihao Chen - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 08/12/2025)
2025-08-12
1
Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for Benjamin Hershkowitz and Jihao Chen. ( re 717 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Benjamin Hershkowitz and Jihao Chen )( Payment of $ 100, receipt number BDEDC-4757970).(Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 08/12/2025)
2025-08-12
1
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Opposition to Defendants' Waiver Argument Regarding Induced Infringement - re 716 Letter. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 08/12/2025)
2025-08-12
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to file public redacted versions of D.Is. 677-683 to August 15, 2025 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Zare, Maliheh) (Entered: 08/12/2025)
2025-08-12
1
MOTION for Exemption of Persons from the District of Delaware's May 17, 2024 Standing Order on Personal Devices - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/12/2025)
2025-08-12
1
MEMORANDUM OPINION on D.I. 476 Attentive's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the '660 patent. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/12/2025. This order has been emailed to local counsel. (sam) UNSEALED on 10/29/2025 per D.I. 819 Letter (sam). (Main Document 722 replaced on 10/29/2025) (sam). (Entered: 08/12/2025)
2025-08-12
1
ORDER: Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Attentive Mobile, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of United States Patent No. 11,709,660, (D.I. 476 ), is DENIED. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/12/2025. (sam) (Entered: 08/12/2025)
2025-08-12
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that by no later than 7:00 p.m. today, Postscript shall file on the docket (under seal if necessary) a complete version of the Rebuttal Expert Report of Barbara Frederiksen. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/12/2025. (mlc) (Entered: 08/12/2025)
2025-08-12
1
[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel Silver, Esq. regarding Enclosing Rebuttal Expert Report of Barbara Frederiksen - re 724 Oral Order,. (Attachments: # 1 Rebuttal Expert Report of Barbara Frederiksen, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/12/2025)
2025-08-12
1
Oral Order
2025-08-12
1
No Actions
Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
2025-08-12
1
No Actions
-District Court Pro Hac Vice Fee - 02 Attorneys Credit Card Payment
2025-08-12
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 717 Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Benjamin Hershkowitz and Jihao Chen - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/12/2025. (sam)
2025-08-12
1
No Actions
MEMORANDUM OPINION on D.I. 482 Attentive's motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the '660 patent. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/13/2025. This order has been emailed to local counsel. (sam) Unsealed on 8/20/2025 (sam). (Entered: 08/13/2025)
2025-08-13
1
ORDER: Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Attentive Mobile, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment of invalidity of United States Patent No. 11,709,660, (D.I. 482 ), is DENIED. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/13/2025. (sam) (Entered: 08/13/2025)
2025-08-13
1
ORDER granting D.I. 721 MOTION for Exemption of Persons from the District of Delaware's May 17, 2024 Standing Order on Personal Devices. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/14/2025. (sam) (Entered: 08/14/2025)
2025-08-14
1
MEMORANDUM ORDER regarding the parties' recently-filed briefs. (D.I. 716 ; D.I. 719 ) Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/14/2025. (sam) (Entered: 08/14/2025)
2025-08-14
1
ORAL ORDER: In light of the Court's August 14, 2025 Memorandum Order, (D.I. 729 ), and in line with Postscript's counsel's representations during the pre-trial conference, (see Pre-trial Conference Transcript at 27), the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) Attentive's Motion Strike New Opinions in the Invalidity Report of Barbara Frederiksen, (D.I. 426 ), and Postscript's Motion for Summary Judgment on Invalidity, (D.I. 468 ), are DENIED AS MOOT.; and (2) By no later than August 21, 2025, Postscript shall file a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice of its counterclaims of invalidity regarding Attentive's asserted patents. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/14/2025. (sam) (Entered: 08/14/2025)
2025-08-14
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME For the Parties to File the Public Redacted Version of the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order (D.I. 690) to August 21, 2025 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 08/14/2025)
2025-08-14
1
SO ORDERED D.I. 720 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to file public redacted versions of D.Is. 677-683 to August 15, 2025 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/14/2025. (mlc)
2025-08-14
1
No Actions
Remark: Memorandum Opinions at D.I. 703 and 709 have been unsealed. (sam)
2025-08-14
1
No Actions
Order on Motion for Summary Judgment AND Order on Motion to Strike
2025-08-14
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2025-08-14
1
No Actions
Remark
2025-08-14
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Postscript’s motion for summary judgment No. 4 that U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0241315 A1 (“Clark”), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0044555 A1 (“Orr”), and US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0118161 A1 (“Samuel”) do not anticipate Postscript’s U.S. Patent No. 11,709,660 (the “Motion”), (D.I. 472 ; see also D.I. 487 at 28), as well as the Joint Proposed Pre-trial Order wherein Attentive’s Statement of Contested Facts indicates that it is no longer pressing anticipation arguments as to Clark, Orr or Samuel, (D.I. 690, ex. 2 at 5), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is DENIED AS MOOT. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/15/2025. (sam) (Entered: 08/15/2025)
2025-08-15
1
MEMORANDUM ORDER Denying D.I. 470 Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Obviousness of Postscript's '660 Patent (Motion for Summary Judgment No. 3) - filed by Stodge Inc. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/15/2025. (sam) (Entered: 08/15/2025)
2025-08-15
1
MOTION for Exemption from the Standing Order Regarding Personal Electronic Devices - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 08/15/2025)
2025-08-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 677 Letter by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/15/2025)
2025-08-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 678 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/15/2025)
2025-08-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 679 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/15/2025)
2025-08-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 680 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/15/2025)
2025-08-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 681 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/15/2025)
2025-08-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 682 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/15/2025)
2025-08-15
1
REDACTED VERSION of 683 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/15/2025)
2025-08-15
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel Silver, Esq. regarding Request for Narrowing for Trial. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/15/2025)
2025-08-15
