British Telecommunications PLC

General

Total Cases36

Active Cases2

Patents141

CourtsD. Delaware S.D. New York D. Massachusetts

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

PTAB

--

--

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

L2

E

PTAB

L4

A

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
06/21/24	BT Americas Inc v. Palo Alto Networks Inc 1:22-CV-01538 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: In light of the Court's order to stay this case, (D.I. 150), the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) Each of the following pending motions is DENIED without prejudice to renew, if and when the stay is lifted: (a) Plaintiffsâ€™ Motion for Reconsideration, (D.I. 52 ), (b) Plaintiffs' Motion for Claim Construction, (D.I. 147 ), and (c) Defendant's Motion for Claim Construction, (D.I. 146 ).; and (2) The Markman hearing scheduled for June 27, 2024 is CANCELED. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 06/20/2024. (smg) (Entered: 06/21/2024) ORAL ORDER: In light of the Court's order to stay this case, (D.I. 150), the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) Each of the following pending motions is DENIED without prejudice to renew, if and when the stay is lifted: (a) Plaintiffsâ€™ Motion for Reconsideration, (D.I. 52 ), (b) Plaintiffs' Motion for Claim Construction, (D.I. 147 ), and (c) Defendant's Motion for Claim Construction, (D.I. 146 ).; and (2) The Markman hearing scheduled for June 27, 2024 is CANCELED. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 06/20/2024. (smg) (Entered: 06/21/2024)
06/21/24	BT Americas Inc v. Palo Alto Networks Inc 1:22-CV-01538 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: In light of the Court's order to stay this case, (D.I. 150), the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) Each of the following pending motions is DENIED without prejudice to renew, if and when the stay is lifted: (a) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration, (D.I. 52 ), (b) Plaintiffs' Motion for Claim Construction, (D.I. 147 ), and (c) Defendant's Motion for Claim Construction, (D.I. 146 ).; and (2) The Markman hearing scheduled for June 27, 2024 is CANCELED. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 06/20/2024. (smg) (Entered: 06/21/2024) ORAL ORDER: In light of the Court's order to stay this case, (D.I. 150), the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) Each of the following pending motions is DENIED without prejudice to renew, if and when the stay is lifted: (a) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration, (D.I. 52 ), (b) Plaintiffs' Motion for Claim Construction, (D.I. 147 ), and (c) Defendant's Motion for Claim Construction, (D.I. 146 ).; and (2) The Markman hearing scheduled for June 27, 2024 is CANCELED. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 06/20/2024. (smg) (Entered: 06/21/2024)
06/20/24	BT Americas Inc v. Palo Alto Networks Inc 1:22-CV-01538 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant’s motion (“Motion”) to stay the case pending the completion of an instituted ex parte reexamination proceeding (“EPR”) regarding all asserted claims of the one patent-in-suit (the “237 patent”), (D.I. 130 ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 131 ; D.I. 135 ; D.I. 136 ), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED for the reasons that follow: (1) The Court first addresses the “simplification of the issues” factor. In a scenario like this one, where the request to stay is in favor of an EPR, there will be some limits on the arguments a movant can make about potential simplification, since: (a) the standard for instituting an EPR is more forgiving than that regarding an inter parties review (“IPR”) proceeding; and (b) if claims emerge from the EPR, not only will the Court have to then address all of the non-Section 102 or 103 issues in the case, but it will not even get the benefit of estoppel as to the Section 102/103 issues that were raised in the EPR. (D.I. 135 at 2-3 (citing Ever Win Int’l Corp. v. RadioShack Corp., 902 F. Supp. 2d 503, 506-07 (D. Del. 2012) (citing cases)) With that said, here the Court concludes that this factor slightly favors a stay, because: (a) Although the asserted claims have survived two petitions for IPR, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) has now instituted EPR review of claims 1-42 of the 237 patent on four separate grounds, which indicates that Defendant has multiple viable paths to removing those claims from this case (thus mooting any work done on those claims by the