United States District Court, D. Nevada
NEW VISION GAMING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Massachusetts corporation, Plaintiff,
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
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
RULE 26(f) DISCOVERY PLAN
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:
Applicability of Patent Local Rules
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
Proposed Modifications to the Court's Scheduling
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
Parties submit the following proposed modifications to the
Court's scheduling order pursuant to LPR 1-3.
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.
Joint Protective Order: The Parties shall file a joint
protective order by July 11, 2018.
26(a) Initial Disclosures: July 11, 2018.
Initial Disclosure of Invalidity Contentions: July 11, 2018.
Response to Initial Invalidity Contentions and Initial
Disclosure of ...