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 731 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME For the Parties to File the Public Redacted Version of the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order (D.I. 690 ) to August 21, 2025 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/15/2025. (sam)
2025-08-15
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2025-08-15
1
No Actions
Order on Motion for Summary Judgment
2025-08-15
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Postscript’s August 15, 2025 letter, (D.I. 742 ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) As an initial matter, Postscript’s letter requests relief, and pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.2, it therefore must be accompanied by a motion. By no later than the close of business on August 18, 2025, Postscript shall file a 1-page motion (the “Motion”). The Court will consider Postscript’s letter, (D.I. 742 ), to be its opening brief in support of that Motion.; (2) By no later than close of business on August 18, 2025, Attentive shall file a responsive letter brief of no longer than 2 single-spaced pages. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/17/2025. (sam) (Entered: 08/17/2025)
2025-08-17
1
Oral Order
2025-08-17
1
No Actions
STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to Amend Case Caption by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/18/2025)
2025-08-18
1
MOTION to Compel Attentive Mobile Inc. to Narrow Its Prior Art Invalidity Theories for Trial - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Rule 7.1.1. Certification, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/18/2025)
2025-08-18
1
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/18/2025. (sam) (Entered: 08/18/2025)
2025-08-18
1
ORDER: For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion issued this same date, (D.I. 746 ), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Attentive Mobile, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment of invalidity of United States Patent No. 11,709,660 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, (D.I. 469 ), is DENIED. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/18/2025. (sam) (Entered: 08/18/2025)
2025-08-18
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that Attentive’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, (D.I. 155 ), is DENIED AS MOOT in light of the Court’s decision regarding Attentive’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity, (D.I. 746 ). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/18/2025. (sam) (Entered: 08/18/2025)
2025-08-18
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that the parties will be allocated 11 hours each per side for trial. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/18/2025. (sam) (Entered: 08/18/2025)
2025-08-18
1
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Katherine E. Vessels - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 08/18/2025)
2025-08-18
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael Flynn regarding Opposition to Postscript's Request to Narrow Prior Art Theories for Trial - re 742 Letter, 745 MOTION to Compel Attentive Mobile Inc. to Narrow Its Prior Art Invalidity Theories for Trial. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. 1-3)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 08/18/2025)
2025-08-18
1
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Halima S. Ndai - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 08/18/2025)
2025-08-18
1
Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for Halima S. Ndai. ( re 752 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Halima S. Ndai )( Payment of $ 50, receipt number ADEDC-4768553).(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 08/18/2025)
2025-08-18
1
ORDER Granting D.I. 734 MOTION for Exemption from the Standing Order Regarding Personal Electronic Devices - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/18/2025. (sam) (Entered: 08/18/2025)
2025-08-18
1
Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for Katherine E. Vessels. ( re 750 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Katherine E. Vessels )( Payment of $ 50, receipt number ADEDC-4768932).(Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 08/18/2025)
2025-08-18
1
Official Transcript of Motion Hearing held on 07-30-25 before Judge Burke. Court Reporter Stacy Ingram,Email: stacy_ingram@ded.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or order/purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/8/2025. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/18/2025. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/17/2025. (Ingram, Stacy) Modified on 8/19/2025 (sam). (Entered: 08/18/2025)
2025-08-18
1
Official Transcript of Pretrial Conference held on 08-08-25 before Judge Burke. Court Reporter Stacy Ingram,Email: stacy_ingram@ded.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or order/purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/8/2025. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/18/2025. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/17/2025. (Ingram, Stacy) (Entered: 08/18/2025)
2025-08-18
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 744 Stipulation and Order to Amend Case Caption by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/18/2025. (sam)
2025-08-18
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 752 Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Halima S. Ndai - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/18/2025. (sam)
2025-08-18
1
No Actions
Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
2025-08-18
1
No Actions
-District Court Pro Hac Vice Fee - 01 Attorney Credit Card Payment
2025-08-18
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2025-08-18
1
No Actions
Order on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
2025-08-18
1
No Actions
Oral Order
2025-08-18
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Postscript's Motion to Compel Attentive to Narrow its Prior Art Invalidity Theories for Trial (the "Motion"), (D.I. 745 ), and the parties' briefing related thereto, (D.I. 742; D.I. 751), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is DENIED for the reasons that follow: (1) While the Court probably wouldn't have been opposed to a request for further case narrowing, such a request could have and should have come to it earlier. For the reasons discussed by Attentive, (D.I. 751 at 1-2), the Court agrees that Postscript's Motion here was filed unduly late.; (2) Moreover, because the status quo is presumed to be equitable, any proposed narrowing should have been mutual--but here, Postscript's request for an order that Attentive narrow its prior art theories from 8 theories to 3 theories is one-sided. (D.I. 742 at 1-2); (3) In the end, then, the Motion reads like an unfair attempt to force Attentive into making a one-sided reduction to its case at the eleventh hour, i.e., just days before trial is set to begin. The Court has not been persuaded that this is warranted here. Indeed, as Attentive points out, its invalidity theories based on the prior art seem to largely involve overlapping art. (D.I. 751 at 2); and (4) However, nothing the Court says here is meant to preclude the parties from further narrowing their case organically prior to or during trial, if they think it will streamline the issues. If either of the parties do choose to further streamline its case in that regard, it should give the other side as much advance notice as possible.Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/19/2025. (mlc) (Entered: 08/19/2025)