parties and the Court in the meantime).; (b) It is not disputed that approximately 79% of the time, all or some claims are canceled during an EPR.; and (c) Because the 237 patent is expired, any canceled claims will not thereafter be amended. (D.I. 131 at 1-2 & ex. 1 at 12; D.I. 136 at 1); (2) As to the “status of the case” factor, normally it would favor a stay, at least to some degree, because at the time of the Motion’s filing, we were at a stage where the Court had not yet held a Markman hearing and no deposition discovery had commenced. But here, the Court and the parties have invested an unusually large amount of resources into resolving disputes prior to the Motion’s filing. (See D.I. 40 & D.I. 42 (Court denying motion to transfer); D.I. 62 (Court issuing Scheduling Order after resolving scheduling disputes); D.I. 86 & D.I. 88 (Court resolving Protective Order disputes); D.I. 97 (Court resolving Section 101 motion to dismiss); D.I. 117 (Court resolving motion to stay pending IPR); see also D.I. 128 ) That kind of an investment of Court resources can militate in favor of moving forward with a case, (D.I. 135 at 3-4), and so taking this into account, this factor is about neutral.; (3) The “undue prejudice” factor supports a stay. Defendant asserts (and Plaintiffs do not deny) that the parties here are not competitors, (D.I. 131 at 2-3; D.I. 135 ), and with the asserted patent being expired, Plaintiffs are limited to monetary relief for past damages, which can be obtained after a stay ends just as well as it could be in the shorter term. And while Plaintiffs are correct that Defendant has sought to stop this case from moving forward in various ways (at times successfully, as to the now-dropped 641 patent, and at times not), (D.I. 136 at 2), the Court cannot say that those efforts amount to attempts to gain an improper tactical advantage. See Princeton Digit. Image Corp. v. Konami Digit. Ent. Inc., Civil Action No. 12-1461-LPS-CJB, Civil Action No. 13-335-LPS-CJB, 2014 WL 3819458, at 4 (D. Del. Jan. 15, 2014) (citing cases involving efforts to seek an improper tactical advantage via filing a motion to stay, in circumstances more worrisome or disruptive that those at play here).; (4) With two of the three stay-related factors supporting a stay (at least to some degree) and none working against a stay, the Court GRANTS the Motion. There is a real chance that all asserted claims will not make it out of the PTO, and any prejudice involved in waiting to see if that happens is not undue. See Satius Holding, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Civil Action No. 18-850-CJB, D.I. 86 (D. Del. Dec. 11, 2019) (staying a case where all asserted claims were at issue in an EPR under generally similar circumstances).; and (5) The parties shall jointly notify the Court by letter within 10 days of the completion of the EPR proceeding at the PTO. (CASE STAYED.) Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 06/20/2024. (smg) (Entered: 06/20/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant’s motion (“Motion”) to stay the case pending the completion of an instituted ex parte reexamination proceeding (“EPR”) regarding all asserted claims of the one patent-in-suit (the “237 patent”), (D.I. 130 ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 131 ; D.I. 135 ; D.I. 136 ), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED for the reasons that follow: (1) The Court first addresses the “simplification of the issues” factor. In a scenario like this one, where the request to stay is in favor of an EPR, there will be some limits on the arguments a movant can make about potential simplification, since: (a) the standard for instituting an EPR is more forgiving than that regarding an inter parties review (“IPR”) proceeding; and (b) if claims emerge from the EPR, not only will the Court have to then address all of the non-Section 102 or 103 issues in the case, but it will not even get the benefit of estoppel as to the Section 102/103 issues that were raised in the EPR. (D.I. 135 at 2-3 (citing Ever Win Int’l Corp. v. RadioShack Corp., 902 F. Supp. 2d 503, 506-07 (D. Del. 2012) (citing cases)) With that said, here the Court concludes that this factor slightly favors a stay, because: (a) Although the asserted claims have survived two petitions for IPR, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) has now instituted EPR review of claims 1-42 of the 237 patent on four separate grounds, which indicates that Defendant has multiple viable paths to removing those claims from this case (thus mooting any work done on