Stris Maher LLP

General

Please sign up or log in to access the advanced features of
Ex Parte Professional.

or Log in

Cases31

Challenger50%

Patent Owner50%

NPE50%

stris-maher

stris.com

Practice Areas

Software, SecurityComp. Arch. and SoftwareCommunications

Top Attorneys

Patrick J. CoyneNeal S. CohenPeter Kinsella

Elite Ratings

DCTPTABCAFC

Ratings

Please sign up or log in to access the advanced features of
Ex Parte Professional.

or Log in

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

PTAB

CAFC

Analytics

Lawyers

Cases

Ratings Trends

Practice Areas

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
11/15/24	Cosmokey Solutions GmbH & Co KG v. Duo Security Inc 1:18-CV-01477 ( D. DE )	NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Reply Expert Report of Dr. Benjamin Goldberg; (2) Reply Expert Report of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D. Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 9,246,903; and (3) Reply Expert Report of Lauren R. Kindler filed by Cisco Systems, Inc., Duo Security, Inc..(Ying, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/15/2024)
11/15/24	Cosmokey Solutions GmbH & Co KG v. Duo Security Inc 1:18-CV-01477 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties’ pending discovery dispute motion (“Motion”), (D.I. [210] ), which the Court will treat as relating to outstanding discovery dispute Issue # 5 (Plaintiff’s issue)—an issue that is further described in D.I. 250—hereby addresses Issue # 5, which is Plaintiff’s request for “an order excluding, as untimely and improper, Defendants’ assertion of three new invalidity references [A11, A12 and A13], in their June 7, 2024 Second Supplemental Invalidity Contentions [“SSIC”].” (D.I. [263] at 1) The Court has also reviewed the briefing related to this request. (D.I. [263] ; D.I. [278] ; D.I. [290] ) Having done so, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART in the manner and for the reasons that follow: (1) The disputes here relate to a stipulation the parties jointly entered into on May 2, 2024 (the “May 2 stipulation”); in that stipulation, the parties noted “WHEREAS, the Court has recently issued its Markman opinion (D.I. 169 ) and the parties may wish to supplement contentions...” and later stated that Defendants now had until June 7, 2024 to “serve supplemental invalidity contentions[.]” (D.I. [179] at 1-2) Defendants then filed the SSIC on June 7, and in that document, they first disclosed their intent to assert A11, A12 and A13. (D.I. [263] at 1) The question is whether the assertion of these new references falls within the letter of the May 2 stipulation. If it did (as Defendants argue), (D.I. [278] ), then Defendants are fine. If it didn’t, then Defendants would be out of luck—since a prior Scheduling Order requires them to show good cause in order to later supplement their invalidity contentions, (D.I. [45] at para. 7), and there wouldn’t be good cause here, since Defendants’ answering letter brief and Plaintiff’s reply letter brief makes it clear that not only have Defendants known about A11-13 since at least December 2023 (if not longer), (D.I. [263] at 2; see D.I. [264] , ex. B at 1), but they could easily have known of the need to assert the references back then (in light of the parties’ then-current positions in the case). (D.I. [278] at 2; D.I. [290] at 1); (2) That said, with regard to A12 and A13, the Court must DENY the Motion, simply due to the breadth of the relevant language in the May 2 stipulation. If Plaintiff had wanted that stipulation to narrowly limit Defendants to only being able to supplement their invalidity contentions if the supplementation “relates to new claim constructions, not proposed by the parties, that the District Court entered after the Markman hearing” (or a similarly cabined set of scenarios) then they could have written the stipulation in just that way. But instead, they agreed to a stipulation that was very broadly worded, such that it facially permitted supplementation so long as the supplementation had something to do with the fact that the Court had “issued its Markman opinion.” And in their answering letter brief, Defendants do at least articulate some plausible (if admittedly creative) basis to suggest that the assertion of A12 and A13 had something to do with something that happened during the Markman hearing (and the subsequent issuance of the Court’s oral Markman order). (D.I. [278] at 2; see also D.I. [189] ) Defendants’ argument here is a thin reed, to be sure. (D.I. [290] at 1) But in the Court’s view, the fault for it having succeeded lies with Plaintiff, who allowed a broad and vague stipulation to be entered as to this issue—and not with Defendants for making the argument.; and (3) As to A11, however, the Court will GRANT the Motion. Even Defendants can’t come up with a plausible basis to suggest that A11’s inclusion in the SSIC had anything to do with something that happened in the Markman hearing and/or the subsequent Markman order. (D.I. [278] at 2) Thus, the text of the May 2 stipulation isn’t a reason to permit A11’s late entry into this case. (See also id., ex. A at 5 (e-mail from Plaintiff’s counsel prior to the entry of the May 2 stipulation, making clear that at minimum, the stipulation was meant to “allow the parties to supplement contentions in light of the Court’s Markman order and hearing”)) All Defendants say is that this reference (Duo Push 2011) is very similar to another reference (Duo Push 2010) that Defendants