2025-08-19
1
STIPULATION of Dismissal of Certain Counterclaims Without Prejudice by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/19/2025)
2025-08-19
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for 1) Attentive to File a Motion to Redact the Courts August 12, 2025, Memorandum Opinion (D.I. 722); and 2) for Postscript to File a Public Redact Version of the Rebuttal Expert Report of Barbara Frederiksen (D.I. 725) to September 2, 2025 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 08/19/2025)
2025-08-19
1
Proposed Jury Instructions by Stodge Inc. [Preliminary]. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/19/2025)
2025-08-19
1
Proposed Voir Dire by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/19/2025)
2025-08-19
1
[SEALED] Proposed Pretrial Order by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-14)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/19/2025)
2025-08-19
1
VERDICT SHEET by Stodge Inc. [Proposed]. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/19/2025)
2025-08-19
1
Proposed Jury Instructions by Stodge Inc. [Final Jury Instructions]. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/19/2025)
2025-08-19
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 750 Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Katherine E. Vessels - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/19/2025. (sam)
2025-08-19
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2025-08-19
1
No Actions
Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
2025-08-19
1
No Actions
Order on Motion to Compel
2025-08-19
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 759 Stipulation of Dismissal of Certain Counterclaims Without Prejudice by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/19/2025. (sam)
2025-08-19
1
No Actions
FINAL Voir Dire to be read in open court.(sam) (Entered: 08/20/2025)
2025-08-20
1
Preliminary Jury Instructions to be read in open court. (sam) (Entered: 08/20/2025)
2025-08-20
1
Remark: D.I. 726 Memorandum Opinion has been unsealed per correspondence from counsel informing the Court that neither party intends to propose redactions. (sam)
2025-08-20
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 760 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for 1) Attentive to File a Motion to Redact the Courts August 12, 2025, Memorandum Opinion (D.I. 722 ); and 2) for Postscript to File a Public Redact Version of the Rebuttal Expert Report of Barbara Frederiksen (D.I. 725 ) to September 2, 2025 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/20/2025. (sam)
2025-08-20
1
No Actions
Remark
2025-08-20
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2025-08-20
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties’ revised proposed Pre-trial Order (“PTO”), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) With regard to the dispute in paragraph 16, because the parties previously agreed that Postscript’s position would govern, the Court ADOPTS Postscript’s position. The parties shall advise the Court if a particular witness is of the type addressed in paragraph 16 before the witness begins his or her testimony.; (2) With regard to paragraph 38, the Court ADOPTS Postscript’s position.; (3) With regard to paragraph 90, the e-mail discussed in that paragraph shall be sent by no later than 5:30 am.; and (4) With these decisions hereby incorporated therein, the PTO will be signed by the Court, filed on the docket, and be in effect at the upcoming trial. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/21/2025. (sam) (Entered: 08/21/2025)
2025-08-21
1
[SEALED] SO ORDERED, D.I. 763 Joint Proposed Pretrial Order. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/21/2025. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1-14)This order has been emailed to local counsel. (sam) (Entered: 08/21/2025)
2025-08-21
1
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Eli Balsam - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 08/21/2025)
2025-08-21
1
Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for Eli Balsam. ( re 770 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Eli Balsam )( Payment of $ 50, receipt number ADEDC-4772178).(Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 08/21/2025)
2025-08-21
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME For The Parties to File Public Redacted Versions of The Joint Proposed Pretrial Order (D.I. 690); Amended Joint Proposed Pretrial Order (D.I. 763); and The Joint Pretrial Order (D.I. 769) to September 4, 2025 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 08/21/2025)
2025-08-21
1
MOTION for an Exemption from the Standing Order Regarding Personal Electronic Devices - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 08/21/2025)
2025-08-21
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 773 MOTION for an Exemption from the Standing Order Regarding Personal Electronic Devices - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/21/2025. (sam) (Entered: 08/21/2025)
2025-08-21
1
Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
2025-08-21
1
No Actions
-District Court Pro Hac Vice Fee - 01 Attorney Credit Card Payment
2025-08-21
1
No Actions
Oral Order
2025-08-21
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 770 Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Eli Balsam - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/21/2025. (sam)
2025-08-21
1
No Actions
Proposed Voir Dire by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 08/22/2025)
2025-08-22
1
NOTICE OF SERVICE of Second Supplemental Report of Douglas Kidder Regarding Damages filed by Stodge Inc..(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/22/2025)
2025-08-22
1
Amended Voir Dire Questions to be read in open court. (sam) (Entered: 08/22/2025)
2025-08-22
1
Proposed Jury Instructions by Stodge Inc. [Preliminary]. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/22/2025)
2025-08-22
1
SO ORDERED
2025-08-22
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 772 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME For The Parties to File Public Redacted Versions of The Joint Proposed Pretrial Order (D.I. 690); Amended Joint Proposed Pretrial Order (D.I. 763); and The Joint Pretrial Order (D.I. 769) to September 4, 2025 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/22/2025. (sam)
2025-08-22
1
No Actions
Amended Preliminary Jury Instructions to be read in open court. (sam) (Entered: 08/23/2025)
2025-08-23
1
MOTION for Exemption from the Standing Order Regarding Personal Electronic Devices - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 08/24/2025)
2025-08-24
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael J. Flynn regarding Request for Clarification on the Issue of Patent Eligibility - re 746 Memorandum Opinion, 747 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 08/25/2025)
2025-08-25
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Response to Attentive's Request for Clarification on Patent Eligibility - re 781 Letter,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/25/2025)
2025-08-25
1
ORDER granting 780 MOTION for Exemption from the Standing Order Regarding Personal Electronic Devices - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/25/2025. (sam) (Entered: 08/25/2025)
2025-08-25
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having previously addressed scheduling of the prayer conference at the pretrial conference, hereby ORDERS that the prayer conference is set for August 27, 2025 after completion of testimony for the day. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 08/25/2025. (sam) (Entered: 08/25/2025)
2025-08-25
1