those claims by the parties and the Court in the meantime).; (b) It is not disputed that approximately 79% of the time, all or some claims are canceled during an EPR.; and (c) Because the 237 patent is expired, any canceled claims will not thereafter be amended. (D.I. 131 at 1-2 & ex. 1 at 12; D.I. 136 at 1); (2) As to the “status of the case” factor, normally it would favor a stay, at least to some degree, because at the time of the Motion’s filing, we were at a stage where the Court had not yet held a Markman hearing and no deposition discovery had commenced. But here, the Court and the parties have invested an unusually large amount of resources into resolving disputes prior to the Motion’s filing. (See D.I. 40 & D.I. 42 (Court denying motion to transfer); D.I. 62 (Court issuing Scheduling Order after resolving scheduling disputes); D.I. 86 & D.I. 88 (Court resolving Protective Order disputes); D.I. 97 (Court resolving Section 101 motion to dismiss); D.I. 117 (Court resolving motion to stay pending IPR); see also D.I. 128 ) That kind of an investment of Court resources can militate in favor of moving forward with a case, (D.I. 135 at 3-4), and so taking this into account, this factor is about neutral.; (3) The “undue prejudice” factor supports a stay. Defendant asserts (and Plaintiffs do not deny) that the parties here are not competitors, (D.I. 131 at 2-3; D.I. 135 ), and with the asserted patent being expired, Plaintiffs are limited to monetary relief for past damages, which can be obtained after a stay ends just as well as it could be in the shorter term. And while Plaintiffs are correct that Defendant has sought to stop this case from moving forward in various ways (at times successfully, as to the now-dropped 641 patent, and at times not), (D.I. 136 at 2), the Court cannot say that those efforts amount to attempts to gain an improper tactical advantage. See Princeton Digit. Image Corp. v. Konami Digit. Ent. Inc., Civil Action No. 12-1461-LPS-CJB, Civil Action No. 13-335-LPS-CJB, 2014 WL 3819458, at 4 (D. Del. Jan. 15, 2014) (citing cases involving efforts to seek an improper tactical advantage via filing a motion to stay, in circumstances more worrisome or disruptive that those at play here).; (4) With two of the three stay-related factors supporting a stay (at least to some degree) and none working against a stay, the Court GRANTS the Motion. There is a real chance that all asserted claims will not make it out of the PTO, and any prejudice involved in waiting to see if that happens is not undue. See Satius Holding, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Civil Action No. 18-850-CJB, D.I. 86 (D. Del. Dec. 11, 2019) (staying a case where all asserted claims were at issue in an EPR under generally similar circumstances).; and (5) The parties shall jointly notify the Court by letter within 10 days of the completion of the EPR proceeding at the PTO. (CASE STAYED.) Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 06/20/2024. (smg) (Entered: 06/20/2024)
06/20/24	BT Americas Inc v. Palo Alto Networks Inc 1:22-CV-01538 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendantâ€™s motion (â€œMotionâ€) to stay the case pending the completion of an instituted ex parte reexamination proceeding (â€œEPRâ€) regarding all asserted claims of the one patent-in-suit (the â€œ237 patentâ€), (D.I. 130 ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 131 ; D.I. 135 ; D.I. 136 ), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED for the reasons that follow: (1) The Court first addresses the â€œsimplification of the issuesâ€ factor. In a scenario like this one, where the request to stay is in favor of an EPR, there will be some limits on the arguments a movant can make about potential simplification, since: (a) the standard for instituting an EPR is more forgiving than that regarding an inter parties review (â€œIPRâ€) proceeding; and (b) if claims emerge from the EPR, not only will the Court have to then address all of the non-Section 102 or 103 issues in the case, but it will not even get the benefit of estoppel as to the Section 102/103 issues that were raised in the EPR. (D.I. 135 at 2-3 (citing Ever Win Intâ€™l Corp. v. RadioShack Corp., 902 F. Supp. 2d 503, 506-07 (D. Del. 2012) (citing cases)) With that said, here the Court concludes that this factor slightly favors a stay, because: (a) Although the asserted claims have survived two petitions for IPR, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (â€œPTOâ€) has now instituted EPR review of claims 1-42 of the 237 patent on four separate grounds, which