This website uses cookies. By using this website, you agree to our Cookie Policy.

Read Cookie Policy
DECLINE ALL
NON-ESSENTIAL COOKIES
Accept All Cookies

Scheduling/Case Management - Page 2

Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division)

District Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.

Intellectual Sporting Goods, LLC vs. StarPro Greens Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Case Deadline and Modify Scheduling Order, ordering that the discovery period be extended from August 13, 2020 up to and through September 18, 2020, and that the other deadlines be adjusted to conform to the deadlines set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules. The parties had argued a short extension to complete discovery was warranted due to “unanticipated and unforeseen circumstances”, including that the COVID-19 pandemic made document collection and production, and coordination with third-parties, “more time consuming than usual”. (Case No. 1:19-cv-04161; August 4, 2020).

Satco Products, Inc. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta denied defendant’s motion to strike the answer, determining that leave to file an out of time answer was appropriate. The plaintiff had filed its answer fourteen days late, but on the same day the plaintiff also filed its motion for leave to file the answer out of time. The Court found that good cause existed to extend the time to file its answer and any neglect was excusable, after considering all relevant circumstances and balancing the equities. As part of its analysis the Court considered the plaintiff’s argument that its lead counsel had recently moved to a new law firm and inadvertently missed the deadline, in part, due to the transition noting that “the COVID-19 pandemic compounded the difficulties of the remote transition process.” (Case No. 1:21-cv-00643; July 27, 2021).

District Judge J. P. Boulee

SendSig, LLC vs. Square, Inc. –The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta granted defendant’s motion for an oral argument with respect to its Motion To Dismiss. The defendant asked that, in light of the “ongoing public health emergency” created by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court schedule an oral argument for a date likely to allow in-person attendance by all relevant parties. The Court agreed that an “oral argument, with demonstratives, will simply and narrow the issues before [it].” (Case No. 1:19-cv-03733,; September 5, 2020).

District Judge Steven D. Grimberg

Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Tech. Int’l Ltd., Inc. d/b/a j5create – The U.S. District Court for the District of Georgia in Atlanta granted defendants’ Opposed Emergency Motion to Modify the Case Management and Scheduling Order, ordering the parties to meet and confer and submit a proposed modified case management and scheduling order for the Court's consideration. The defendant had argued, among other things, that several aspects of the discovery process are being delayed by the ongoing dangers presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has created delays in scheduling party depositions as well as serving and obtaining deposition testimony and discovery from third-party witnesses. (Case No. 1:18-cv-05385; October 19, 2020).

Special Master Gale R. Peterson

Diversey, Inc. vs. POPS Technologies, LLC – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta issued a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation on claim construction, after the issues were referred to the master by the Court for resolution. The Report and Recommendation noted that the Court’s order had shortened the time period of Rule 53(f)(2) which provides that “[a] party may file objections to—or a motion to adopt or modify—the master's order, report, or recommendations no later than 21 days after a copy is served, unless the court sets a different time.” In particular, the Court stated “that a party may object or move in response to a master’s recommendation no later than 14 days after a copy is served, rather than the 21 days provided under Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(2).” The Special Master further noted, however, that the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in courts issuing a variety of orders, both general and specific and some of those orders “may” (or “may not”) affect the time period for filing objections. The parties were further instructed that they “are responsible for determining whether a different time limit is applicable, either under the Court’s orders in this case, or more general orders or local court rules or chamber rules.” (Case No. 1:18-cv-04210, presiding before District Judge Amy Totenberg; June 14, 2021).

Chief District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.

Acceleron, LLC v. Dell, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta sua sponte issued on March 9, 2021, the Eleventh Amended General Order 20-01 regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent Circumstances Created by COVID-19 and Related Coronavirus, stating that “[d]espite months of intense preventative measures . . . the significant threat presented by COVID-19 within the United States, Georgia, and the district continues . . . [and] the Court reluctantly concludes that current circumstances do not yet allow it to safely resume jury trials.” The Court concluded that “a further suspension will allow conditions within the district to sufficiently improve so that counsel can adequately prepare for trial, and the health and safety of the public, those appearing before the Court, and the Court itself can be adequately safeguarded . . .  [and the] extension of the suspension of jury trials also will allow greater numbers of the bench, bar, and public to receive the COVID-19 vaccine before jury trials resume.” The Tenth Amendment further amends the General Order 20-01 entered on March 16, 2020, the Amended General Order 20-01 entered on March 30, 2020, the Second Amended General Order 20-01 entered on April 30, 2020, the Third Amended General Order 20-01 entered on May 26, 2020, the Fourth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on July 1, 2020, the Fifth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on July 10, 2020, the Sixth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on August 3, 2020, the Seventh Amended General Order 20-01 entered on September 1, 2020, the Eighth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on September 28, 2020, the Ninth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on December 8, 2020, and the Tenth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on January 27, 2021. Specifically, the Eleventh Amended General Order 20-01:

  • extends the time periods specified in General Order 20-01 through and including May 2, 2021;
  • orders that no civil or criminal jury trials be held until after May 2, 2021; and
  • grand jury proceedings may continue to he held, and summonses may be issued to prospective jurors for proceedings scheduled to begin after May 2, 2021.