Oral Order
2025-08-25
1
No Actions
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Christopher J. Burke - Jury Trial Day 1 held on 8/25/2025. Appearances: D. Silver, T. Saulsbury, D. Durie, H. Jiam, R. Fisher, and J. Li for Plaintiff; M. Flynn, C. Clark, C. Campbell, B. Davis, M. Wood, R. Sarkar, H. Ndai, E. Balsam for Defendant. (Court Reporter Stacy Ingram; Clerk: M. Crawford and S. Miller) (sam)
2025-08-25
1
No Actions
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver regarding Defendant's Opening Statement. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/26/2025)
2025-08-26
1
Remark
2025-08-26
1
No Actions
Jury Trial - Begun
2025-08-26
1
No Actions
Remark: Previous Order has been removed from the docket. Order to be filed in correct civil action. (sam)
2025-08-26
1
No Actions
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Christopher J. Burke - Jury Trial Day 2 held on 8/26/2025. Appearances: D. Silver, T. Saulsbury, D. Durie, H. Jiam, R. Fisher, and J. Li for Plaintiff; M. Flynn, C. Clark, C. Campbell, B. Davis, M. Wood, R. Sarkar, H. Ndai, E. Balsam for Defendant. (Court Reporter Stacy Ingram; Clerk: M. Crawford and S. Miller) (sam)
2025-08-26
1
No Actions
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Michael J. Flynn regarding StackCommerce. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 08/27/2025)
2025-08-27
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel Silver, Esq. regarding Defendant's Request to Question Adam Turner on StackCommerce. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/27/2025)
2025-08-27
1
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Defendant's Request to Question Adam Turner on StackCommerce [Corrected]. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 08/27/2025)
2025-08-27
1
Jury Trial - Held
2025-08-27
1
No Actions
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Christopher J. Burke - Jury Trial Day 3 held on 8/27/2025. Appearances: D. Silver, T. Saulsbury, D. Durie, H. Jiam, R. Fisher, and J. Li for Plaintiff; M. Flynn, C. Clark, C. Campbell, B. Davis, M. Wood, R. Sarkar, H. Ndai, E. Balsam for Defendant. (Court Reporter Stacy Ingram; Clerk: M. Crawford and S. Miller) (sam)
2025-08-27
1
No Actions
Final Jury Instructions read in open court. (sam) (Entered: 08/28/2025)
2025-08-28
1
Verdict Form (Blank). (sam) (Entered: 08/28/2025)
2025-08-28
1
Jury Trial - Held
2025-08-28
1
No Actions
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Christopher J. Burke - Jury Trial Day 4 held on 8/28/2025. Appearances: D. Silver, T. Saulsbury, D. Durie, H. Jiam, R. Fisher, and J. Li for Plaintiff; M. Flynn, C. Clark, C. Campbell, B. Davis, M. Wood, R. Sarkar, H. Ndai, E. Balsam for Defendant. (Court Reporter Stacy Ingram; Clerk: M. Crawford and S. Miller) (sam)
2025-08-28
1
No Actions
[SEALED] JURY VERDICT. (sam) (Entered: 08/29/2025)
2025-08-29
1
[REDACTED] JURY VERDICT. (sam) (Entered: 08/29/2025)
2025-08-29
1
[SEALED] Jury Notes. (sam) (Entered: 08/29/2025)
2025-08-29
1
JOINT Exhibit & Witness List. (sam) (Entered: 08/29/2025)
2025-08-29
1
Jury Trial - Completed
2025-08-29
1
No Actions
Jury Trial - Held
2025-08-29
1
No Actions
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Christopher J. Burke - Jury Trial Day 5 completed on 8/29/2025. Appearances: D. Silver, T. Saulsbury, D. Durie, H. Jiam, R. Fisher, and J. Li for Plaintiff; M. Flynn, C. Clark, C. Campbell, B. Davis, M. Wood, R. Sarkar, H. Ndai, E. Balsam for Defendant. (Court Reporter Stacy Ingram; Clerk: M. Crawford and S. Miller) (sam)
2025-08-29
1
No Actions
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the deadline to file the public redacted versions of (1) Joint Proposed Pretrial Order (D.I. 690), (2) Memorandum Opinion (D.I. 722), (3) Daniel M. Silver Letter to Judge Burke regarding Frederiksen Rebuttal Report (D.I. 725), (4) Amended Joint Proposed Pretrial Order (D.I. 763); and the Joint Pretrial Order (D.I. 769) to September 5, 2025 - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 09/02/2025)
2025-09-02
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that by no later than September 9, 2025, the parties shall jointly submit: (1) a proposed form of order to enter (non-final) judgment on the verdict; and (2) a status report that indicates how the case should proceed, including a listing of any other matters the Court must resolve and any post-trial motions each party intends to file. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 09/02/2025. (sam) (Entered: 09/02/2025)
2025-09-02
1
Oral Order
2025-09-02
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2025-09-02
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 795 STIPULATION TO EXTEND the deadline to file the public redacted versions of (1) Joint Proposed Pretrial Order (D.I. 690 ), (2) Memorandum Opinion (D.I. 722 ), (3) Daniel M. Silver Letter to Judge Burke regarding Frederiksen Rebuttal Report (D.I. 725 ), (4) Amended Joint Proposed Pretrial Order (D.I. 763); and the Joint Pretrial Order (D.I. 769 ) to September 5, 2025 filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 09/02/2025. (sam)
2025-09-02
1
No Actions
NOTICE of Lodging of Demonstratives from Jury Trial by Stodge Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-C, # 2 Exhibit D Pt. 1 of 2, # 3 Exhibit D Pt. 2 of 2, # 4 Exhibit E-H)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/05/2025)
2025-09-05
1
REDACTED VERSION of 763 Proposed Pretrial Order by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/05/2025)
2025-09-05
1
REDACTED VERSION of 769 SO ORDERED by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/05/2025)
2025-09-05
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME For The Parties to File Public Redacted Versions of (1) the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order (D.I. 690), (2) Memorandum Opinion (D.I. 722), and (3) Daniel M. Silver Letter to Judge Burke regarding Frederiksen Rebuttal Report (D.I. 725) is extended to September 12, 2025 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 09/05/2025)
2025-09-05
1
REDACTED VERSION of 725 Letter, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/05/2025)
2025-09-05
1
MULTI MEDIA DOCUMENT filed by Stodge Inc. in the form of a 2 USB Drives containing video related to PDX-3. Filing related to D.I. 797 Notice of Lodging. (Media on file in Chambers) (sam) (Entered: 09/08/2025)
2025-09-08
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to file (1) a proposed form of order to enter (non-final) judgment on the verdict and (2) a status report to September 16, 2025 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/08/2025)
2025-09-08
1
SO ORDERED
2025-09-08
1
No Actions
Multi Media Document
2025-09-08
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 800 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME For The Parties to File Public Redacted Versions of (1) the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order (D.I. 690 ), (2) Memorandum Opinion (D.I. 722 ), and (3) Daniel M. Silver Letter to Judge Burke regarding Frederiksen Rebuttal Report (D.I. 725 ) is extended to September 12, 2025. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 09/08/2025. (sam)
2025-09-08
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 803 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to file (1) a proposed form of order to enter (non-final) judgment on the verdict and (2) a status report to September 16, 2025 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 09/08/2025. (sam)
2025-09-08
1
No Actions
REDACTED VERSION of 690 Proposed Pretrial Order by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-19, # 2 Exhibit 20-22)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/12/2025)