indicates that Defendant has multiple viable paths to removing those claims from this case (thus mooting any work done on those claims by the parties and the Court in the meantime).; (b) It is not disputed that approximately 79% of the time, all or some claims are canceled during an EPR.; and (c) Because the 237 patent is expired, any canceled claims will not thereafter be amended. (D.I. 131 at 1-2 & ex. 1 at 12; D.I. 136 at 1); (2) As to the â€œstatus of the caseâ€ factor, normally it would favor a stay, at least to some degree, because at the time of the Motionâ€™s filing, we were at a stage where the Court had not yet held a Markman hearing and no deposition discovery had commenced. But here, the Court and the parties have invested an unusually large amount of resources into resolving disputes prior to the Motionâ€™s filing. (See D.I. 40 & D.I. 42 (Court denying motion to transfer); D.I. 62 (Court issuing Scheduling Order after resolving scheduling disputes); D.I. 86 & D.I. 88 (Court resolving Protective Order disputes); D.I. 97 (Court resolving Section 101 motion to dismiss); D.I. 117 (Court resolving motion to stay pending IPR); see also D.I. 128 ) That kind of an investment of Court resources can militate in favor of moving forward with a case, (D.I. 135 at 3-4), and so taking this into account, this factor is about neutral.; (3) The â€œundue prejudiceâ€ factor supports a stay. Defendant asserts (and Plaintiffs do not deny) that the parties here are not competitors, (D.I. 131 at 2-3; D.I. 135 ), and with the asserted patent being expired, Plaintiffs are limited to monetary relief for past damages, which can be obtained after a stay ends just as well as it could be in the shorter term. And while Plaintiffs are correct that Defendant has sought to stop this case from moving forward in various ways (at times successfully, as to the now-dropped 641 patent, and at times not), (D.I. 136 at 2), the Court cannot say that those efforts amount to attempts to gain an improper tactical advantage. See Princeton Digit. Image Corp. v. Konami Digit. Ent. Inc., Civil Action No. 12-1461-LPS-CJB, Civil Action No. 13-335-LPS-CJB, 2014 WL 3819458, at 4 (D. Del. Jan. 15, 2014) (citing cases involving efforts to seek an improper tactical advantage via filing a motion to stay, in circumstances more worrisome or disruptive that those at play here).; (4) With two of the three stay-related factors supporting a stay (at least to some degree) and none working against a stay, the Court GRANTS the Motion. There is a real chance that all asserted claims will not make it out of the PTO, and any prejudice involved in waiting to see if that happens is not undue. See Satius Holding, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Civil Action No. 18-850-CJB, D.I. 86 (D. Del. Dec. 11, 2019) (staying a case where all asserted claims were at issue in an EPR under generally similar circumstances).; and (5) The parties shall jointly notify the Court by letter within 10 days of the completion of the EPR proceeding at the PTO. (CASE STAYED.) Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 06/20/2024. (smg) (Entered: 06/20/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendantâ€™s motion (â€œMotionâ€) to stay the case pending the completion of an instituted ex parte reexamination proceeding (â€œEPRâ€) regarding all asserted claims of the one patent-in-suit (the â€œ237 patentâ€), (D.I. 130 ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 131 ; D.I. 135 ; D.I. 136 ), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED for the reasons that follow: (1) The Court first addresses the â€œsimplification of the issuesâ€ factor. In a scenario like this one, where the request to stay is in favor of an EPR, there will be some limits on the arguments a movant can make about potential simplification, since: (a) the standard for instituting an EPR is more forgiving than that regarding an inter parties review (â€œIPRâ€) proceeding; and (b) if claims emerge from the EPR, not only will the Court have to then address all of the non-Section 102 or 103 issues in the case, but it will not even get the benefit of estoppel as to the Section 102/103 issues that were raised in the EPR. (D.I. 135 at 2-3 (citing Ever Win Intâ€™l Corp. v. RadioShack Corp., 902 F. Supp. 2d 503, 506-07 (D. Del. 2012) (citing cases)) With that said, here the Court concludes that this factor slightly favors a stay, because: (a) Although the asserted claims have survived two petitions for IPR, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (â€œPTOâ€) has now instituted EPR review of claims 