1 through 13 categories

considered proposals relating to any category are in pink.

doni

E.Digital Corporation v. Pentax of America, Inc., et al.
Civil Action No. 09-CV-02578-MSK-MJW
EXHIBIT A
To
JOINT MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 1 of
30
This Amended Scheduling Order is intended to supersede the previous Scheduling Order
for Markman Issues entered by the Court on April 15, 2010 (Dkt. No. 277). This Amended
Scheduling Order incorporates the provisions of the Scheduling Order for Markman Issues that
still are in effect and adds deadlines and limitations related to general discovery and other
matters in this action.
1. DATE OF CONFERENCE
AND APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTIES
A Scheduling/Planning Conference was held on April 1, 2010, beginning at 9:00 a.m.
before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe, which resulted in the entry of the Scheduling
Order on Markman Issues on April 15, 2010, Docket No. 277. A second scheduling conference
will be held on ________________, 2010 beginning at ____ a.m., before Magistrate Judge
Watanabe. The parties anticipate that the following counsel will appear in person or by phone:
For Plaintiff e.Digital:
Natalie Hanlon-Leh and Jared Briant of Faegre & Benson LLP, and Woody Jameson and
Matthew Yungwirth of Duane Morris LLP for Plaintiff e.Digital.
For Defendants:
Michael Brody for Pentax of America, Inc.;
Michael Brody for Hoya Corporation and Hoya Corporation USA;
Richard D. Harris for Canon USA, Inc. and Canon, Inc.;
Tyler T. VanHoutan for Coby Electronics Corp.;
Ming Yang for DXG Technology (U.S.A.), Inc. and DXG Technology Corporation;
Jerry R. Selinger for HTC America, Inc. and HTC Corporation;

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 2 of
30
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-CV-02578-MSK-MJW
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION;
Plaintiff,
v.
PENTAX OF AMERICA, INC.;
HOYA CORPORATION;
HOYA CORPORATION USA;
CANON USA, INC.;
CANON, INC.;
COBY ELECTRONICS CORP.;
DXG TECHNOLOGY (U.S.A.), INC.;
DXG TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
HTC AMERICA, INC.;
HTC CORPORATION;
IMATION CORPORATION;
KYOCERA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.;
KYOCERA WIRELESS CORPORATION;
KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
KYOCERA CORPORATION;
LEICA CAMERA, INC.;
MARANTZ AMERICA, INC.;
D&M HOLDINGS U.S. INC.;
D&M HOLDINGS, INC.;
NOKIA INC.;
NOKIA CORPORATION;
PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA;
PANASONIC CORPORATION;
SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LLC;
SAKAR INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
SAMSON TECHNOLOGIES CORP.;
TEAC AMERICA, INC.; and
VTECH ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA, LLC;
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 3 of
30
3
Dariush Adli for Imation Corporation;
Eric Cohen, Bruce Featherstone, and Matt Collins for Kyocera Communications, Inc.,
Kyocera Wireless Corporation, Kyocera International, Inc. and Kyocera Corporation;
Daniel Ebenstein, Abraham Kasdan, and Joseph Casino for Leica Camera, Inc.;
Scott F. Llewellyn for Marantz America, Inc.;
Scott F. Llewellyn for D&M Holdings U.S. Inc. and D&M Holdings, Inc.;
Richard Holme, Alexas Skucas and Mark Francis for Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corporation;
Daniel Ebenstein, Abraham Kasdan, and Joseph Casino for Panasonic Corporation of
North America;
Daniel Ebenstein, Abraham Kasdan, and Joseph Casino for Panasonic Corporation;
Scott Bialecki for Summit Technology Group, LLC.;
Ezra Sutton for Sakar International, Inc. ;
Eric Cohen, Bruce Featherstone, and Matt Collins for Samson Technologies Corp.;
Eric Cohen, Bruce Featherstone, and Matt Collins for TEAC America, Inc.; and
James R. Nuttall, Richard E. Dick, Bruce Featherstone, and Matt Collins for VTECH
Electronics North America, LLC.
2. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1338(a) because this case presents a federal question under the Patent Act of 1952 (as amended),
35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq. For the purposes of this action, no Defendant is disputing that this Court
has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and venue within this District is proper under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and 1400(b).