2025-09-12
1
REDACTED VERSION of 690 Proposed Pretrial Order by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-19, # 2 Exhibit 20-22)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/12/2025)
2025-09-12
2
REDACTED VERSION of 690 Proposed Pretrial Order by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-19, # 2 Exhibit 20-22)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/12/2025)
2025-09-12
2
[SEALED] Unopposed MOTION to Redact Portions of the August 12, 2025 Memorandum Opinion and Order re 722 Memorandum Opinion - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 09/12/2025)
2025-09-12
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to file (1) a proposed form of order to enter (non-final) judgment on the verdict and (2) a status report that indicates how the case should proceed, including a listing of any other matters the Court must resolve and any post-trial motions each party intends to file to September 29, 2025 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 09/16/2025)
2025-09-16
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 806 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to file (1) a proposed form of order to enter (non-final) judgment on the verdict and (2) a status report that indicates how the case should proceed, including a listing of any other matters the Court must resolve and any post-trial motions each party intends to file to September 29, 2025 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 09/16/2025. (sam)
2025-09-16
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2025-09-16
1
No Actions
REDACTED VERSION of 805 Unopposed MOTION to Redact Portions of the August 12, 2025 Memorandum Opinion and Order re 722 Memorandum Opinion by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A-B and Proposed Order)(Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 09/19/2025)
2025-09-19
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to file (1) a proposed form of order to enter (non-final) judgment on the verdict and (2) a status report that indicates how the case should proceed, including a listing of any other matters the Court must resolve and any post-trial motions each party intends to file is extended to October 1, 2025 - filed by Stodge Inc.(Joyce, Alexandra) Modified on 9/30/2025 (sam). (Entered: 09/29/2025)
2025-09-29
1
SO ORDERED
2025-09-30
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 808 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to file (1) a proposed form of order to enter (non-final) judgment on the verdict and (2) a status report that indicates how the case should proceed, including a listing of any other matters the Court must resolve and any post-trial motions each party intends to file is extended to October 1, 2025 filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/30/2025. (sam)
2025-09-30
1
No Actions
PROPOSED ORDER [Proposed] Non-Final Judgment Following Jury Verdict by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 10/01/2025)
2025-10-01
1
Joint STATUS REPORT by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1-14)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 10/01/2025)
2025-10-01
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties’ Joint Status Report, (D.I. 810 ), hereby ORDERS that with respect to the parties’ dispute about Attentive’s Section 101 defense, for the Court’s administrative purposes, Attentive shall file a one-page motion regarding its request for a limited post-trial evidentiary hearing regarding its defense by no later than October 3, 2025. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/02/2025. (sam) (Entered: 10/03/2025)
2025-10-02
1
MOTION for a Limited Post-Trial Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Defense of Ineligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 - - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 10/03/2025)
2025-10-03
1
Oral Order
2025-10-03
1
No Actions
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Jaysen S. Chung - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 10/09/2025)
2025-10-09
1
Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for Jaysen S. Chung. ( re 813 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Jaysen S. Chung )( Payment of $ 50, receipt number ADEDC-4810305).(Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 10/09/2025)
2025-10-09
1
-District Court Pro Hac Vice Fee - 01 Attorney Credit Card Payment
2025-10-09
1
No Actions
Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
2025-10-09
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 813 Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Jaysen S. Chung - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/09/2025. (sam)
2025-10-09
1
No Actions
Non-Final JUDGMENT Following Jury Verdict (Redacted Jury Verdict at D.I. 792 . See Order for further details.) Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/15/2025. (sam) (Entered: 10/15/2025)
2025-10-15
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties’ joint status report, (D.I. 810 ), hereby ORDERS that with respect to the parties’ respective proposed procedures for post-trial briefing, the Court hereby ORDERS that Postscript’s proposed procedure be adopted (i.e., with all post-trial opening briefs to be filed after the supplemental discovery period), (id. at 4-5). The Court will resolve Attentive’s motion for a limited post-trial evidentiary hearing regarding defense of ineligibility under Section 101 shortly. (D.I. 812 ) Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/15/2025. (sam) (Entered: 10/15/2025)
2025-10-15
1
Oral Order
2025-10-15
1
No Actions
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for Defendant Attentive Mobile Inc. to Serve its Supplemental Document Production (see D.I. 810 at 2) to October 31, 2025 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 10/24/2025)
2025-10-24
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant Attentive Mobile's ("Attentive") unopposed motion to redact portions of the Court's August 12, 2025 Memorandum Opinion, (D.I. 805 ), hereby ORDERS that by no later than October 29, 2025, Attentive shall confirm for the Court, by way of filing a one-page letter, that none of the material sought to be redacted was discussed by witnesses at trial or was otherwise part of the trial record. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/27/2025. (mlc) (Entered: 10/27/2025)
2025-10-27
1
SO ORDERED D.I. 817 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for Defendant Attentive Mobile Inc. to Serve its Supplemental Document Production (see D.I. 810 at 2) to October 31, 2025 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/27/2025. (mlc)
2025-10-27
1
No Actions
Oral Order
2025-10-27
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2025-10-27
1
No Actions
Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Cameron P. Clark regarding Motion to Redact Memorandum Opinion - re 818 Oral Order,,. (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 10/29/2025)
2025-10-29
1
Remark: Per Attentive Mobile Inc.'s Letter, (D.I. 819 ), the motion to redact the Court's Memorandum Opinion, (D.I. 805 ), has been terminated and the Memorandum Opinion has been UNSEALED. (D.I. 722 ) (sam)
2025-10-29
1
No Actions
Remark
2025-10-29
1
No Actions
STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Regarding Post-Trial Briefing - by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 11/04/2025)
2025-11-04
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 820 STIPULATION and Order Regarding Post-Trial Briefing - by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/04/2025. (sam)