1-42 of the 237 patent on four separate grounds, which indicates that Defendant has multiple viable paths to removing those claims from this case (thus mooting any work done on those claims by the parties and the Court in the meantime).; (b) It is not disputed that approximately 79% of the time, all or some claims are canceled during an EPR.; and (c) Because the 237 patent is expired, any canceled claims will not thereafter be amended. (D.I. 131 at 1-2 & ex. 1 at 12; D.I. 136 at 1); (2) As to the â€œstatus of the caseâ€ factor, normally it would favor a stay, at least to some degree, because at the time of the Motionâ€™s filing, we were at a stage where the Court had not yet held a Markman hearing and no deposition discovery had commenced. But here, the Court and the parties have invested an unusually large amount of resources into resolving disputes prior to the Motionâ€™s filing. (See D.I. 40 & D.I. 42 (Court denying motion to transfer); D.I. 62 (Court issuing Scheduling Order after resolving scheduling disputes); D.I. 86 & D.I. 88 (Court resolving Protective Order disputes); D.I. 97 (Court resolving Section 101 motion to dismiss); D.I. 117 (Court resolving motion to stay pending IPR); see also D.I. 128 ) That kind of an investment of Court resources can militate in favor of moving forward with a case, (D.I. 135 at 3-4), and so taking this into account, this factor is about neutral.; (3) The â€œundue prejudiceâ€ factor supports a stay. Defendant asserts (and Plaintiffs do not deny) that the parties here are not competitors, (D.I. 131 at 2-3; D.I. 135 ), and with the asserted patent being expired, Plaintiffs are limited to monetary relief for past damages, which can be obtained after a stay ends just as well as it could be in the shorter term. And while Plaintiffs are correct that Defendant has sought to stop this case from moving forward in various ways (at times successfully, as to the now-dropped 641 patent, and at times not), (D.I. 136 at 2), the Court cannot say that those efforts amount to attempts to gain an improper tactical advantage. See Princeton Digit. Image Corp. v. Konami Digit. Ent. Inc., Civil Action No. 12-1461-LPS-CJB, Civil Action No. 13-335-LPS-CJB, 2014 WL 3819458, at 4 (D. Del. Jan. 15, 2014) (citing cases involving efforts to seek an improper tactical advantage via filing a motion to stay, in circumstances more worrisome or disruptive that those at play here).; (4) With two of the three stay-related factors supporting a stay (at least to some degree) and none working against a stay, the Court GRANTS the Motion. There is a real chance that all asserted claims will not make it out of the PTO, and any prejudice involved in waiting to see if that happens is not undue. See Satius Holding, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Civil Action No. 18-850-CJB, D.I. 86 (D. Del. Dec. 11, 2019) (staying a case where all asserted claims were at issue in an EPR under generally similar circumstances).; and (5) The parties shall jointly notify the Court by letter within 10 days of the completion of the EPR proceeding at the PTO. (CASE STAYED.) Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 06/20/2024. (smg) (Entered: 06/20/2024)
06/10/24	BT Americas Inc v. Palo Alto Networks Inc 1:22-CV-01538 ( D. DE )	NOTICE: Per Magistrate Judge Burke's Standing Order Regarding Courtesy Copies, which requires two (2) courtesy copies of all briefs (including letter briefs), as well as any documents filed in support of such briefs (i.e., appendices, exhibits, declarations, affidavits, tutorials, etc.) and one (1) copy of any other document filed (e.g., letters and stipulations), please submit to the Clerk's Office a copy of D.I. # 149 . (smg) (Entered: 06/10/2024) NOTICE: Per Magistrate Judge Burke's Standing Order Regarding Courtesy Copies, which requires two (2) courtesy copies of all briefs (including letter briefs), as well as any documents filed in support of such briefs (i.e., appendices, exhibits, declarations, affidavits, tutorials, etc.) and one (1) copy of any other document filed (e.g., letters and stipulations), please submit to the Clerk's Office a copy of D.I. # 149 . (smg) (Entered: 06/10/2024)
06/05/24	BT Americas Inc v. Palo Alto Networks Inc 1:22-CV-01538 ( D. DE )	STATEMENT Defendant's Comments on Plaintiffs' Technology Tutorial by Palo Alto Networks, Inc.. (Farnan, Brian) (Entered: 06/05/2024)