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 4 of
30
4
3. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES
a. Plaintiff: This is a patent infringement case. The patents-in-suit are United States
Patent Nos. 5,491,774 issued on February 13, 1996 and entitled “Handheld Record and Playback
Device with Flash Memory” (“the ‘774 Patent”), and 5,742,737 issued on April 21, 1998 and
entitled “Method for Recording Voice Messages on Flash Memory in a Hand Held Recorder”
(“the ‘737 Patent”) collectively, “the Patents-in-Suit.” The Patents-in-Suit concern, among other
things, devices and methods for using flash memory to digitally record, playback and/or store
audio signals. Plaintiff claims that Defendants directly infringe, contributorily infringe, and/or
induce infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling the
accused products such as digital cameras, digital video cameras, digital recorders, PDAs and
digital camera phones, among other products, that practice the inventions disclosed in the
Patents-in-Suit.
b. Defendants: The undersigned defendants (collectively “Defendants”) all assert
that their products do not infringe the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit, namely, claims 1, 2,
3, 18 and 19 of the ‘774 Patent and claim 5 of the ‘737 Patent. Moreover, Defendants all
maintain that the asserted claims are invalid and/or unenforceable, and that one or more prior art
references anticipate and/or render obvious the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit.
Furthermore, Defendants all state that Plaintiff is not entitled to any damages or other relief.
Defendants also reserve the right to amend their Answers with counterclaims against the Plaintiff
with respect to the asserted patents.
c. Other Parties: No other parties have been identified.

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 5 of
30
5
4. UNDISPUTED FACTS
The parties have not yet agreed on any facts.
5. COMPUTATION OF DAMAGES
a. Plaintiff: Plaintiff recently commenced discovery in this case and, therefore, is
unable to fully identify and/or compute its damages at this time, as much of the information
necessary to compute damages is in the sole possession of the Defendants. Plaintiff currently
estimates that it is entitled to no less than a royalty in an amount sufficient to compensate
Plaintiff for its damages suffered as a result of the Defendants’ infringement of the ‘774 Patent
and the ‘737 Patent and a recovery of its attorneys’ fees and costs.
b. Defendants: Defendants all state that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C.
§ 285 and that they are all entitled to recovery of their costs, attorneys’ fees and all other
expenses for this suit.
6. REPORT OF PRECONFERENCE DISCOVERY AND
MEETING UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f)....A through H
A. Date of rule 26(f) meeting.
The Rule 26(f) conference for the present scheduling order commenced on October 1,
2010 and continued until November 5, 2010.
B. Names of each participant and party he/she represented.
For Plaintiff e.Digital:
Natalie Hanlon-Leh and Jared Briant of Faegre & Benson LLP, and Woody Jameson and
Matthew Yungwirth of Duane Morris LLP represented Plaintiff e.Digital.

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 6 of
30
6
For Defendants:
Ashlea Raymond Pflug and Gayle Standish for Pentax of America, Inc.;
Ashlea Raymond Pflug and Gayle Standish for Hoya Corporation and Hoya Corporation
USA;
Richard D. Harris, Howard E. Silverman, and Kevin J. O’Shea for Canon USA, Inc. and
Canon, Inc.;
John Keville and Tyler VanHoutan for Coby Electronics Corp.;
Ming Yang for DXG Technology (U.S.A.), Inc. and DXG Technology Corporation;
Jerry R. Selinger for HTC America, Inc. and HTC Corporation;
Dariush Adli for Imation Corporation;
Eric Cohen and Matt Collins for Kyocera Communications, Inc., Kyocera Wireless
Corporation, Kyocera International, Inc. and Kyocera Corporation;
Abraham Kasdan and Joseph Casino for Leica Camera, Inc.;
Scott F. Llewellyn for Marantz America, Inc.;
Scott F. Llewellyn for D&M Holdings U.S. Inc. and D&M Holdings, Inc.;
Richard Holme, Alexas Skucas and Mark Francis for Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corporation;
Abraham Kasdan and Joseph Casino for Panasonic Corporation of North America and
Panasonic Corporation;
Mark L. Yaskanin and Scott Bialecki for Summit Technology Group, LLC.;
Ezra Sutton for Sakar International, Inc.;
Eric Cohen and Matt Collins for Samson Technologies CORP.;
Eric Cohen and Matt Collins for TEAC America, Inc.; and
James R. Nuttall, Richard E. Dick, Bruce Featherstone, and Matt Collins for VTech
Electronics North America, LLC.