2025-11-05
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2025-11-05
1
No Actions
MEMORANDUM ORDER Granting D.I. 812 MOTION for a Limited Post-Trial Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Defense of Ineligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. By no later than 14 days from the date of this Memorandum Order, the parties shall meet and confer and submit a joint status report of no longer than two single-spaced pages that provides their views about how the hearing and briefing shall proceed. (See Memorandum Order for further details.) Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/07/2025. (sam) (Entered: 11/07/2025)
2025-11-07
1
MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law, MOTION for New Trial, MOTION to Stay Execution of Judgment (Renewed) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 11/12/2025)
2025-11-12
1
MOTION for Ongoing Royalty - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/12/2025)
2025-11-12
1
MOTION for Permanent Injunction - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/12/2025)
2025-11-12
1
MOTION for Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Interest - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/12/2025)
2025-11-12
1
Set Briefing Schedule: re 822 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law MOTION for New Trial MOTION to Stay Execution of Judgment (Renewed), 825 MOTION for Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Interest, 824 MOTION for Permanent Injunction, 823 MOTION for Ongoing Royalty . Opening Brief due 11/25/2025. Answering Brief due 1/13/2026. Reply Brief due 2/11/2026. (sam)
2025-11-12
1
No Actions
Set Briefing Schedule - open,ans,reply,surreply
2025-11-18
1
No Actions
Joint STATUS REPORT by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 11/21/2025)
2025-11-21
1
ORAL ORDER:The Court, having reviewed the parties' November 21, 2025 joint status report regarding Attentive's Section 101 defense, (D.I. 826 ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) The parties' request to provide a supplemental joint status report on December 5, 2025 identifying dates on which both parties are available for the evidentiary hearing is GRANTED.; (2) The parties' proposed pre-hearing schedule is GRANTED.; (3) The parties' proposal to submit a joint status report setting out their proposals for the post-hearing briefing schedule two weeks after the Court schedules the evidentiary hearing is GRANTED.; and (4) With respect to the parties' dispute regarding deposition designations and trial transcript designations, the Court ADOPTS Attentive's proposal, as it seems that exchanging deposition and trial transcript designations prior to the evidentiary hearing would provide for a more focused hearing. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/24/2025. (mlc) (Entered: 11/24/2025)
2025-11-24
1
Oral Order
2025-11-24
1
No Actions
[SEALED] OPENING BRIEF in Support re 823 MOTION for Ongoing Royalty, 825 MOTION for Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Interest filed by Stodge Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 12/9/2025. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 11/25/2025)
2025-11-25
1
[SEALED] DECLARATION of Douglas Kidder re 828 Opening Brief in Support, by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 11/25/2025)
2025-11-25
1
OPENING BRIEF in Support re 822 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law MOTION for New Trial MOTION to Stay Execution of Judgment (Renewed) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 12/9/2025. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 11/25/2025)
2025-11-25
1
DECLARATION of Jaysen S. Chung re 830 Opening Brief in Support, by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A-E)(Flynn, Michael) (Attachment 1 replaced on 12/3/2025) (sam). (Entered: 11/25/2025)
2025-11-25
1
STIPULATION to Stay Execution of Enforcement of the Judgment re 815 Order - by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 11/25/2025)
2025-11-25
1
SO ORDERED D.I. 832 Stipulation to Stay Execution of the Judgment filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/26/2025. (mlc)
2025-11-26
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2025-11-26
1
No Actions
REDACTED VERSION of 828 Opening Brief in Support, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/02/2025)
2025-12-02
1
REDACTED VERSION of 829 Declaration by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/02/2025)
2025-12-02
1
Official Transcript of Jury Trial Day 1 held on 8/25/2025 before Judge Christopher J. Burke. Court Reporter/Transcriber Stacy Ingram, Email: Stacy_Ingram@ded.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or order/purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 12/26/2025. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/5/2026. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/3/2026. (sam) (Entered: 12/03/2025)
2025-12-03
1
Official Transcript of Jury Trial Day 2 held on 8/26/2025 before Judge Christopher J. Burke. (Pages 295-611 of total trial transcript.) Court Reporter/Transcriber Stacy Ingram, Email: Stacy_Ingram@ded.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or order/purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 12/26/2025. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/5/2026. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/3/2026. (sam) (Entered: 12/03/2025)
2025-12-03
1
Official Transcript of Jury Trial Day 3 held on 8/27/2025 before Judge Christopher J. Burke. (Pages 612-925 of total trial transcript.) Court Reporter/Transcriber Stacy Ingram, Email: Stacy_Ingram@ded.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or order/purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 12/26/2025. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/5/2026. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/3/2026. (sam) (Entered: 12/03/2025)
2025-12-03
1
Official Transcript of Jury Trial Day 4 held on 8/28/2025 before Judge Christopher J. Burke. (Pages 926-1171 of total trial transcript.) Court Reporter/Transcriber Stacy Ingram, Email: Stacy_Ingram@ded.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or order/purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 12/26/2025. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/5/2026. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/3/2026. (sam) (Entered: 12/03/2025)
2025-12-03
1
Official Transcript of Jury Trial Day 5 held on 8/29/2025 before Judge Christopher J. Burke. (Pages 1172-1264 of total trial transcript.) Court Reporter/Transcriber Stacy Ingram, Email: Stacy_Ingram@ded.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or order/purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 12/26/2025. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/5/2026. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/3/2026. (sam) (Entered: 12/03/2025)
2025-12-03
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that by no later than December 11, 2025, the parties shall file amended opening post-trial briefs that cite to the final trial transcripts that have now been docketed, (see D.I. 835-39), when citing to trial testimony. All subsequent post-trial briefing shall also cite to these final trial transcripts when citing to trial testimony. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/03/2025. (sam) (Entered: 12/04/2025)
2025-12-03
1
- CORRECTING ENTRY
2025-12-03
1
No Actions
CORRECTING ENTRY: Attachment to D.I. 831 -1 Declaration has been replaced per request of filing counsel to correct bookmarking embedded in PDF file. Content of filing remains unchanged. (sam) Modified on 12/3/2025 (sam).
