Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

New Vision Gaming and Development, Inc. v. Bally Gaming Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 10, 2018

NEW VISION GAMING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Massachusetts corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
BALLY GAMING INC, dba BALLY TECHNOLOGIES, a Nevada corporation, Defendant.

          ANDERSEN & BROYLES, LLP. Karl Andersen, Esq. Samuel G. Broyles Jr., Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff.

          PERKINS COIE LLP Jessica L. Everett-Garcia, Esq. John H. Gray, Esq. Nathan R. Kassebaum, Esq. Attorney for Defendant.

          JOINT REPORT OF EARLY MEETING AND STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO MODIFY COURT'S SCHEDULING ORDER (SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED FOR A PATENT CASE)

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), Local Patent Rule 1-2, and this Court's Orders (ECF Nos. 21 and 25), the parties to this action, Plaintiff New Vision Gaming and Development, Inc. (“New Vision”) and Defendant Bally Gaming Inc., dba Bally Technologies, (“Bally”) hereby certify the parties have held their Rule 26(f) conference and submit this Joint Report of Early Meeting and Stipulation respectfully requesting modification of the Court's scheduling order entered on November 21, 2017 (ECF No. 21) pursuant to Local Patent Rule 1-3.

         I. RULE 26(f) DISCOVERY PLAN

         In accordance with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(1)-(4), Local Rule 26-1, and the Patent Local Rules, the parties submit the following:

         A. Applicability of Patent Local Rules

         This action involves New Vision's claim for damages for breach of an agreement that New Vision contends is a FRE License Agreement relating to certain patents, along with certain counterclaims, including Bally's request for a declaration of patent invalidity. Because this is a “civil action[] … that seek[s] a declaratory judgment that a patent … is invalid, ” the Patent Local Rules apply. LPR 1-2. The parties agree that applicability of the Patent Local Rules will affect the proposed discovery schedule and the Court's case schedule.

         B. Proposed Modifications to the Court's Scheduling Order.

         Bally has filed petitions for CBM review with the PTAB on the two patents at issue in this case. See CBM2018-00005, CBM2018-00006. Institution decisions in those proceedings are expected by June 27, 2018. If the PTAB institutes review on the patents, Bally expects to file a motion to stay the present litigation pursuant to § 18(b)(1) of the America Invents Act (AIA), Pub L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329-31 (2011). For that reason, the proposed dates below are calculated based on the expected date of the PTAB's institution decision, rather than the date of submission of this report.

         The Parties submit the following proposed modifications to the Court's scheduling order pursuant to LPR 1-3.

         1. Discovery Cut-Off: Defendant filed its Answer, Defenses, and Counterclaims on September 29, 2017. (ECF No. 7). Pursuant to the Parties' stipulation to stay discovery, the Parties request all fact discovery shall be completed by all parties on or before March 1, 2019, which is 270 days after the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss.

         2. Joint Protective Order: The Parties shall file a joint protective order by July 11, 2018.

         3. Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures: July 11, 2018.

         4. Initial Disclosure of Invalidity Contentions: July 11, 2018.

         5. Response to Initial Invalidity Contentions and Initial Disclosure of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.