The Court further indicated that “[a]ssuming the favorable trends continue in both critical areas [of the rates of infection and the percentage of people vaccinated], the Court anticipates that it will be able to resume jury trials more safely in May and intends to do so absent unforeseen developments.” (Case No. 1:12-cv-04123, presiding before District Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.; March 9, 2021).

Acceleron, LLC v. Dell, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta sua sponte issued on January 27, 2021, the Tenth Amended General Order 20-01 regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent Circumstances Created by COVID-19 and Related Coronavirus, stating that “[d]espite a recent decline, Georgia's daily average for new COVID-19 cases for the past seven days in now reported at 7,354 cases per day . . . [and these] numbers far exceed those that existed when the Court issued its original order in March and are among the highest since the pandemic was declared.” The Court concluded that “a further extension of the suspension of jury trials is required to allow conditions within the district to sufficiently improve so that counsel can adequately prepare for trial, and the health and safety of the public, those appearing before the Court, and the Court itself can be adequately safeguarded . . .  [and the] extension of the suspension of jury trials also will allow greater numbers of the bench, bar, and public to receive the COVID-19 vaccine before jury trials resume.” The Tenth Amendment further amends the General Order 20-01 entered on March 16, 2020, the Amended General Order 20-01 entered on March 30, 2020, the Second Amended General Order 20-01 entered on April 30, 2020, the Third Amended General Order 20-01 entered on May 26, 2020, the Fourth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on July 1, 2020, the Fifth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on July 10, 2020, the Sixth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on August 3, 2020, the Seventh Amended General Order 20-01 entered on September 1, 2020, the Eighth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on September 28, 2020 and the Ninth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on December 8, 2020. Specifically, the Tenth Amended General Order 20-01:

  • extends the time periods specified in General Order 20-01 through and including April 4, 2021;
  • orders that no civil or criminal jury trials be held until after April 4, 2021; and
  • grand jury proceedings may continue to he held, and summonses may be issued to prospective jurors for proceedings scheduled to begin after April 4, 2021.

(Case No. 1:12-cv-04123, presiding before District Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.; January 27, 2021).

Acceleron, LLC v. Dell, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta sua sponte issued on December 8, 2020, the Ninth Amended General Order 20-01 regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent Circumstances Created by COVID-19 and Related Coronavirus, stating that “Georgia's seven day average currently exceeds 4,500 cases per day . . . [and these] numbers are significantly higher than those that existed when the Court issued its Eighth Amendment to General Order 20-01 and are far in excess of those that existed when the Court entered its original order in March.” The Court indicated that “a further extension of the suspension of jury trials is required to allow conditions within the District to sufficiently improve so that counsel can adequately prepare for trial and the health and safety of the public . . .  [and] also will facilitate the further coordination of health and safety procedures that will be required when jury trials resume.” The Ninth Amendment further amends the General Order 20-01 entered on March 16, 2020, the Amended General Order 20-01 entered on March 30, 2020, the Second Amended General Order 20-01 entered on April 30, 2020, the Third Amended General Order 20-01 entered on May 26, 2020, the Fourth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on July 1, 2020, the Fifth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on July 10, 2020, the Sixth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on August 3, 2020, the Seventh Amended General Order 20-01 entered on September 1, 2020, and the Eighth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on September 28, 2020. Specifically, the Ninth Amended General Order 20-01:

  • extends the time periods specified in General Order 20-01 through and including February 28, 2021;
  • orders that no civil or criminal jury trials be held until after February 28, 2021; and
  • grand jury proceedings may continue to he held, and summonses may be issued to prospective jurors for proceedings scheduled to begin after February 28, 2021.

(Case No. 1:12-cv-04123, presiding before District Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.; December 8, 2020).

Acceleron, LLC v. Dell, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta sua sponte issued on September 28, 2020, the Eighth Amended General Order 20-01 regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent Circumstances Created by COVID-19 and Related Coronavirus, stating that “the average number of confirmed new COVID-19 cases in the State of Georgia remains significantly in excess of 1,000 cases per day . . . [and these] numbers far exceed those that existed at the time the Court entered General Order 20-01 and are among the highest nationally.” The Court indicated that “the extension of the suspension of jury trials also will facilitate the further coordination of health and safety procedures that will be required when jury trials resume, which the Court plans to occur in January 2021.” The Eighth Amendment further amends the General Order 20-01 entered on March 16, 2020, the Amended General Order 20-01 entered on March 30, 2020, the Second Amended General Order 20-01 entered on April 30, 2020, the Third Amended General Order 20-01 entered on May 26, 2020, the Fourth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on July 1, 2020, the Fifth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on July 10, 2020, the Sixth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on August 3, 2020 and the Seventh Amended General Order 20-01 entered on September 1, 2020. Specifically, the Eighth Amended General Order 20-01:

  • extends the time periods specified in General Order 20-01 through and including January 3, 2020;
  • orders that no civil or criminal jury trials be held until after January 3, 2021; and
  • grand jury proceedings may continue to he held, and summonses may be issued to prospective jurors for proceedings scheduled to begin after January 3, 2021.

(Case No. 1:12-cv-04123, presiding before District Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.; September 28, 2020).