2025-12-03
1
No Actions
Oral Order
2025-12-04
1
No Actions
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to submit a supplemental joint status report to December 12, 2025 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 12/05/2025)
2025-12-05
1
SO ORDERED
2025-12-08
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 841 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to submit a supplemental joint status report to December 12, 2025 filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/08/2025. (sam)
2025-12-08
1
No Actions
Supplemental STATUS REPORT - Supplemental Joint Status Report re D.I. 827 by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 12/11/2025)
2025-12-11
1
[SEALED] AMENDED Opening Brief in Support of D.I. 823 MOTION for Ongoing Royalty and D.I. 825 MOTION for Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Interest by Stodge Inc. (Original Filing at D.I. 828) (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) Modified on 12/16/2025 (sam). (Entered: 12/11/2025)
2025-12-11
1
Amended OPENING BRIEF in Support re 822 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law MOTION for New Trial MOTION to Stay Execution of Judgment (Renewed) filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 12/26/2025. (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 12/11/2025)
2025-12-11
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' joint status reports, (D.I. 826 ; D.I. 842 ), hereby ORDERS that an Evidentiary Hearing regarding Attentive's patent-eligibility defense under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is scheduled for 3/17/2026 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 2A before Judge Christopher J. Burke. In accordance with the parties' initial joint status report, (D.I. 826), the Court further ORDERS as follows with regard to the hearing: (1) Four hours will be allocated for the hearing, to be split equally between the sides, for presentation of live-witness testimony and any cross examination of the other side's witness(es). Attentive shall present its witnesses first. (See id. at 2); (2) The parties' pre-hearing schedule, (id.), is ADOPTED with the following modifications: (a) A pre-hearing videoconference will be held on 3/9/2026 at 10:00 AM before Judge Christopher J. Burke using the Microsoft Teams platform. By no later than March 2, 2026, the parties shall send an e-mail to the Court's Courtroom Deputy, Ms. Miller, indicating the names and e-mail addresses of all individuals who will participate in the videoconference.; (b) The parties shall follow Attentive's proposal regarding deposition designations and trial transcript designations, (id.), as previously ordered by the Court, (D.I. 827).; (c) Along with the parties' submission of witness lists and exhibits lists, the parties shall also submit a joint letter of no longer than three single-spaced pages setting out their positions regarding any outstanding objections to the parties' pre-hearing disclosures and any other matters that the Court must take up during the pre-hearing conference.; and (3) The parties' proposal regarding briefing, (D.I. 826 at 3), is ADOPTED such that the parties shall submit a joint status report setting out their proposals for the post-hearing briefing schedule by no later than December 29, 2025. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/12/2025. (mlc) (Entered: 12/12/2025)
2025-12-12
1
Oral Order AND Order Setting Videoconference AND ~Util - Set Hearings
2025-12-12
1
No Actions
REDACTED VERSION of 843 Amended Document, by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 12/18/2025)
2025-12-18
1
Joint STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order on Post-Hearing Briefing Schedule on 35 U.S.C. § 101 Defense - by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 12/29/2025)
2025-12-29
1
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties’ Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order on Post-Hearing Briefing Schedule on 35 U.S.C. § 101 Defense (the “Stipulation”), (D.I. 847 ), hereby ORDERS that the Stipulation is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART, in that the Stipulation is granted with the modification that the opening and answering briefs shall be no longer than fourteen (14) double-spaced pages each and the reply brief shall be no longer than seven (7) double-spaced pages. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 01/02/2026. (sam) (Entered: 01/02/2026)
2026-01-02
1
Oral Order
2026-01-02
1
No Actions
NOTICE requesting Clerk to remove Maliheh Zare as co-counsel.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/08/2026)
2026-01-08
1
Joint STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order on Postscript's Post-Trial Damages Motions - by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 01/13/2026)
2026-01-13
1
ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re 822 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law MOTION for New Trial MOTION to Stay Execution of Judgment (Renewed) filed by Stodge Inc..Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 1/20/2026. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/13/2026)
2026-01-13
1
SO ORDERED AND ~Util - Terminate Motions
2026-01-15
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED D.I. 850 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order on Postscript's Post-Trial Damages Motions filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Pursuant to the Stipulation, D.I. 825 MOTION for Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Interest filed by Stodge Inc. and D.I. 823 MOTION for Ongoing Royalty filed by Stodge Inc. are DENIED-AS-MOOT. Motions terminated. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 1/15/2026. (mlc)
2026-01-15
1
No Actions
NOTICE of Withdrawal Without Prejudice of Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript's Motion for Permanent Injunction by Stodge Inc. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 01/16/2026)
2026-01-16
1
REPLY BRIEF re 822 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law MOTION for New Trial MOTION to Stay Execution of Judgment (Renewed) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 02/11/2026)
2026-02-11
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the Deadline for the Parties to submit a Joint Letter setting out their positions regarding any outstanding objections to the parties' pre-hearing disclosures to March 4, 2026 - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 03/03/2026)
2026-03-03
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 854 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME the Deadline for the Parties to submit a Joint Letter setting out their positions regarding any outstanding objections to the parties' pre-hearing disclosures to March 4, 2026 filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 03/03/2026. (sam)
2026-03-03
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED
2026-03-03
1
No Actions
Joint Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from The Parties regarding Joint Letter regarding Section 101 Evidentiary Hearing - re 845 Oral Order. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1 - Postscript's Exhibit List, # 2 Ex. 2 - Postscript's Trial and Deposition Designations, # 3 Ex. 3 - Postscript's Witness List, # 4 Ex. 4 - Attentive's Witness and Exhibit List, # 5 Exhibit 5 - Attentive's Trial and Deposition Designations, # 6 Exhibit A, # 7 Exhibit B)(Joyce, Alexandra) Modified on 3/5/2026 (sam). Modified on 3/12/2026 (sam). (Entered: 03/04/2026)
2026-03-04
1
MOTION for Exemption from the Standing Order Regarding Personal Electronic Devices - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 03/05/2026)
2026-03-05
1
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Evan Kratzer - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 03/05/2026)
2026-03-05
1
Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for Evan Kratzer. ( re 857 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Evan Kratzer )( Payment of $ 50, receipt number ADEDC-4916145).(Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 03/05/2026)
2026-03-05
1
-District Court Pro Hac Vice Fee - 01 Attorney Credit Card Payment
2026-03-05
1
No Actions
Joint Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Alexandra M. Joyce regarding Resolution of certain disputes related to Section 101 Evidentiary Hearing. (Joyce, Alexandra) Modified on 3/6/2026 (jfm). (Entered: 03/06/2026)
2026-03-06
1
- CORRECTING ENTRY
2026-03-06
1
No Actions
CORRECTING ENTRY: Docket text at D.I. 859 has been modified to reflect correct judge name. (jfm)
2026-03-06