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 7 of
30
7
C.Statement as to when Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures were made or will be made.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and the Court’s Scheduling Order for Markman
Issues (Dkt. No. 277), the Initial Disclosures by Plaintiff and Defendants were made on April 7,
2010.
D. Proposed changes, if any, in timing or requirement of disclosures under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1).
Initial disclosures were made on April 7, 2010.
E. Statement concerning any agreements to conduct informal discovery,
including joint interviews with potential witnesses, exchanges of documents, and joint
meetings with clients to discuss settlement. If there is agreement to conduct joint
interviews with potential witnesses, list the names of such witnesses and a date and time for
the interview which has been agreed to by the witness, all counsel, and all pro se parties.
The parties engaged in the informal discovery pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Court’s
Scheduling Order for Markman Issues.
F. Statement concerning any other agreements or procedures to reduce
discovery and other litigation costs, including the use of a unified exhibit numbering
system.
The Scheduling Order for Markman Issues entered on April 15, 2010 by Magistrate
Judge Watanabe (Dkt. No. 277, “the April 15, 2010 Scheduling Order”) limited discovery only
to issues relating to claim construction until this Court issued its claim construction order.
Specifically, the April 15, 2010 Scheduling Order provided that, within 14 days after the Court
issues a claim construction order, parties were to meet and confer with respect to the current
discovery plan for case in view of claim construction decision and any need for a Scheduling
Order on the merits. The April 15, 2010 Scheduling Order further provided that the parties were

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 8 of
30
8
to file a Proposed Amended Scheduling Order regarding phase II of discovery on the merits
within 28 days after the Court issues a claim construction order.
On July 30, 2010, Judge Krieger set a Markman Hearing for January 28, 2011, and upon
oral motion from Plaintiff’s counsel, lifted the stay with regard to further discovery. She
postponed the effect of her Order for 21 days to provide the parties with an opportunity to
formulate a stipulation to immediately appeal the Court’s claim construction ruling. (See
Courtroom Minutes, Dkt. No. 306). However, the parties were not able to reach agreement on
such stipulation within the 21-day period and the stay of discovery was lifted as of August 20,
2010.
Defendants sought to reinstate the stay of discovery until at least the Markman Hearing
on January 28, 2011 by filing Defendants’ Combined Motion For Protective Order To Reinstate
The Stay Of Discovery And Supporting Memorandum (Dkt. No. 309) on August 24, 2010.
Under D.C.COLO.L.CivR 30.2(A), the filing of Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) stayed the discovery during the pendency of the Motion before
the Court. On September 17, 2010, Magistrate Judge Watanabe entered a Minute Order denying
Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. No. 312).
Because the April 15, 2010 Scheduling Order covers only the period of time through the
Court’s Markman Hearing and does not address discovery related to non-claim construction
issues, there is a need for a new scheduling order for discovery on the merits.

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 9 of
30
9
Plaintiff’s Proposal:
With respect to additional discovery, dispositive motion and pretrial deadlines, Plaintiff
proposes the following:
a. August 20, 2010 – fact discovery opens on all non-claim construction
b. Claim construction hearing: January 28, 2011 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom A901, 901
19th Street, Denver, CO;
c. Mediation or Settlement Conference: to be scheduled by the Court within 30 days
after the Court issues a claim construction order
d. 30 days after Court issues a claim construction order: Deadline for parties to consider
and, if appropriate, formulate a stipulation for immediately appealing the Court’s
claim construction order to the Federal Circuit should any claim construction issue be
case dispositive. The parties are required to meet and confer to determine whether
any issues are case dispositive
e. 60 days after Court issues a claim construction order: All fact discovery must be
completed (including deposition of all fact witnesses).
f. 80 days after Court issues a claim construction order – Opening expert reports.
g. 100 days after Court issues a claim construction order - Rebuttal expert reports.
h. 130 days after Court issues a claim construction order - All expert discovery must be
completed.
i. 140 days after Court issues a claim construction order - Deadline for filing dispositive
motions
j. Pretrial Conference: to be scheduled by the Court
k. Trial Date: to be scheduled by the Court