05/30/24	BT Americas Inc v. Palo Alto Networks Inc 1:22-CV-01538 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the partiesâ€™ May 29, 2024 letter (â€œletterâ€), (D.I. 139 ), regarding the Markman hearing, hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) The Court hereby ADOPTS the partiesâ€™ proposal regarding time allocation. One hour and a half will be allocated for argument, to be split evenly between the parties.; (2) With respect to the partiesâ€™ proposal regarding the order of the terms and which side will present argument first for each term, the Court hereby ADOPTS the partiesâ€™ proposal as set out in the letter.; (3) On or before June 20, 2024, Delaware and lead counsel for the parties shall meet and confer and file an amended joint claim construction chart that sets forth the terms/issues that remain in dispute. The meet and confer shall focus on an attempt to reach agreement on any remaining disputed terms/issues where possible and on an attempt to focus the dispute over the remaining terms/issues in light of the parties' claim construction briefing. In a joint letter that the parties shall submit by June 20, 2024, the parties shall: (a) identify by name each individual who participated in this meet and confer, when and how that meet and confer occurred and how long it lasted; and (b) list, for each term remaining to be argued, what they understand the parties' remaining disputes about the construction of that term to be (i.e., "The parties' [first/only] dispute as to this term is whether [describe dispute]."), including no more than one sentence to describe each dispute. If no agreements on constructions have been reached or if no dispute has been narrowed on the meet and confer, the letter shall so state, and the parties need not file an amended joint claim construction chart.; and (4) In light of the partiesâ€™ positions on Defendantâ€™s pending Motion to Stay (â€œmotionâ€), (D.I. 130 ), the Court hereby ORDERS that the videoconference set for August 19, 2024 to hear argument on the motion is CANCELED. The Court will resolve the motion on the papers and will make an effort to do so prior to the June 27, 2024 Markman hearing. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 05/30/2024. (smg) (Entered: 05/30/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the partiesâ€™ May 29, 2024 letter (â€œletterâ€), (D.I. 139 ), regarding the Markman hearing, hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) The Court hereby ADOPTS the partiesâ€™ proposal regarding time allocation. One hour and a half will be allocated for argument, to be split evenly between the parties.; (2) With respect to the partiesâ€™ proposal regarding the order of the terms and which side will present argument first for each term, the Court hereby ADOPTS the partiesâ€™ proposal as set out in the letter.; (3) On or before June 20, 2024, Delaware and lead counsel for the parties shall meet and confer and file an amended joint claim construction chart that sets forth the terms/issues that remain in dispute. The meet and confer shall focus on an attempt to reach agreement on any remaining disputed terms/issues where possible and on an attempt to focus the dispute over the remaining terms/issues in light of the parties' claim construction briefing. In a joint letter that the parties shall submit by June 20, 2024, the parties shall: (a) identify by name each individual who participated in this meet and confer, when and how that meet and confer occurred and how long it lasted; and (b) list, for each term remaining to be argued, what they understand the parties' remaining disputes about the construction of that term to be (i.e., "The parties' [first/only] dispute as to this term is whether [describe dispute]."), including no more than one sentence to describe each dispute. If no agreements on constructions have been reached or if no dispute has been narrowed on the meet and confer, the letter shall so state, and the parties need not file an amended joint claim construction chart.; and (4) In light of the partiesâ€™ positions on Defendantâ€™s pending Motion to Stay (â€œmotionâ€), (D.I. 130 ), the Court hereby ORDERS that the videoconference set for August 19, 2024 to hear argument on the motion is CANCELED. The Court will resolve the motion on the papers and will make an effort to do so prior to the June 27, 2024 Markman hearing. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 05/30/2024. (smg) (Entered: 05/30/2024)