Acceleron, LLC v. Dell, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta sua sponte issued on September 1, 2020, the Seventh Amended General Order 20-01 regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent Circumstances Created by COVID-19 and Related Coronavirus, stating that “the adverse conditions giving rise to General Order 20-01 have not sufficiently resolved for the Court to return to normal operations.”  The Fifth Amendment further amends the General Order 20-01 entered on March 16, 2020, the Amended General Order 20-01 entered on March 30, 2020, the Second Amended General Order 20-01 entered on April 30, 2020, the Third Amended General Order 20-01 entered on May 26, 2020, the Fourth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on July 1, 2020, the Fifth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on July 10, 2020 and the Sixth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on August 3, 2020. Specifically, the Seventh Amended General Order 20-01:

  • extends the time periods specified in General Order 20-01 through and including November 1, 2020;
  • orders that no civil or criminal jury trials be held until after November 1, 2020; and
  • grand jury proceedings may continue to he held, and summonses may be issued to prospective jurors for proceedings scheduled to begin after November 1, 2020.

(Case No. 1:12-cv-04123, presiding before District Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.; September 1, 2020).

Acceleron, LLC v. Dell, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta sua sponte issued on August 3, 2020, the Sixth Amended General Order 20-01 regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent Circumstances Created by COVID-19 and Related Coronavirus, stating that “the adverse conditions giving rise to General Order 20-01 have not sufficiently resolved for the Court to return to normal operations.”  The Fifth Amendment further amends the General Order 20-01 entered on March 16, 2020, the Amended General Order 20-01 entered on March 30, 2020, the Second Amended General Order 20-01 entered on April 30, 2020, the Third Amended General Order 20-01 entered on May 26, 2020, the Fourth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on July 1, 2020, and the Fifth Amended General Order 20-01 entered on July 10, 2020. Specifically, the Sixth Amended General Order 20-01:

  • extends the time periods specified in General Order 20-01 through and including October 4, 2020;
  • orders that no civil or criminal jury trials be held until after October 4, 2020; and
  • grand jury proceedings may continue to he held, and summonses may be issued to prospective jurors for proceedings scheduled to begin after October 4, 2020.

(Case No. 1:12-cv-04123, presiding before District Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.; August 3, 2020).

Attachment:
Acceleron, LLC v. Dell, Inc. Second Amended General Order - May 1, 2020

ERMI LLC v . Greene – On March 30, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta sua sponte issued the Amended General Order 20-01 In Re: Court Operations Under The Exigent Circumstances Created By COVID-19 And Related Coronavirus which extended the specified 30-day time periods contained in the court’s General Order 20-01 through and including May 15, 2020.  General Order 20-01 directed that no jurors be summoned for any case or grand jury proceedings for 30 days, and continued all jury trials and trial specific deadlines for 30 days. (Case No. 1:20-cv-01476, presiding before District Judge J. P. Boulee; March 30, 2020).

The Amended General Order 20-01 has been docketed in the following patent cases before U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta:

  • ERMI LLC v. Smith, Case No. 1:20-cv-01474, presiding before District Judge J. P. Boulee; March 30, 2020;
  • Ledcomm LLC v. Sengled Optoelectronics Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00956, presiding before District Judge Mark H. Cohen; March 30, 20200;
  • Mobile Networking Solutions, LLC v. Goldman Sachs & Co., LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01061, presiding before District Judge Eleanor L. Ross; March 30, 2020;
  • PureCircle USA Inc., et al., v. Almendra Americas LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01462, presiding before District Judge William M. Ray, II; March 30, 2020.

Fitness Anywhere LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Assocs. Identified on Schedule "A", Case No. 1:20-cv-01361, presiding before Senior District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber; March 30, 2020.

District Judge Amy Totenberg

Glock, Inc. v. The Wuster – In response to the emergency public health and safety conditions posed by the outbreak of COVID-19, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia’s Atlanta Division sua sponte issued an order and notice for all civil cases assigned to District Judge Amy Totenberg’s docket:

  • ordering all in-person hearings scheduled through at least April 16, 2020, to be conducted via telephone or videoconference “absent exceptional circumstances or a properly supported request for time sensitive injunctive relief requiring evidentiary presentation;”
  • extending by 30-days the time for discovery in all cases in which discovery has or will commence prior to April 16, 2020;
  • ordering all Rule 26(f) conferences to be conducted via telephone or videoconference; and
  • granting an automatic 15-day extension for submission of proposed pretrial orders in cases where discovery has been closed and that are due on or before April 16, 2020.

The order provides additional guidance on communicating with Chambers, submitting courtesy copies of filings, handling discovery disputes, and notably concludes with the following:

“Be kind to one another in this most stressful of times. Remember to maintain your perspective about legal disputes, given the larger life challenges now besetting our communities and world. Good luck to one and all.” (Case No. 1:14-cv-00568; March 17, 2020).

District of Idaho (Boise Division)

District Judge David C. Nye

JR Simplot Company v. McCain Foods USA, Inc.  – The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho in Boise denied, without prejudice, third party defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate and Stay, refusing to bifurcate the plaintiff’s indemnity claims from the infringement claims. In considering the arguments, the Court noted that it did not see the case extending for years and that any delay up to now “was the result of the complicated nature of the case, extensive motion practice, and delays due to scheduling, court resources, and COVID-19.” (Case No. 1:16-cv-00449; November 9, 2021). 

Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division—Chicago)

Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox

Beijing Choice Electronic Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Contec Medical Systems USA, Inc., et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that plaintiff’s Motion For Sanctions should be granted, related to a witness whose availability “for a deposition was the central reason for an almost 18-month delay in the case.” The witness lived in Qinhuangdao, China and his deposition was significantly delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and accompanying travel restrictions. In addition, defendant’s counsel reported that the witness had a medical condition that made it “impractical” to travel during the pandemic. The Court specifically indicated that it did not delay the witness’ deposition “because it was impossible to travel from mainland China to Macau; it was a courtesy to the parties and [the witness], as well as a recognition of the lack of readily available vaccines and medical interventions for COVID-19 in 2020 and the first half of 2021.” After the Court found that conditions had changed sufficiently to allow the deposition it ordered the defendant to produce the witness for deposition, but instead of providing deposition dates in their next status report, the parties informed the Court that the witness had given notice six weeks earlier and would be resigning. In finding that the defendant violated a Court Order, the Court noted that there were periods of time when travel from mainland China and Macau was permitted and the witness could have traveled to Macau for his deposition, but “the Court exhibited significant patience and sensitivity to [the witness’] still-undisclosed medical condition in waiting to enforce the order requiring [the witness] to appear for his deposition.” This “patience and sensitivity was repaid by [defendant] hiding crucial information from the Court and failing to produce [the witness] for deposition.” The Court indicated that the moment defendant became aware that the witness was planning to leave the company, it was incumbent on defendant to alert plaintiff or the Court in a timely manner. Given the undisclosed willingness on the part of the witness to quit his job rather than travel, the Court found it “was a colossal waste of [plaintiff’s] time and an abuse of this Court’s patience and understanding for [defendant] and its counsel to continue to represent that there was any likelihood [the witness] would appear for a deposition at any time.” The Court recommended that sanctions be imposed, including barring defendants from calling the witness at trial or using any documents or communications authored by the witness in any motion, hearing or trial, ordering defendants to pay plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs for a number of related motions and hearings, and that defendant’s counsel be fined $2,500 payable to the Court.  (Case No. 1:18-cv-00825, presiding before District Judge Franklin U. Valderrama; December 17, 2021).

District Judge Gary Feinerman

Upaid Systems, Inc. v. Card Concepts, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago sua sponte ordered the March 16, 2020 status hearing stricken and rescheduled it for April 7, 2020, “[g]iven the COVID-19 situation.” (Case No. 1:17-cv-08150; March 13, 2020).

Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes

Medline Industries, Inc. v. CR Bard, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago issued an order confirming the additional 28-day extension granted in the court’s Second Amended General Order No. 20-0012. Notably, in considering Paragraph 2(c) of the Second Amended General Order, which empowered the court to revoke said extension for good cause, the court weighed “the uncertainty associated with the COVID-19 public health emergency” over plaintiff’s prior objection to an extension of time to complete expert discovery due to concerns about the progress of the case. (Case No. 1:16-cv-03529, presiding before District Judge Martha M. Pacold; April 8, 2020).

District Judge Joan B. Gottschall

Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A  – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago denied plaintiff’s ex parte motion to extend the temporary restraining order by 14 days because the record was inadequate to find good cause. The Court noted that “since plaintiff requests an ex parte extension, waiting for the hearing date appears to be unnecessary, particularly because all hearings are being conducted by remote electronic means due to the COVID-19 pandemic.”  (Case No. 1:20-cv-06718; December 3, 2020).

District Judge Virginia M. Kendall

Aido Mobility LLC v. Sephora USA, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago sua sponte ordered the May 21, 2020 status hearing reset for June 12, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., due to the Third Amended General Order 20-0012 in re: Coronavirus COVID-19 Public Emergency dated April 24, 2020. On April 1, 2020, the court sua sponte ordered the status hearing set for April 8, 2020 to be rescheduled for May 21, 2020. This order is in accordance with the Second Amended General Order 20-0012 issued by the court on March 30, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic:

  • striking all civil case hearings, bench trials, and settlement conferences on or before May 1, 2020;
  • striking all civil jury trials scheduled on or before May 29, 2020;
  • extending all deadlines in civil cases and Executive Committee matters by an additional 28 days beyond the 21-day extension ordered in Amended General Order 20-0012 (excluding deadlines concerning civil appeals and those imposed by certain rules under the Fed. R. Civ. P.); and
  • imposing similar orders relating to criminal cases, matters requiring emergency relief, filing procedures, and pro se litigants.

(Case No. 1:20-cv-00662; April 1, 2020 and May 19, 2020).

Mantissa Corporation v. First Financial Corporation et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s Motion To Stay, providing a short stay to “accommodate the immediate health concerns of Plaintiff.” The plaintiff had requested a stay of six months indicating that “the CEO of Plaintiff has an acute medical condition that affects memory and mental capacity, and increases his risk of exposure to the Delta variant of COVID-19 . . . [and complicating] the medical condition in the near term, the CEO and his wife were diagnosed with COVID-19 earlier this week and received antibody treatments on August 31, 2021 in Bay County, Florida.” The plaintiff also noted that the CEO is “actively managing” its positions in the litigation and “is the lead inventor on the patent-in-suit and will attend the claim construction hearing in person as Plaintiff’s witness in this case.” The Court stated that the plaintiff “is not incapacitated, is able to communicate his wishes to his attorneys and is represented by experienced counsel who know what positions he is asserting . . . [and if he] desires to testify at the hearing, he may do so via videoconference.” The Court reset the claim construction hearing from September 14, 2021 to November 4, 2021 at 10 a.m., and instructed the parties to meet and confer and advise the Court if the hearing will proceed via Webex, in person, or a hybrid of both. (Case No. 1:17-cv-009174; September 9, 2021).