Defendants’ Statement and Proposal:
Defendants believe that a claim construction order from the Court would narrow the
issues in dispute, decrease the scope of discovery necessary for trial, and likely lead to settlement
or resolution of the case with respect to at least some of the Defendants. Defendants further

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 10
of 30
10
believe that there is a significant likelihood that a claim construction order from the Court could
be dispositive as to Defendants’ liability on one or both of the patents-in-suit, rendering the
damages and willfulness cases moot. Accordingly, Defendants’ proposed schedule seeks phased
discovery, staggering the timings of discovery on liability issues and discovery on damages and
willfulness issues based on the date of the Court’s claim construction order. Defendants believe
that such sequencing of discovery schedule will help streamline this complex patent case
involving a large number of defendants from all over the world and numerous accused products.
Furthermore, it will minimize the potentially unnecessary discovery burdens on all parties if the
Court’s claim construction order is case dispositive.
For these reasons, Defendants propose the following schedule for this case:
a. September 17, 2010 – Fact discovery on liability issues begins.
b. Mediation or Settlement Conference: to be scheduled by the Court within 30 days
after the Court issues a claim construction order
c. 30 days after Court issues a claim construction order:
(i) Deadline for parties to consider and formulate a stipulation for immediately
appeal the Court’s claim construction order to the Federal Circuit should any claim
construction issue be case dispositive. The parties are required to meet and confer to
determine whether any issues are case dispositive. If it is determined by the Court
that a party does not meet and confer in good faith over whether any issues are case
dispositive, this will be considered by the Court in determining whether this is an
exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
(ii) Fact discovery on damages issues begins.
d. 60 days after Court issues a claim construction order: All fact discovery on liability
issues must be completed (including deposition of all fact witnesses on liability
issues).

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 11
of 30
11
e. 120 days after Court issues a claim construction order - All fact discovery on
damages/willfulness issues must be completed (including deposition of all fact
witnesses on damages/willfulness issues);
i. 140 days after Court issues a claim construction order – Opening expert reports.
j. 170 days after Court issues a claim construction order - Rebuttal expert reports.
k. 200 days after Court issues a claim construction order - All expert discovery must be
completed.
l. 207 days after Court issues a claim construction order - Deadline for filing dispositive
motions
m. Pretrial Conference: to be scheduled by the Court
n. Trial Date: to be scheduled by the Court

G. Statement as to whether the parties anticipate that their claims or defenses
will involve extensive electronically stored information, or that a substantial amount of
disclosure or discovery will involve information or records maintained in electronic form.
The parties anticipate that their claims or defenses may require discovery of
electronically stored information. Each of the parties has issued a litigation hold notice to
preserve evidence including electronically stored information. Furthermore, the parties propose
the following rules (aimed at facilitating discovery, limiting costs and avoiding future discovery
disputes) for searching for and producing electronically stored information (“ESI”):

Plaintiffs’ Proposal:
1. The parties agree that all electronically stored information will be exchanged
electronically, either in TIFF or text-searchable PDF format, and each TIFF image or
PDF page will be endorsed with a Bates number.
2. All productions in TIFF format will include:

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 12
of 30
12
a. Image based load files for IPRO (*.LFP), OPTICON (*.OPT or *.LOG),
or SUMMATION (*.dii). These load files shall also depict the document
boundaries, IPRO and Summation must also depict the attachment (parent/child)
relationships;
b. Data load files that are compatible with Concordance (*.DAT) or
Summation (*.DII) or in a similarly delimited format; and
c. OCR/EXTRACTED TEXT files should be provided at the document level
and be named after the image/image key listed in the various image based load
files.
3. Upon request, electronically stored information that is not readable or useable in
its produced format (i.e., TIFF or PDF) shall be produced in native format. A party may
produce documents or information in native format with an associated bates number. In
addition, upon request, parties shall provide all associated metadata for documents or
information provided in native format, if the metadata is relevant to the claims or
defenses of this case.
Defendants’ Proposal:
1. Compliance with F.R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B). The parties shall meet and confer
regarding the burden or expense of any proposed electronic discovery and the likely
benefit of such discovery.
2. Costs. The party requesting electronic discovery shall pay the producing party’s
vendor costs for producing such discovery.