05/30/24	BT Americas Inc v. Palo Alto Networks Inc 1:22-CV-01538 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties’ May 29, 2024 letter (“letter”), (D.I. 139 ), regarding the Markman hearing, hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) The Court hereby ADOPTS the parties’ proposal regarding time allocation. One hour and a half will be allocated for argument, to be split evenly between the parties.; (2) With respect to the parties’ proposal regarding the order of the terms and which side will present argument first for each term, the Court hereby ADOPTS the parties’ proposal as set out in the letter.; (3) On or before June 20, 2024, Delaware and lead counsel for the parties shall meet and confer and file an amended joint claim construction chart that sets forth the terms/issues that remain in dispute. The meet and confer shall focus on an attempt to reach agreement on any remaining disputed terms/issues where possible and on an attempt to focus the dispute over the remaining terms/issues in light of the parties' claim construction briefing. In a joint letter that the parties shall submit by June 20, 2024, the parties shall: (a) identify by name each individual who participated in this meet and confer, when and how that meet and confer occurred and how long it lasted; and (b) list, for each term remaining to be argued, what they understand the parties' remaining disputes about the construction of that term to be (i.e., "The parties' [first/only] dispute as to this term is whether [describe dispute]."), including no more than one sentence to describe each dispute. If no agreements on constructions have been reached or if no dispute has been narrowed on the meet and confer, the letter shall so state, and the parties need not file an amended joint claim construction chart.; and (4) In light of the parties’ positions on Defendant’s pending Motion to Stay (“motion”), (D.I. 130 ), the Court hereby ORDERS that the videoconference set for August 19, 2024 to hear argument on the motion is CANCELED. The Court will resolve the motion on the papers and will make an effort to do so prior to the June 27, 2024 Markman hearing. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 05/30/2024. (smg) (Entered: 05/30/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties’ May 29, 2024 letter (“letter”), (D.I. 139 ), regarding the Markman hearing, hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) The Court hereby ADOPTS the parties’ proposal regarding time allocation. One hour and a half will be allocated for argument, to be split evenly between the parties.; (2) With respect to the parties’ proposal regarding the order of the terms and which side will present argument first for each term, the Court hereby ADOPTS the parties’ proposal as set out in the letter.; (3) On or before June 20, 2024, Delaware and lead counsel for the parties shall meet and confer and file an amended joint claim construction chart that sets forth the terms/issues that remain in dispute. The meet and confer shall focus on an attempt to reach agreement on any remaining disputed terms/issues where possible and on an attempt to focus the dispute over the remaining terms/issues in light of the parties' claim construction briefing. In a joint letter that the parties shall submit by June 20, 2024, the parties shall: (a) identify by name each individual who participated in this meet and confer, when and how that meet and confer occurred and how long it lasted; and (b) list, for each term remaining to be argued, what they understand the parties' remaining disputes about the construction of that term to be (i.e., "The parties' [first/only] dispute as to this term is whether [describe dispute]."), including no more than one sentence to describe each dispute. If no agreements on constructions have been reached or if no dispute has been narrowed on the meet and confer, the letter shall so state, and the parties need not file an amended joint claim construction chart.; and (4) In light of the parties’ positions on Defendant’s pending Motion to Stay (“motion”), (D.I. 130 ), the Court hereby ORDERS that the videoconference set for August 19, 2024 to hear argument on the motion is CANCELED. The Court will resolve the motion on the papers and will make an effort to do so prior to the June 27, 2024 Markman hearing. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 05/30/2024. (smg) (Entered: 05/30/2024)
05/29/24	BT Americas Inc v. Palo Alto Networks Inc 1:22-CV-01538 ( D. DE )	MOTION for Claim Construction [Re-Filed] re 142 Claim Construction Opening Brief - filed by BT Americas, Inc., British Telecommunications plc. (Rovner, Philip) (Entered: 05/29/2024)
05/29/24	BT Americas Inc v. Palo Alto Networks Inc 1:22-CV-01538 ( D. DE )	MOTION for Claim Construction re 142 Claim Construction Opening Brief - filed by Palo Alto Networks, Inc.. (Farnan, Brian) (Entered: 05/29/2024)