Nike, Inc. v. Putian Qingchunzhijia Sports Goods, Co., Ltd. d/b/a OneMix, et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago sua sponte continued the status hearing scheduled for April 6, 2020 to May 5, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and in accordance with Second Amended General Order 20-0012 dated March 30, 2020 and signed by Chief District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer. The order further directs the parties to docket entry 47 regarding appearing telephonically if needed. (Case No. 1:19-cv-01408; April 1, 2020).

District Judge John Z. Lee

Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Chicago Laminating, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago set a telephonic initial status hearing for June 15, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. (CDT), the Court finding that it would be necessary to conduct the status hearing via telephone conference in light of the COVID−19 pandemic and related General Orders. In a June 10, 2020 Docket the status hearing previously set for June 15th was reset to July 30, 2020 at 9:15 a.m. (CDT). (Case No. 1:20-cv-01833; June 3, 2020 and June 10, 2020).

District Judge Joan H. Lefkow

Ironworks Patents, LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago adopted the slightly lengthened case schedule proposed by the defendant, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Case No. 1:20-cv-01357; May 26, 2020).

Magistrate Judge Heather K. McShain

RTC Industries, Inc. v. Fasteners for Retail, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago granted defendant’s unopposed motion to reset the December 20, 2021 motion hearing due to defense counsel being unable to participate because of a personal matter. According to the motion, “[t]he spouse of the [defense] counsel who will be representing [defendant] in the hearing recently tested positive for COVID-19 and is in quarantine, and [defendant’s] counsel is unable to secure childcare such that he can participate in the December 22, 2021 hearing.” The telephonic motion hearing was reset for January 6, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. (Case No. 1:17-cv-03595, presiding before District Judge Martha M. Pacold; December 21, 2021).

District Judge Martha M. Pacold

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd., et. al. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago ordered the status hearing scheduled for April 28, 2020 stricken and reset to June 3, 2020, consistent with the court’s Second Amended General Order 20-0012 in re: Coronavirus COVID-19 Public Emergency dated March 30, 2020. In a May 19, 2020 Order, the Court sua sponte ordered the status hearing set for June 3, 2020 stricken, and further indicated that “given the COVID−19 situation, the court is not in a position to hold a status hearing.” The parties were directed to file a joint status report by June 5, 2020. The Court will reassess the need for a hearing after reviewing the parties' status report. (Case No. 1:16-cv-06094; April 6, 2020 and May 19, 2020).

Attachment:
The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd., et. al. Docket Entry - May 19, 2020

Chief District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago sua sponte issued the Fifth Amended General Order 20-0012 dated July 10, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic:

  • declining to further extend any deadlines in civil cases;
  • allowing civil case hearings, bench trials, and settlement conferences to be scheduled and conducted by the presiding judge by remote means;
  • limiting in-court hearings to urgent matters that cannot be conducted remotely;
  • ordering that no civil trials be conducted prior to August 3, 2020, and trials set to begin before August 3, 2020 be reset by the presiding judge; and
  • imposing similar orders relating to criminal cases, matters requiring emergency relief, filing procedures, and pro se litigants.

The Fifth Amended General Order vacated and superseded Amended General Order 20-0012, entered on March 17, 2020; General Order 20-0014, entered on March 20, 2020; Second Amended General Order 20-0012, entered on March 30, 2020; Third Amended General Order 20-0012, entered April 24, 2020, and Fourth Amended General Order 20-0012 dated May 26, 2020.  (Case No. 1:10-cv-00715, presiding before District Judge Virginia M. Kendall; July 10, 2020).

Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago sua sponte issued the Fourth Amended General Order 20-0012 dated May 26, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic:

  • declining to further extend any deadlines in civil cases;
  • allowing civil case hearings, bench trials, and settlement conferences to be scheduled and conducted by the presiding judge by remote means;
  • limiting in-court hearings to urgent matters that cannot be conducted remotely;
  • ordering that no civil trials be conducted prior to August 3, 2020, and trials set to begin before August 3, 2020 be reset by the presiding judge; and
  • imposing similar orders relating to criminal cases, matters requiring emergency relief, filing procedures, and pro se litigants.

The Fourth Amended General Order vacated and superseded Amended General Order 20-0012, entered on March 17, 2020; General Order 20-0014, entered on March 20, 2020; Second Amended General Order 20-0012, entered on March 30, 2020; and Third Amended General Order 20-0012, entered April 24, 2020.  (Case No. 1:10-cv-00715, presiding before District Judge Virginia M. Kendall; May 26, 2020).