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 856 Motion for Exemption from the Standing Order Regarding Personal Electronic Devices - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 03/09/2026. (sam) (Entered: 03/09/2026)
2026-03-09
1
MOTION Exemption of Persons from the District of Delaware's May 17, 2024 Standing Order on Personal Devices - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 03/09/2026)
2026-03-09
1
1 - Terminate Hearings AND Miscellaneous Hearing
2026-03-09
1
No Actions
Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
2026-03-09
1
No Actions
SO ORDERED, D.I. 857 Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Evan Kratzer - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 03/09/2026. (sam)
2026-03-09
1
No Actions
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Christopher J. Burke - The Court held a pre-hearing videoconference regarding disputed issues for upcoming Section 101 evidentiary hearing. The Court took the parties' dispute regarding exhibits relating to Magic Composer under advisement. With respect to the additional issues raised, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and file a joint letter of no longer than two pages by close of business on March 10, 2026 indicating whether any such issues remain in dispute. (Clerk: M. Crawford; Court Reporter Stacy Ingram.) Appearances: D. Silver, T. Saulsbury and J. Li for Plaintiff; C. Clark, J. Lo, M. Reiter, J. Chung, E. Balsam and E. Kratzer for Defendant. (sam)
2026-03-09
1
No Actions
ORDER Granting D.I. 861 MOTION for Exemption of Persons from the District of Delaware's May 17, 2024 Standing Order on Personal Devices - filed by Stodge Inc. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 03/10/2026. (sam) (Entered: 03/10/2026)
2026-03-10
1
MOTION for Exemption of Persons from the District of Delaware's May 17, 2024 Standing Order on Personal Devices - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 03/10/2026)
2026-03-10
1
ORDER Granting D.I. 863 MOTION for Exemption of Persons from the District of Delaware's May 17, 2024 Standing Order on Personal Devices - filed by Stodge Inc. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 03/10/2026. (sam) (Entered: 03/10/2026)
2026-03-10
1
Joint Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from The Parties regarding Additional Issues Related to Section 101 Evidentiary Hearing. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 03/10/2026)
2026-03-10
1
Pro Hac Vice Attorney Evan Kratzer for Attentive Mobile 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)
2026-03-10
1
No Actions
Add Attorneys - PHV only
2026-03-10
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' joint letter, (D.I. 865 ), hereby ORDERS that with regard to the parties' disagreement as to whether exhibits that are to be used on cross-examination need to be included on an exhibit list or disclosed through the parties' agreed-upon disclosure process, it agrees with Plaintiffs position that they do not. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 03/11/2026. (sam) (Entered: 03/11/2026)
2026-03-11
1
MOTION for Exemption from the Standing Order Regarding Personal Electronic Devices - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 03/11/2026)
2026-03-11
1
Oral Order
2026-03-11
1
No Actions
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties’ joint letter regarding the dispute about exhibits relating to earlier versions of Defendant’s Magic Composer product (referred to as Drip, sequential campaigns or contextual campaigns) (the “exhibits at issue”), (D.I. 855 ), and having heard argument on March 9, 2026, hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) Plaintiff asserts that because Defendant’s invalidity contentions failed to put Plaintiff on notice of any Section 101 theory based on a version of Magic Composer, Defendant should be precluded pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) from relying on such versions of Magic Composer as a basis for Section 101 invalidity (and that, therefore, Defendant cannot rely on the exhibits at issue at the March 17, 2026 evidentiary hearing (“evidentiary hearing”) regarding Section 101). (Id. at 1-2); and (2) The Court denies Plaintiff’s request. The Court is not convinced that Defendant’s prior invalidity contentions were deficient such that Rule 37(c)(1) should be invoked here. But even were that wrong, that failure would be harmless. That is because, during argument, Defendant pointed out that in opposing Defendant’s Section 101 motion for summary judgment (the “Section 101 motion”), Plaintiff itself cited to documents relating to Magic Composer. (See Defendant’s pre-hearing conference presentation, Slides 7-9; D.I. 518 at ¶¶ 18-20, 22, 24 (cited in D.I. 516 at 5-6, 8, 10); D.I. 521, exs. 10 (relating to Magic Composer), 11 (relating to Sequential Campaigns), 12 (relating to Drip Campaigns)) Thus, in Defendant’s reply brief in support of the Section 101 motion, it too cited to evidence relating to Magic Composer in response to Plaintiff’s arguments. (D.I. 576 at 4 (citing D.I. 578, ex. 5 at ¶¶ 347, 439), 6-7) Indeed, with regard to the upcoming evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff itself also listed at least three exhibits relating to earlier versions of Magic Composer on its very short exhibit list that included only 10 exhibits. (D.I. 855 at 2 & ex. 1) Thus, it appears that Magic Composer was at issue with regard to the parties’ Section 101 arguments already, and so it would be wrong for the Court to grant Plaintiff’s request here. That request is therefore DENIED. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 03/12/2026. (sam) (Entered: 03/12/2026)
2026-03-12
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 867 Motion for Exemption from the Standing Order Regarding Personal Electronic Devices - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 03/12/2026. (sam) (Entered: 03/12/2026)
2026-03-12
1
Order on Misc. Motion
2026-03-12
1
No Actions
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Christopher J. Burke - Evidentiary Hearing held on 3/17/2026 relating to Defendant's Section 101 defense. (See D.I. 821 ) The Court heard testimony from witnesses. Post-hearing briefing shall proceed in accordance with D.I. 847 ; D.I. 848 . (Court reporter S. Ingram; Clerk: M. Crawford) Appearances: A. Joyce, T. Saulsbury and J. Li for Plaintiff; M. Flynn, J. Lo, M. Reiter, E. Balsam and E. Kratzer for Defendant. (sam)
2026-03-17
1
No Actions
1 - Terminate Deadlines and Hearings AND Evidentiary Hearing
2026-03-17
1
No Actions
Joint Exhibit and Witness List from Evidentiary Hearing held on 3/17/2026 before Judge Christopher J. Burke. (sam) (Entered: 03/23/2026)
2026-03-23
1
MOTION for Judgment of Patent Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 04/14/2026)
2026-04-14
1
OPENING BRIEF in Support re 871 MOTION for Judgment of Patent Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Post-Hearing) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 4/28/2026. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 04/14/2026)
2026-04-14
1
Proposed Findings of Fact by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 04/14/2026)
2026-04-14
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to file (1) Answering Brief and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law and (2) Reply Brief to (1) May 19, 2026 and (2) June 9, 2026 - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Joyce, Alexandra) (Entered: 05/01/2026)
2026-05-01
1
SO ORDERED, D.I. 874 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to file (1) Answering Brief and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law and (2) Reply Brief to (1) May 19, 2026 and (2) June 9, 2026 filed by Stodge Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 05/01/2026. (sam)
2026-05-01
1
No Actions
Order on Motion on Stipulation to Extend Time
2026-05-04
1
No Actions
ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re 871 MOTION for Judgment of Patent Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 filed by Stodge Inc..Reply Brief due date per stipulation is 6/9/2026. (Silver, Daniel) Modified on 5/28/2026 (sam). (Entered: 05/19/2026)
2026-05-19
1
Proposed Findings of Fact by Stodge Inc.. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 05/19/2026)
2026-05-19
1
Set Briefing Schedule per D.I. 874 : re 871 MOTION for Judgment of Patent Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Reply Brief due 6/9/2026. (sam)
2026-05-19
1
No Actions
Set Briefing Schedule - open,ans,reply,surreply
2026-05-28
1
No Actions
NOTICE of Withdrawal of Counsel Tannyr M. Pasvantis by Stodge Inc. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 06/05/2026)
2026-06-05
1
REPLY BRIEF re 871 MOTION for Judgment of Patent Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 06/09/2026)
2026-06-09
1