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 13
of 30
13
3. Format. Subject to Paragraph 14(i) of the Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. No.
252) relating to production of source code, the parties agree that all electronically stored
information will be exchanged electronically, either in TIFF or text-searchable PDF
format, and each TIFF image or PDF page will be endorsed with a Bates number.
a. All productions in TIFF format will include:
i. Image based load files for IPRO (*.LFP), OPTICON (*.OPT or *.LOG),
or SUMMATION (*.dii). These load files shall also depict the document
boundaries, IPRO and Summation must also depict the attachment (parent/child)
relationships, and
ii. Data load files that are compatible with Concordance (*.DAT) or
Summation (*.DII) or in a similarly delimited format.
b. Upon request, electronically stored information that is not readable or useable in
its produced format (i.e., TIFF or PDF) shall be produced in native format. A party may
produce documents or information in native format with an associated bates number. In
addition, upon request, parties shall provide all associated metadata for documents or
information provided in native format, if the metadata is relevant to the claims or
defenses of this case.

H. Statement summarizing the parties’ discussions regarding the possibilities for
promptly settling or resolving the case.
The parties certify that, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), they have discussed the
possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case by alternative dispute resolution.

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 14
of 30
14
e.Digital contends that mediation following an initial round of discovery may be
productive.
Defendants contend that mediation following the Markman Order may be productive.
Defendants assert that a Markman Order from the Court will not only clarify and narrow the
issues in dispute, it will significantly improve the likelihood that the parties can settle or
otherwise resolve the case. Defendants therefore believe that the earlier a Markman Order is
issued, the quicker this case will be settled or resolved.
7. CONSENT
All parties have not consented to the exercise of jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.
8. DISCOVERY LIMITATIONS... A, B, C, D
A. Modifications which any party proposes on the presumptive numbers of
depositions or interrogatories contained in the Federal Rules for the entire case, and
B. Limitations which any party proposes on the length of depositions
(1) Depositions of Parties Pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) and Depositions of
Employees of a Party Pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1)
(i) By Plaintiff:
Plaintiff may take up to forty-five (45) hours of deposition testimony of each
Defendant Group (defined as including all related entities), but in no event

more than eight (8) Rule 30(a)(1) depositions for any Defendant Group.
(ii) By Defendants:

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 15
of 30
15
Defendants, jointly, may take up to fourteen (14) common hours of 30(b)(6)
deposition testimony of Plaintiff, such time to be split according to agreement
by the Defendants. In addition, [see following proposals]

Plaintiff’s Proposal: each Defendant Group may take up to three (3) Rule
30(a)(1) depositions, subject to the following limitation. All non-30(b)(6)
party depositions taken pursuant to Rule 30(a)(1) (i.e., depositions of
employees who are not acting as a 30(b)(6) representative), are limited to
fourteen (14) total hours to be split according to agreement by the Defendants,
absent a showing of good cause by the party seeking to take the deposition.

Defendants’ Proposal: each Defendant Group may take up to twenty-five
(25) hours of deposition testimony of Plaintiff, but in no event more than three
(3) Rule 30(a) (1) depositions for any one Defendant Group, subject to the
limitations below. All non-30(b)(6) party depositions taken pursuant to Rule
30(a)(1) (i.e., depositions of employees who are not acting as a 30(b)(6)
representative), are limited to seven (7) hours for each Defendant Group,
absent a showing of good cause by the party seeking to take the deposition.