The Fourth Amended General Order has been docketed in the following patent cases before U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago:

  • Aido Mobility LLC v. Sephora USA, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00662, presiding before District Judge Virginia M. Kendall; May 26, 2020;
  • Beijing Choice Elec. Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Contec Medical Sys. USA Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00825, presiding before District Judge Sara L. Ellis; May 26, 2020;
  • Encoditech LLC v. The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00675, presiding before District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.; May 26, 2020;
  • Fitness Anywhere LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Assocs. Identified on Schedule "A", Case No. 1:20-cv-01361, presiding before Senior District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber; May 26, 2020;
  • Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Chicago Laminating, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01833, presiding before District Judge John Z. Lee; May 26, 2020;
  • Internet Media Interactive Corp. v. Express, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01014, presiding before District Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr.; May 26, 2020;
  • Medline Industries, Inc. v. CR Bard, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-03529, presiding before District Judge Martha M. Pacold; May 26, 2020;
  • NeuroGrafix, et al. v. Brainlab, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-06075, presiding before District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly; May 26, 2020;
  • Princeps Secundus LLC v. LG Corp., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00683, presiding before District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly; May 26, 2020;
  • Putco, Inc. v. Carjamz Com, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-50109, presiding before District Judge John Z. Lee; May 26, 2020;
  • Reflection Code LLC v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01005, presiding before U.S. District Judge Martha M. Pacold; May 26, 2020;
  • RTC Industries, Inc. v. Fasteners for Retail, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-03595, presiding before District Judge Martha M. Pacold; May 26, 2020;
  • The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-06094, presiding before District Judge Martha M. Pacold; May 26, 2020;
  • Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-00715, presiding before District Judge Virginia M. Kendall; May 26, 2020;
  • Upaid Systems, Inc. v. Card Concepts, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-08150, presiding before District Judge Gary Feinerman; May 26, 2020;
  • Virtual Immersion Techs., LLC v. Turner Construction Co., Case No. 1:20-cv-00974, presiding before District Judge Virginia M. Kendall; May 26, 2020;
  • Wi-LAN, Inc., et al. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00941, presiding before District Judge John F. Kness; May 26, 2020;

WiNet Labs, LLC v. LG Elec. U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01096, presiding before District Judge Mary M. Rowland; May 26, 2020.

Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago sua sponte issued the Third Amended General Order 20-0012 dated April 24, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic:

  • striking all civil case hearings, bench trials, and settlement conferences scheduled on or before May 29, 2020, to be re-set by the presiding judge to a date on or after June 1, 2020;
  • striking all civil jury trials scheduled on or before June 26, 2020, to be re-set by the presiding judge to a date on or after June 29, 2020;
  • extending all deadlines in civil cases and Executive Committee matters by an additional 28 days beyond the further 28-day extension ordered in the Second Amended General Order 20-0012 (excluding deadlines concerning civil appeals and those imposed by certain rules under the Fed. R. Civ. P.); and
  • imposing similar orders relating to criminal cases, matters requiring emergency relief, filing procedures, and pro se litigants.

The Third Amended General Order vacated and superseded Amended General Order 20-0012, entered on March 17, 2020; General Order 20-0014, entered on March 20, 2020; and Second Amended General Order 20-0012, entered on March 30, 2020.  (Case No. 1:10-cv-00715, presiding before District Judge Virginia M. Kendall; April 24, 2020).

The Third Amended General Order has been docketed in the following patent cases before U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago:

  • Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Chicago Laminating, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01833, presiding before District Judge John Z. Lee; April 24, 2020;
  • Princeps Secundus LLC v. LG Corp., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00683, presiding before District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly; April 24, 2020.

District Judge Manish S. Shah

Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A  – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion to extend an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO). The Court found that the district-wide general orders modifying proceedings in light of the COVID-19 pandemic -- Amended General Order 20-0012, entered on March 17, 2020; Second Amended General Order 20-0012 entered on March 30, 2020, and the Third Amended General Order 20-0012 entered on April 24, 2020 -- did not extend TROs, The Court found Counsel's belief that “the General Orders extended TROs unless specifically excepted was not a reasonable reading of the orders.” The Court, however, found that the defendants received notice of the proceedings having been served with the summons and complaint by electronic means and served the motion for a preliminary injunction by electronic means. It further ruled that “conversion of the TRO to a preliminary injunction (while the motion for a preliminary injunction is pending) is appropriate because the plaintiff has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm if injunctive relief does not issue.” (Case No. 1:20-cv-02931; June 29, 2020).

Oakley, Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A  – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago denied plaintiff's motion to extend an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO). The Court found that the district-wide general orders modifying proceedings in light of the COVID-19 pandemic -- Amended General Order 20-0012, entered on March 17, 2020; Second Amended General Order 20-0012 entered on March 30, 2020, and the Third Amended General Order 20-0012 entered on April 24, 2020 -- did not extend TROs, The Court found Counsel's belief that “the General Orders extended TROs unless specifically excepted was not a reasonable reading of the orders.” In particular, the Court stated that “the General Orders fail to comply with the requirement that extensions of TROs beyond the 28−day mark comport with the formal requirements for a preliminary injunction (which requires notice to the adverse party).” (Case No. 1:20-cv-02970; June 29, 2020).