have previously and timely asserted in the case. (Id. at 2) But that just goes to show that there wasn’t good cause for injecting the reference into the case on June 7, 2024; Defendants could have done so long ago (such as when Duo Push 2010 first made an appearance in the case back in 2023). (D.I. [290] at 1) Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/15/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/15/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties’ pending discovery dispute motion (“Motion”), (D.I. [210] ), which the Court will treat as relating to outstanding discovery dispute Issue # 5 (Plaintiff’s issue)—an issue that is further described in D.I. 250—hereby addresses Issue # 5, which is Plaintiff’s request for “an order excluding, as untimely and improper, Defendants’ assertion of three new invalidity references [A11, A12 and A13], in their June 7, 2024 Second Supplemental Invalidity Contentions [“SSIC”].” (D.I. [263] at 1) The Court has also reviewed the briefing related to this request. (D.I. [263] ; D.I. [278] ; D.I. [290] ) Having done so, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART in the manner and for the reasons that follow: (1) The disputes here relate to a stipulation the parties jointly entered into on May 2, 2024 (the “May 2 stipulation”); in that stipulation, the parties noted “WHEREAS, the Court has recently issued its Markman opinion (D.I. 169 ) and the parties may wish to supplement contentions...” and later stated that Defendants now had until June 7, 2024 to “serve supplemental invalidity contentions[.]” (D.I. [179] at 1-2) Defendants then filed the SSIC on June 7, and in that document, they first disclosed their intent to assert A11, A12 and A13. (D.I. [263] at 1) The question is whether the assertion of these new references falls within the letter of the May 2 stipulation. If it did (as Defendants argue), (D.I. [278] ), then Defendants are fine. If it didn’t, then Defendants would be out of luck—since a prior Scheduling Order requires them to show good cause in order to later supplement their invalidity contentions, (D.I. [45] at para. 7), and there wouldn’t be good cause here, since Defendants’ answering letter brief and Plaintiff’s reply letter brief makes it clear that not only have Defendants known about A11-13 since at least December 2023 (if not longer), (D.I. [263] at 2; see D.I. [264] , ex. B at 1), but they could easily have known of the need to assert the references back then (in light of the parties’ then-current positions in the case). (D.I. [278] at 2; D.I. [290] at 1); (2) That said, with regard to A12 and A13, the Court must DENY the Motion, simply due to the breadth of the relevant language in the May 2 stipulation. If Plaintiff had wanted that stipulation to narrowly limit Defendants to only being able to supplement their invalidity contentions if the supplementation “relates to new claim constructions, not proposed by the parties, that the District Court entered after the Markman hearing” (or a similarly cabined set of scenarios) then they could have written the stipulation in just that way. But instead, they agreed to a stipulation that was very broadly worded, such that it facially permitted supplementation so long as the supplementation had something to do with the fact that the Court had “issued its Markman opinion.” And in their answering letter brief, Defendants do at least articulate some plausible (if admittedly creative) basis to suggest that the assertion of A12 and A13 had something to do with something that happened during the Markman hearing (and the subsequent issuance of the Court’s oral Markman order). (D.I. [278] at 2; see also D.I. [189] ) Defendants’ argument here is a thin reed, to be sure. (D.I. [290] at 1) But in the Court’s view, the fault for it having succeeded lies with Plaintiff, who allowed a broad and vague stipulation to be entered as to this issue—and not with Defendants for making the argument.; and (3) As to A11, however, the Court will GRANT the Motion. Even Defendants can’t come up with a plausible basis to suggest that A11’s inclusion in the SSIC had anything to do with something that happened in the Markman hearing and/or the subsequent Markman order. (D.I. [278] at 2) Thus, the text of the May 2 stipulation isn’t a reason to permit A11’s late entry into this case. (See also id., ex. A at 5 (e-mail from Plaintiff’s counsel prior to the entry of the May 2 stipulation, making clear that at minimum, the stipulation was meant to “allow the parties to supplement contentions in light of the Court’s Markman order and hearing”)) All Defendants say is that this reference (Duo Push 2011) is very similar to another reference (Duo Push 2010) that Defendants have previously and timely asserted in the case. (Id. at 2) But that just goes to show that there wasn’t good cause for injecting the reference into the case on June 7, 2024; Defendants could have done so long ago (such as when Duo Push 2010 first made an appearance in the case back in 2023). (D.I. [290] at 1) Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/15/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/15/2024)
09/13/24	Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp v. Hec Pharm Co Ltd 1:20-CV-00133 ( D. DE )	STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Regarding Amended Case Schedule by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. (Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 09/13/2024)
