This is the time line from Phonefactor, does it look similar to the current 3? , yes it does. did it ever get this far, no it didnt! Yes its a coin toss but it seems like one side of the coin is heavier so im willing to take a chance!
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE STRIKEFORCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., PLAINTIFF, )))))) Civil Action No. 13-cv-490-RGA-MPT v. ) PHONEFACTOR, INC., et. al., DEFENDANTS. ))))) [PROPOSED] AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER This ____ day of ______________, 2015, the Court having ordered on November 9, 2015, that the stay ordered on June 10, 2015 is lifted and that the parties shall provide a proposed schedule (D.I. 223); IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Mediation. The parties have provided an update regarding potential future mediation-related activities to Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon. The parties shall endeavor to conduct any further mediation by January 15, 2016, subject to the availability of Judge Fallon and the parties. 2. Supplementation of Existing Expert Reports. By January 15, 2016, each party with the burden of proof shall serve any supplements to its existing (already submitted) expert report on infringement or invalidity to address subject matter in the original expert report impacted by any modifications that the Memorandum Order issued by Judge Andrews on September 29, 2015 (D.I. 219) made to the claim construction in the Report and Recommendation issued by Judge Thynge on January 29, 2015 (D.I. 168). 3. Rebuttals to Supplementations of Existing Expert Reports. Each party shall serve by February 12, 2016 (a) any rebuttals to any of the supplementations to existing expert reports submitted pursuant to paragraph 2 above and (b) any supplements to its existing (already submitted) rebuttal expert report on non-infringement or validity to address subject matter in the original expert report impacted by any modifications that the Memorandum Order issued by Judge Andrews on September 29, 2015 (D.I. 219) made to the claim construction in the Report and Recommendation issued by Judge Thynge on January 29, 2015 (D.I. 168). 4. Supplemental Expert Reports (e.g., Secondary Considerations). Supplemental expert reports (e.g. secondary considerations of obviousness) as called for in the original Scheduling Order (D.I. 50) are due March 4, 2016. 5. Expert Discovery. Expert discovery shall be commenced to be completed by April 1, 2016. 6. Case Dispositive Motions. All case dispositive motions, an opening brief, and affidavits, if any, in support of the motion shall be served and filed on or before May 15, 2016. Unless the Court directs otherwise, no case dispositive motions may be filed at a time before the date set forth in this paragraph. Briefing will be presented pursuant to the Court's Local Rules, except as modified during the scheduling conference. If the matter is scheduled for a bench trial, no case dispositive motions shall be filed without prior authorization of the Court. Any reference to exhibits in the briefs must refer to the specific pages of the exhibit proffered in support of a party’s argument. If the exhibit is a deposition, both the page and line numbers must be specified. 7. Daubert Motions. To the extent any objection to expert testimony is made pursuant to the principles announced in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), as incorporated in Federal Rule of Evidence 702, it shall be made by motion no later than the deadline for dispositive motions set forth herein, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 8. Pretrial Conference. On October 27, 2016, the Court will hold a Final Pretrial Conference in Chambers with counsel beginning at 9:30 a.m. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the parties should assume that filing the pretrial order satisfies the pretrial disclosure requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3). The parties shall file with the Court the joint proposed final pretrial order with the information required by the form of Final Pretrial Order which accompanies this Scheduling Order on or before October 20, 2016. 9. Motions in Limine. Motions in limine shall not be separately filed. All in limine requests and responses thereto shall be set forth in the proposed pretrial order. Each party shall be limited to five in limine requests, unless otherwise permitted by the Court. The in limine request and any response shall contain the authorities relied upon; each in limine request may be supported by a maximum of three pages of argument and may be opposed by a maximum of three pages of argument. If more than one party is supporting or opposing an in limine request, such support or opposition shall be combined in a single three (3) page submission, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. No separate briefing shall be submitted on in limine requests, unless otherwise permitted by the Court. 10. Jury Instructions, Voir Dire, and Special Verdict Forms. Where a case is to be tried to a jury, pursuant to Local Rules 47 and 51 the parties should file joint proposed voir dire, instructions to the jury, and special verdict forms and jury interrogatories three full business days before the final pretrial conference. That submission shall be accompanied by a computer diskette (in WordPerfect format) which contains the instructions, proposed voir dire, special verdict forms, and jury interrogatories. 11. Trial. This matter is scheduled for a 5 day jury trial beginning at 9:30 a.m. on November 7, 2016, with the subsequent trial days beginning at 9:00 a.m. For the purpose of completing pretrial preparations, counsel should plan on each side being allocated a total number of hours to present their case. ___________________________________ The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