District Judge Franklin U. Valderrama

Nordstrom Consulting, Inc. et al v. Innova Systems, Inc. et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s Eastern Division in Chicago denied defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend their Counterclaim, without prejudice, stating that the “defendants cannot use the pandemic generally as a shield to hide their failure to act diligently.” Although the Court acknowledged that the pandemic caused litigation delays in March and April of 2020, the defendants failed to explain why they failed to file in the two months before the pandemic (when they were in the possession of the necessary information), or how the pandemic affected their ability to file their Motion for Leave to Amend between mid-March 2020 and May 28, 2020. (Case No. 1:18-cv-03011; November 6, 2020).

Northern District of Indiana (South Bend)

Magistrate Judge Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.

Days Corporation v. Lippert Components, Inc. et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana’s South Bend division denied without prejudice the parties’ Stipulation Regarding Extension of Case Management Schedule seeking to extend the deadline for expert witness depositions, discovery-related, non-dispositive motions, and all other discovery by 6 to 8 weeks because of the protective measures in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  The Court found that “the parties have not provided sufficient information about their discovery efforts, especially in the last 3-1/2 months, to demonstrate the good cause necessary to justify further extension of the discovery deadlines as stipulated.”  However, recognizing the “unique constraints” imposed upon litigation by the COVID-19 pandemic, the denial was without prejudice and the Court indicated that a renewed stipulation, or a motion to amend the Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order, will be deemed timely if filed on or before July 21, 2020. On July 28, 2020, the Court ordered that the Case Management Schedule be further extended after considering the Stipulation of the Parties and “the facts stated therein.” In particular, “due to the protective measures being taken by various state and local governments” in response to the COVID-19 pandemic “previously requiring counsel and experts (who are located in various states) to shelter in place, the Parties need time to complete fact witness and expert depositions.” (Case No. 3:17-cv-00208, presiding before District Judge Philip P. Simon; July 16, 2020 and July 28, 2020).

Southern District of Iowa (Des Moines)

Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer

Putco, Inc. v. Shenzhen Aurora Tech. Co., Ltd. – The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa in Des Moines denied plaintiff’s motion to deem its service of process of the Summons and Complaint effective, or to order that the foreign corporate Defendant accept service of process by its counsel in related cases. The Court did, however, find good cause to extend the time for Plaintiff to effectuate service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), in part because the plaintiff made good-faith attempts to serve the Defendant and “[c]omplications for completion of that service, caused by the need for personal service and due to the COVID-19 pandemic, are issues outside of Plaintiff’s control.” (Case No. 4:19-cv-00412, presiding before Chief Judge John A. Jarvey; June 5, 2020).

District of Kansas (Kansas City)

Senior Judge Kathryn H. Vratil 

A&J Manufacturing, LLC v. L.A.D. Global Enterprises, Inc. et al. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City sua sponte dismissed, without prejudice, plaintiff's patent infringement complaint for counsel's failure to respond to a Notice And Order To Show Cause and comply with pro hac vice requirements. The Court found unpersuasive new counsel’s explanation, made in an email, that “the current pandemic has further complicated [plaintiff’s] finding local counsel.” In particular, since the plaintiff’s counsel had nearly a year and a half to find local counsel and seek admittance to satisfy local pro hac vice requirements, the Court rejected the notion that the COVID-19 pandemic had anything to do with the failure to do so. (Case No. 2:19-cv-02009; May 14, 2020).

Western District of Louisiana (Lafayette)

Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst

Swivel Rental & Supply, LLC v. Petro Pull, LLC, et al. – The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in Lafayette denied defendants’ Motion To Disqualify Counsel, concluding that the defendants did not carry their burden of showing that counsel is a material witness at this stage of the litigation, and further fail to contravene the plaintiff’s argument that it would suffer a substantial hardship were the motion granted. As part of its analysis, the Court found that disqualification of counsel at this time would result in “substantial hardship” to plaintiff, in part, because discovery has closed and the trial date is quickly approaching, and “the trial date in this case has already been continued twice because of the COVID-19 pandemic.” (Case No. 6:18-cv-01141, presiding before District Judge Michael J. Juneau; March 8, 2021).

District of Maine (Portland)

Chief Judge Jon D. Levy

Copan Italia SpA, et al. v. Puritan Medical Products Co. LLC et al. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Baltimore denied defendant’s Partial Motion To Dismiss, after a virtual hearing was conducted pursuant to Standing Order 2021-08 in light of the reduction in operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  (Case No. 1:20-cv-03737; June 23, 2021).

District of Maryland (Baltimore)

District Judge Richard D. Bennett

Paice LLC et al v. Volvo Car Corp.  – The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Baltimore denied defendant’s Partial Motion To Dismiss, after a virtual hearing was conducted pursuant to Standing Order 2021-08 in light of the reduction in operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  (Case No. 1:20-cv-03737; June 23, 2021).

District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher

Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. v. Iron World Manufacturing, LLC. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Baltimore denied plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs incurred in seeking an Order of Default and in filing its Motion for Default Judgment, because it was filed eight days after the Court imposed deadline. The Court had previously granted defendant’s motion to set aside the default, but at that time the Court stated that it “also views Defendant’s conduct as possibly deserving of monetary sanctions [permitting plaintiff] to file a motion seeking reasonable costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees.” When that order issued in May, plaintiff missed the ECF notice because it only had a single attorney of record on the Court’s docket, who left the firm for another position, in mid-March. The Court was unpersuaded by the plaintiff’s argument giving “the unusually disruptive circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic as the reason for its neglect.”  (Case No. 1:19-cv-03027; July 17, 2020).