(2) Depositions of Inventors
(i) Plaintiff’s Proposal: Defendants, jointly, may take up to fourteen (14)
common hours of deposition testimony of each named inventor of the Patents-
in-Suit, such time to be split according to agreement by Defendants. For any
inventor not employed or under the control of Plaintiff, time taken by

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 16
of 30
16
Defendants to depose the inventors is not counted against any of the above
limitations regarding depositions of the Plaintiff.
Defendants’ Proposal: Defendants, jointly, may take up to seven (7) common
hours of deposition testimony of each named inventor of the Patents-in-Suit,
such time to be split according to agreement by Defendants. In addition, each
Defendant Group may take an additional four (4) hours of testimony from
each inventor. For any inventor not employed or under the control of
Plaintiff, time taken by Defendants to depose the inventors is not counted
against any of the above limitations regarding depositions of the Plaintiff.
(ii) Plaintiff may, at its option, take up to seven (7) hours of deposition testimony
of each named inventor of the Patents-in-Suit that is not employed by or under
the control of Plaintiff.
(3) Depositions of Prosecuting Attorneys
Plaintiff’s proposal: Defendants, jointly, may take up to fourteen (14)
common hours of deposition testimony of each prosecuting attorney of the
Patents-in-Suit, such time to be split according to agreement of Defendants.
Time taken by Defendants to depose the prosecuting attorneys is not counted
against any of the above limitations regarding depositions of Plaintiff.
Defendants’ proposal: Defendants, jointly, may take up to seven (7)
common hours of deposition testimony of each prosecuting attorney of the
Patents-in-Suit, such time to be split according to agreement of Defendants.

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 17
of 30
17
In addition, each Defendant Group may take an additional four (4) hours of
testimony from each prosecuting attorney. Time taken by Defendants to
depose the prosecuting attorneys is not counted against any of the above
limitations regarding depositions of Plaintiff.
(4) Depositions of Experts
(i) Plaintiff may take up to seven (7) hours of deposition testimony of each
testifying expert identified by Defendants for each report on a separate subject
(e.g., if an expert opines on infringement and validity, 14 hours of deposition
testimony would be permitted). If any expert is providing testimony on behalf
of more than one Defendant Group, and such testimony is not common to all
Defendants, Plaintiff may take an additional two (2) hours of deposition
testimony for each additional Defendant Group for which that expert is
providing testimony. For example, if one expert provides separate damages
testimony on behalf of three Defendant Groups, Plaintiff may take up to
eleven (11) hours of deposition testimony for that expert.
(ii) Each Defendant Group may each take up to seven (7) hours of deposition
testimony of each testifying expert identified by the Plaintiff for each report
on a separate subject (e.g., if an expert opines on infringement and validity, 14
hours of deposition testimony would be permitted). In addition, if any expert
is providing testimony related to more than one Defendant Group, each

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 18
of 30
18
Defendant Group may take an additional two (2) hours of testimony from such
testifying expert.
(5) Depositions of Third Parties
(i) For third parties that are not either named inventors of the Patents-in-Suit,
experts or prosecuting attorneys of the Patents-in-Suit, Plaintiff may take up to
seventy (70) total hours of deposition testimony.
(ii) Plaintiff’s proposal: For third parties that are neither inventors nor
prosecuting attorneys, Defendants may jointly take up to one-hundred (100)
hours of deposition testimony, such time to be split according to agreement by
the Defendants.
Defendants’ Proposal: For third parties that are neither inventors nor
prosecuting attorneys, Defendants may jointly take up to seventy (70) hours of
deposition testimony, such time to be split according to agreement by the
Defendants. In addition, each Defendant Group may take up to thirty-five
(35) hours of deposition testimony of third parties.
(6) Cross-Examination Testimony: The parties agree that time spent by one party on
cross-examination of a witness noticed or subpoenaed by another party counts
towards the time limits regarding deposition testimony agreed to above.
(7) Depositions in General: With respect to all any and all depositions, the Parties are
expected to avoid duplicative questioning and to use their time efficiently. The

