SOLM.. Toyota's motion to dismiss is DENIED!
Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (doc. 35)
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons stated at the hearing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
SOLOMON TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:05-cv-1702-T-27MAP
TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for
summary judgment (doc. 35) and Plaintiff’s motion to grant its expert access to confidential
documents (doc. 40) and response thereto (doc. 46). Per the Court’s discussion at today’s
hearing on the matter, and pursuant to the goals of Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (doc. 35)
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons stated at the hearing.
2. The Court defers ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to grant its expert access to confidential
documents (doc. 40).
3. The parties are directed to confer and eventually file with the Court a joint chart (or
some other suitable joint format) that outlines the following: (a) the claims at issue and whether
these claims were the subject of the prior proceedings before the International Trade Commission
(ITC) and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; (b) the contested terms of
any claims at issue; (c) the Plaintiff’s proposed interpretation as to these disputed terms; (d) the
Case 8:05-cv-01702-JDW-MAP Document 49 Filed 12/11/2008 Page 1 of 2
Defendants’ proposed interpretations as to these disputed terms; (e) the ALJ’s interpretation of
the claim language; (f) the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of the claim language; and (g) if a
party contends that the ALJ or the Federal Circuit’s position was in error, that party should
briefly explain why it was in error and what discovery is necessary so as to develop a factual
basis for that conclusion.
4. As discussed at the hearing, counsel for the Plaintiff is tasked with notifying the Court
of a date by which the parties can furnish the joint chart outlined in the previous paragraph and
the proposed dates for a Rule 16 conference on these matters.
5. At the future Rule 16 conference, the parties should be prepared to discuss these
topics: (a) a discovery plan that takes into account the prior litigation before the ITC and the
materials already available to the parties; (b) the anticipated scope of Dr. Emadi’s review and
opinions and his need (if any) to review any materials that are not already available to Plaintiff;
(c) a protective order; and (d) the timing of dispositive motions, including motions for summary
judgment.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida on December 11, 2008.