District of Massachusetts (Boston)

Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV

Abiomed, Inc. v. Maquet Cardiovascular, LLC – The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston issued a Memorandum and Order on [Defendant’s] Motion To Redact Oral Argument Hearing Transcripts, denying in part and granting in part the request. As part of its analysis the Court indicated that the motion will not be denied on the basis that the matters were discussed in open court since the hearing at issue was conducted by videoconference due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and it may be the case that defendant did not realize that anyone other than the parties’ attorneys were on the conference. (Case No. 1:16-cv-10914; November 5, 2021).

District Judge Richard G. Stearns

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. athenahealth, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston denied plaintiff’s Motion to Compel seeking to compel defendant to produce its source code for review in Dallas, Texas, the location of its chosen technical expert, who for health reasons cannot travel to Boston due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The defendant argued “that the source code for its cloud services is the company's most valued ‘crown jewel’ and that it has always handled any disclosure of the code with the utmost precautions, and under current circumstances, cannot produce the code in Texas without taking undue risks.” The Court found that “[t]he parties' concerns are reasonable, and neither party should have to bear the cost of the pandemic more than the other.”  Therefore, the Court adopted the defendant’s proposal to stay the case until 2021.  (Case No. 1:19-cv-11278; July 29, 2020).

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Paychex, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, extending the closing dates for fact discovery and expert discovery and the date for filing dispositive and Daubert motions. The parties sought the extension due to “a number of factors, including witness availability and the time that [it] is taking non-parties to provide discovery, particularly under COVID-19 circumstances.”  (Case No. 1:19-cv-11272; August 9, 2020).

District Judge Indira Talwani

Big Beings USA Pty. Ltd., et al. v. Nested Bean, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston sua sponte cancelled the Rule 16 conference scheduled for March 23, 2020, issued a written scheduling order, and referred the matter to mediation before a magistrate judge pursuant to the parties’ Rule 16 Joint Statement 17. The order was issued in response to the spread of COVID-19 and in accordance with the court’s General Order 20-2 issued by Chief Judge Saylor. (Case No. 1:20-cv-10101; March 17, 2020).

Philips North America LLC f/k/a Philips Electronics North America Corp. v. Fitbit, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston ordered that the parties’ March 24, 2020 scheduling conference be held telephonically, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court reset the Markman Hearing, originally set for August 6, 2020, to now be held on August 5, 2020 and indicated that the hearing will be conducted by video conference. On September 21, 2020, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order, seeking to extend certain deadlines because the COVID-19 pandemic “complicated efforts to comply with the existing schedule.” According to the parties, “the proposed revised schedule addresses some of those complications, and provides the parties with the ability to craft their completion of discovery with the expected guidance of the Court’s rulings on the pending Motion to Dismiss, and Claim Construction order.” In addition the initial pretrial conference, originally set for June 23, 2021, was reset for September 17, 2021 at 2:30 p.m. (EDT). (Case No. 1:19-cv-11586; March 21, 2020,  June 4, 2020 and September 21, 2020).

SoClean, Inc. v. Sunset Healthcare Solutions, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston cancelled the parties’ Rule 16 conference. The order states that, “[i]n light of the coronavirus pandemic, General Order 20-2 issued by Chief Judge Saylor to protect public health and reduce unnecessary travel, and the parties’ Rule 16 Joint Statement [37] setting forth no disagreements as to a proposed scheduling order, the court is cancelling the Rule 16 conference set for March 30, 2020, and issuing a written scheduling order.” The court did, however, provide that any party may request a rescheduled Rule 16 conference by motion or by email. (Case No. 1:20-cv-10351; March 24, 2020).

District Judge William G. Young

Bio-Rad Labs., Inc., et al. v. Stilla Techs., Inc., et al. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston stayed the case for 90 days so that defendants could focus their resources on developing a test kit for use in the COVID-19 global pandemic. (Case No. 1:19-cv-11587; March 23, 2020). 

Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit)

District Judge David M. Lawson

Michigan Motor Technologies LLC v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit denied a Motion To Extend Hearing On Motion To Dismiss, requesting a 45 day continuance of the May 19, 2020, hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss due to the exigent circumstances created by the coronavirus pandemic. Instead, the Court cancelled the May 19 Hearing, indicating that it will decide the motion on the papers without oral argument because the motion is fully briefed. (Case No. 2:19-cv-10485; May 8, 2020).

Multimatic Inc. v. Edscha Automotive Michigan, Inc. – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit denied defendant’s motion to extend by 90 days all case deadlines subsequent to the August 31, 2020 claim construction hearing, due to concerns over the ability to timely conclude fact discovery given restrictions imposed by private and public authorities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Although sympathetic, the Court did not find that good cause had been shown at this time for the lengthy extension sought, particularly because the soonest deadlines were more than four months away and “[m]uch may change between now and then, either for the worse, or, hopefully, for the better.” In particular, the Court was unable at this time “to detect an urgent need for a schedule adjustment or to predict with any certainty the extent of any adjournment that may be warranted.” (Case No. 2:19-cv-12598; May 28, 2020).

 

Load More Cases

Back to Top