07/22/24	Kmizra LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc 6:20-CV-01031 ( W.D. TX )	ORDER GRANTING 223 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Brian S. Boerman. Attorney added for K.Mizra LLC. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order, if he/she has not previously done so for a prior case in this District. Registration is managed by the PACER Service Center. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (bot2) (Entered: 07/22/2024) ORDER GRANTING 223 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Brian S. Boerman. Attorney added for K.Mizra LLC. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order, if he/she has not previously done so for a prior case in this District. Registration is managed by the PACER Service Center. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (bot2) (Entered: 07/22/2024)
08/28/23	Wifi Rail Inc v. Cisco Systems Inc 1:23-CV-00662 ( W.D. TX )	ORDER GRANTING 15 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Jhaniel James for Cisco Systems, Inc. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. Registration is managed by the PACER Service Center. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (jv2) (Entered: 08/28/2023) ORDER GRANTING 15 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Jhaniel James for Cisco Systems, Inc. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. Registration is managed by the PACER Service Center. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (jv2) (Entered: 08/28/2023)
08/28/23	Wifi Rail Inc v. Cisco Systems Inc 1:23-CV-00662 ( W.D. TX )	ORDER GRANTING 14 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Sarah Rahimi for Cisco Systems, Inc. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. Registration is managed by the PACER Service Center. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (jv2) (Entered: 08/28/2023) ORDER GRANTING 14 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Sarah Rahimi for Cisco Systems, Inc. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. Registration is managed by the PACER Service Center. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (jv2) (Entered: 08/28/2023)
08/28/23	Wifi Rail Inc v. Cisco Systems Inc 1:23-CV-00662 ( W.D. TX )	ORDER GRANTING 13 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Kenneth J. Halpern for Cisco Systems, Inc. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. Registration is managed by the PACER Service Center. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (jv2) (Entered: 08/28/2023) ORDER GRANTING 13 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Kenneth J. Halpern for Cisco Systems, Inc. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. Registration is managed by the PACER Service Center. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (jv2) (Entered: 08/28/2023)
08/04/23	Midas Green Tech LLC v. Rhodium Enterprisess Inc 6:22-CV-00050 ( W.D. TX )	Text Order GRANTING 128 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Noting that it is unopposed, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion. It is ORDERED that Kat Li, Gianni Cutri, Gregory Polins, and Ashley Ross are withdrawn as counsel for Defendants. It is further ordered that the docket be amended to reflect that Kat Li, Gianni Cutri, Gregory Polins, and Ashley Ross are withdrawn as counsel and no longer need to be noticed of any pleadings, motions, or other documents filed or served in this case. Entered by Judge Alan D Albright. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (RJlc) (Entered: 08/04/2023) Text Order GRANTING 128 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Noting that it is unopposed, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion. It is ORDERED that Kat Li, Gianni Cutri, Gregory Polins, and Ashley Ross are withdrawn as counsel for Defendants. It is further ordered that the docket be amended to reflect that Kat Li, Gianni Cutri, Gregory Polins, and Ashley Ross are withdrawn as counsel and no longer need to be noticed of any pleadings, motions, or other documents filed or served in this case. Entered by Judge Alan D Albright. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (RJlc) (Entered: 08/04/2023)
12/09/22	Attestwave LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc 6:22-CV-01100 ( W.D. TX )	Report on Patent/Trademark sent to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (bot1) (Entered: 12/09/2022)
11/14/22	Invincible IP LLC v. Sas 1:22-CV-04490 ( S.D. NY )	AO 120 FORM PATENT - CASE TERMINATED - SUBMITTED. In compliance with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 290, the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is hereby advised that a final decision was rendered on 11/10/22 in a court action filed on the following patent(s) in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York. Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office electronically notified via Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (yv) (Entered: 11/14/2022) AO 120 FORM PATENT - CASE TERMINATED - SUBMITTED. In compliance with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 290, the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is hereby advised that a final decision was rendered on 11/10/22 in a court action filed on the following patent(s) in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York. Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office electronically notified via Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (yv) (Entered: 11/14/2022)