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 19
of 30
19
Court reserves the right to modify the hours allocated above in either direction
upon a showing of need for more time or on a motion for protective order.
(8) Interrogatories
(i) Plaintiff may serve up to twenty (25) interrogatories on each Defendant.
(ii) Defendants, jointly, may serve up to twenty (20) common interrogatories on
Plaintiff.
(iii)Each Defendant Group may serve up to fifteen (15) individual interrogatories
on Plaintiff.
C. Limitations which any party proposes on number of requests for production
of documents and/or requests for admissions.
1. Document Requests
Plaintiff’s Proposal: that (i) the parties comply with the provisions of Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 26 unless otherwise provided herein, and (ii) Plaintiff
and each Defendant Group be limited to fifty (50) Requests for Production under
Rule 34. For the sake of clarity, an identical request that is submitted by Plaintiff
to all Defendants shall be treated as a single request for the purpose of calculating
compliance with this limitation.
Defendants’ Proposal: that (i) the parties comply with the provisions of Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 34 unless otherwise provided herein, and (ii)
Plaintiff shall be limited to 40 common requests for production to all Defendants
and 10 additional requests to each Defendant Group; and (iii) Defendants shall be

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 20
of 30
20
limited to 40 common requests to Plaintiff and each Defendant Group shall be
limited to an additional fifteen (15) requests to Plaintiff under Rule 34.
2. Requests for Admission
Plaintiff’s Proposal: that (i) the parties comply with the provisions of Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 36 unless otherwise provided herein, (ii) no
requests for admission shall be served on issues of claim construction and (iii)
that Plaintiff and each Defendant Group be limited to fifty (50) Requests for
Admission under Rule 36. For the sake of clarity, an identical request that is
submitted by Plaintiff to all Defendants shall be treated as a single request for the
purpose of calculating compliance with this limitation.
Defendants’ proposal: that (i) the parties comply with the provisions of Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 36 unless otherwise provided herein, (ii) no
requests for admission shall be served on issues of claim construction, (iii)
Plaintiff and Defendants shall each be limited to 50 common requests for
admission on invalidity issues, (iv) Plaintiff and each Defendant Group shall
respectively be limited to one request for admission for each accused device on
the issue of infringement to each Defendant Group unless Plaintiff and such
Defendant Group agree that accused devices may be grouped, in which case the
number of request for admission shall correspond to the number of grouped
accused devices (i.e., 40 accused devices for a Defendant Group organized into
five groups would entitle Plaintiffs to serve five requests for admission to that

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 21
of 30
21
Defendant Group and would entitle that Defendant Group to serve five requests
for admission on Plaintiff on the issue of infringement); (v) Plaintiff and each
Defendant Group shall be limited to 20 requests for admission on all other issues.
D. Other Planning or Discovery Orders
None.
9. CASE PLAN AND SCHEDULE
A.. Deadline for Joinder of Parties and Amendment of Pleadings:
The deadline for joinder of parties and amendment of pleadings was May 3, 2010, after
which any joinder of parties or amendment of pleadings shall require leave of Court and a
showing of good cause.
B. Discovery Cut-off:
The discovery cut-offs for general fact discovery and expert discovery are set forth above
in Section 6.f.
C. Dispositive Motion Deadline: The deadline to file dispositive motions is set
forth above in Section 6.f.
D. Expert Witness Disclosure:
(1) Plaintiff anticipates the use of expert testimony on the topics of (i) Defendants’
infringement of the Patents-in-Suit and (ii) the damages caused by the
Defendants’ infringement of the Patents-in-Suit. Plaintiff also reserves the right
to identify rebuttal experts and additional areas where expert testimony may be
necessary as appropriate, e.g., in response to any expert testimony by witnesses

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 22
of 30
22
for Defendants regarding the validity or enforceability of the Patents-in-Suit, or
on other issues on which Defendants proffer an expert.
Defendants anticipate the use of expert testimony and reports regarding the (i)
invalidity and unenforceability of the Patents-in-Suit. Defendants also anticipate
the use of rebuttal expert testimony in response to any expert testimony or reports
by witnesses for Plaintiff, such as regarding Plaintiff’s allegations of infringement
and damages.
(2) The parties agree that Plaintiff and each Defendant Group shall be limited to four
(4) experts.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), no exception to the
requirements of the rule will be allowed by stipulation of the parties unless the
stipulation is approved by the Court. The parties request that the Court approve
their stipulation that only the final expert report served on an opposing party and
the materials which the expert relied upon in forming his/her opinions are
discoverable. In other words, draft reports, draft declarations, draft affidavits, and
notes taken or prepared by experts will not be subject to discovery. Likewise,
communications between experts and counsel, except for documents, information,
and things included in or attached to such communications that are relied upon by
the expert in forming his/her opinions, will not be subject to discovery.

