Personal Communication Devices, LLC files unopposed Motion for Extension of Time until October 21-09 to deliver its Answer to Third Amended Complaint of Wi-LAN.

U.S. District Judge Ward issues a Discovery Order and a Docket Control Order governing this case through trial.

Management Comment:
The key deadlines provided for in Judge Ward’s two Orders are as follows:

January 4, 2011 - Trial Date

November 3, 2010 - Deadline for filing Dispositive (summary judgment) Motions and any other motions that may require a hearing

October 20, 2010 - Fact Discovery Deadline

March 11, 2010 - Markman Hearing date (for ‘802 and ‘222 patents)

February 19, 2010 - Plaintiff’s Reply Markman brief due

February 10, 2010 - Defendants’ Markman brief due

January 20, 2010 - Plaintiff’s Opening Markman brief due

January 22, 2010 - Discovery deadline--claim construction issues

November 6, 2009 - Deadline for adding Parties to the case

August 28, 2009 - The Parties to file Agreed Protective Order or file a motion identifying any disputed issues

Wi-LAN and the Defendants file a Joint Motion For Extension of Time to File Proposed Discovery and Docket Control Orders from August 11, 2009 and August 13, 2009, respectively, to August 20, 2009. The Parties further agree that Wi-LAN’s deadline to comply with P.R. 3-1 and 3.2 should be extended to August 31, 2009.

U.S. District Judge Ward issues Order setting Status Conference to take place on July 28, 2009.

UTStarcom, Inc. files Answer, Defenses and Counterclaims to Second Amended Complaint of Wi-LAN.

US District Court Judge T. John Ward grants the Motion of UTStarcom to Extend the Time to Answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint of Wi-LAN to January 5, 2009.

Wi-LAN files its Answer to Defendant Motorola, Inc.’s Counterclaims filed October 17, 2008.

Defendant Motorola, Inc. files its Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims.

U.S. District Judge T. John Ward issues Order that the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed as against LG Electronics, Inc. in accordance with the representations and stipulations set forth in the parties’ stipulated motion.

Management Comment
The granted motion removes an unnecessary party from the action, thus reducing the complexity of the case and legal costs. This often happens in patent infringement actions because it is typical to initially start the suit against all related companies which might possibly be liable for the infringing acts. Later, after an exchange of information and discussion between the parties, it becomes apparent that certain defendants’ activities are not implicated by the patents and the parties agree to remove them from the case. In this situation, the LG parent company has been dismissed from the case because it appears that the sale of allegedly infringing products takes place only through its US subsidiary which remains a defendant. However, the parent company will still have certain discovery obligations and Wi-LAN has retained the right to reinstate the action against the parent company should that ever prove to be necessary in the future.

US District Judge T. John Ward issues Order granting Agreed Motion to Dismiss Research in Motion Corporation and Research in Motion Ltd. and an Order granting Wi-LAN’s Motion to File 2nd Amended Complaint.

Motorola, Inc. files unopposed Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint, to September 17, 2008.

Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint by Motorola - until 2008 09 17 

Wi-LAN files its First Amended Complaint to add LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. as Defendants.