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 23
of 30
23
E. Identification of persons to be deposed:
Subject to the limitations in Section 8 above, the parties identify the following individuals
and entities that they intend to depose and the expected durations of those depositions.
Name of Deponent Expected Length of Deposition
(subject to Section 8(b))
Elwood G. Norris (named inventor) At least 7 hours
Norbert P. Daberko (named inventor) At least 7 hours
Steven T. Brightbill (named inventor) At least 7 hours
Richard K. Davis (named inventor) At least 7 hours
Richard D. Bridgewater (named inventor) At least 7 hours
Vaughn W. North (prosecuting attorney) At least 7 hours
Plaintiff At least 30 hours
Each Defendant Group At least 30 hours
Expert witnesses for each Party At least 7 hours each
Third Party providers of technology to Defendants At least 7 hours each
Customers of each Defendant At least 7 hours each
The parties reserve the right to modify the list of deponents as necessary and appropriate
based on ongoing discovery in the case. The length of depositions shall be governed by Fed. R.

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 24
of 30
24
Civ. P. 30(d)(1), unless mutually agreed by the parties in advance, ordered by the Court, or
specified otherwise in the Amended Scheduling Order.
F. Deadline for Interrogatories: The parties agree that all interrogatories will be
served no later than a date upon which the deadline for responding will be governed by the
Federal and Local Rules and due on the last day of corresponding fact discovery.
G. Deadline for Requests for Production of Documents and/or Admissions: The
parties agree that all requests for production and/or admissions will be served no later than a date
upon which the deadline for responding will be governed by the Federal and Local Rules and due
on the last day of corresponding fact discovery.
10. DATES FOR FURTHER CONFERENCES
A status conferences will be held in this case at the following date and time:
____________. Out-of-state counsel may participate by telephone; in-state counsel shall appear
in person. A final pretrial conference will be held in this case on ______________________ at
__________o’clock __m. A Final Pretrial Order shall be prepared by the parties and submitted
to the court no later than five (5) days before the final pretrial conference.
11. OTHER SCHEDULING ISSUES
A. Identify those discovery or scheduling issues, if any, on which counsel, after a
good-faith effort, were unable to reach an agreement.
None.
B. Anticipated length of trial and whether trial is to the court or jury.
The Parties anticipate that a trial to a jury will last 7 to 20 days, depending on the number
of Defendants involved in the trial.

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 25
of 30
25
C. Identify pretrial proceedings, if any, that the parties believe may be more
efficiently or economically conducted in the District Court’s facility at 212 N. Wahsatch
Street, Colorado Springs, Colorado.
The parties do not believe any pretrial proceedings may be more efficiently or
economically conducted in the District Court’s facility at 212 N. Wahsatch Street, Colorado
Springs, Colorado.
12. NOTICE TO COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTIES
The parties filing motions for extension of time or continuances must comply with
D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1D by submitting proof that a copy of the motion has been served upon the
moving attorney's client, all attorneys of record, and all pro se parties.
Counsel will be expected to be familiar and to comply with the Pretrial and Trial
Procedures or Practice Standards established by the judicial officer presiding over the trial of this
case.
With respect to discovery disputes, parties must comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A.
In addition to filing an appropriate notice with the clerk's office, a pro se party must file a
copy of a notice of change of his or her address or telephone number with the clerk of the
magistrate judge assigned to this case.
In addition to filing an appropriate notice with the clerk’s office, counsel must file a copy
of any motion for withdrawal, motion for substitution of counsel, or notice of change of counsel's
address or telephone number with the clerk of the magistrate judge assigned to this case.

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 26
of 30
26
13. AMENDMENTS TO SCHEDULING ORDER
This scheduling order may be altered or amended only upon a showing of good cause.
ENTERED Nunc Pro Tunc: _______________, 2010
DATED this ______ day of _____________ 2010.
BY THE COURT:
_______________________________
Hon. Michael J. Watanabe
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 314-1 Filed 11/09/10 USDC Colorado Page 27
of 30