{"cached_at":"2026-09-29T09:57:05.440065+00:00","cl_docket_id":"72051755","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","id":72051755,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/txed/","court_id":"txed","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/1211/","referred_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/9564/","bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/72051755/novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2025-12-17T17:17:56.456207-08:00","date_modified":"2026-09-28T09:46:23.892087-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Rodney Gilstrap","referred_to_str":"Roy S. Payne","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2025-12-17","date_terminated":"2026-09-25","date_last_filing":"2026-09-25","case_name_short":"","case_name":"NovaCloud Licensing, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation","case_name_full":"","slug":"novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation","docket_number":"2:25-cv-01228","docket_number_core":"2501228","docket_number_raw":"2:25-cv-01228","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"2","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"JRG","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"RSP","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"242548","cause":"35:271 Patent Infringement","nature_of_suit":"830 Patent","jury_demand":"Both","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2025-12-17T17:17:56.448849-08:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23722357/","id":23722357,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16068727/","attorney_id":16068727,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16068724/","attorney_id":16068724,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16068724/","attorney_id":16068724,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16068725/","attorney_id":16068725,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16068726/","attorney_id":16068726,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16068728/","attorney_id":16068728,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16068729/","attorney_id":16068729,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16068729/","attorney_id":16068729,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16068730/","attorney_id":16068730,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"name":"Counter Claimant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-09-16T05:09:32.895259-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:32.895275-07:00","name":"Microsoft Corporation","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23722356/","id":23722356,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16068713/","attorney_id":16068713,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16068714/","attorney_id":16068714,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16068715/","attorney_id":16068715,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16068716/","attorney_id":16068716,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16068717/","attorney_id":16068717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16068718/","attorney_id":16068718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16068719/","attorney_id":16068719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16068720/","attorney_id":16068720,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16068721/","attorney_id":16068721,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16068722/","attorney_id":16068722,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16068723/","attorney_id":16068723,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","docket_id":72051755,"name":"Counter Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-09-16T05:09:31.719134-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:31.719143-07:00","name":"NovaCloud Licensing, LLC","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479495724/","id":479495724,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495147262/","id":495147262,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72051755/48/novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-25T15:21:31.864999-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-25T15:21:31.874154-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"48","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015722990","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-25T15:21:31.840099-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-28T09:46:26.031263-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-25","time_filed":"16:20:14","entry_number":48,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-25.002","pacer_sequence_number":144,"description":"Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120) at Termination of the case. AO 120 emailed to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (mdj) (Entered: 09/25/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479486611/","id":479486611,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495138026/","id":495138026,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72051755/47/novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-25T14:22:06.379791-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-25T14:22:06.386946-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"47","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015722950","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order Dismissing Case","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-25T14:22:06.348785-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-28T09:46:25.966797-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-25","time_filed":"16:16:48","entry_number":47,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-25.001","pacer_sequence_number":142,"description":"ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 09/25/2026. (mdj) (Entered: 09/25/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478168448/","id":478168448,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493787734/","id":493787734,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72051755/32/novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-16T05:09:36.163085-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:36.163094-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"32","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-16T05:09:36.140518-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:36.147351-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-28","time_filed":null,"entry_number":32,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap: Scheduling Conference/Case Management Conference held on 5/28/2026 from 09:31 AM - 10:22 AM. Counsel for the parties appeared. Court: (1) asked whether the parties consented to trial before the U.S. Magistrate Judge; and (2) provided Claim Construction and Jury Selection/Trial dates. (Court Reporter - Shawn McRoberts) (Text entry only; no document attached) (aeb) (Entered: 06/09/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478168447/","id":478168447,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493787733/","id":493787733,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-09-16T05:09:36.044860-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:36.044868-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-16T05:09:36.032406-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:36.032415-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-24","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"In accordance with the provisions of 28 USC Section 636(c), you are hereby notified that a U.S. Magistrate Judge of this district court is available to conduct any or all proceedings in this case including a jury or non-jury trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. The form Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge is available on our website. All signed consent forms, excluding pro se parties, should be filed electronically using the event Notice Regarding Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge. (Copy of the notice to be sent by US Mail to parties not electronically noticed.) (NKL)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478168446/","id":478168446,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493787732/","id":493787732,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-09-16T05:09:35.647398-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:35.647407-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-16T05:09:35.635493-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:35.635501-07:00","date_filed":"2025-12-18","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-18.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Case: NovaCloud Licensing, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation was filed on 12/18/2025 and assigned to Judge Gilstrap and referred to Judge Payne. The Notice Regarding Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge form is provided via hyperlink. (mdj)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478168445/","id":478168445,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493787731/","id":493787731,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-09-16T05:09:35.619426-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:35.619434-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-16T05:09:35.607002-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:35.607011-07:00","date_filed":"2025-12-18","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Case assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. (mdj)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478117673/","id":478117673,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493735357/","id":493735357,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72051755/46/novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-15T15:15:12.328110-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-28T23:33:58.673692-07:00","sha1":"24d6f269354f4e48f5bdd1ba44fabfd21ef77cb8","page_count":4,"file_size":125590,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.242548/gov.uscourts.txed.242548.46.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.242548/gov.uscourts.txed.242548.46.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 46 Filed 09/15/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:\n 739\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\nNOVACLOUD LICENSING, LLC,\n\n Plaintiff, No. 2:25-cv-1228-JRG-RSP\n\n vs.\n\nMICROSOFT CORPORATION, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)\n\n WHEREAS, Plaintiff NovaCloud Licensing, LLC (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d) and Defendant/\n\n Counterclaim-Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation (\u201cMicrosoft\u201d) have resolved Plaintiff\u2019s claims for\n\n relief against Microsoft and Microsoft\u2019s counterclaims for relief against Plaintiff asserted in this\n\n case.\n\n NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Microsoft, through their attorneys of record, request\n\n this Court to dismiss Plaintiff\u2019s claims for relief against Microsoft with prejudice and Microsoft\u2019s\n\n claims, defenses or counterclaims for relief against Plaintiff without prejudice, and with all\n\n attorneys\u2019 fees, costs of court and expenses borne by the party incurring same.\n\n\n\n Dated: September 15, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Jennifer Truelove\n Jennifer L. Truelove\n Texas State Bar No. 24012906\n jtruelove@McKoolSmith.com\n MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.\n 104 East Houston Street, Suite 300\n Marshall, TX 75670\n Telephone: (903) 923-9002\n Facsimile: (903) 923-9099\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 46 Filed 09/15/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:\n 740\n\n\n\n Stone A. Martin\n Texas State Bar No. 24143713\n smartin@mckoolsmith.com\n Rania Khamees\n Texas State Bar No. 24149673\n rkhamees@McKoolSmith.com\n MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.\n 303 Colorado Street Suite 2100\n Austin, TX 78701\n Telephone: (512) 692-8700\n Facsimile: (512) 692-8744\n\n Nicholas M. Mathews\n Texas State Bar No. 24085457\n nmathews@McKoolSmith.com\n Gregory Saltz\n Texas State Bar No. 24131641\n gsaltz@McKoolSmith.com\n Casey L. Shomaker\n Texas State Bar No. 24110359\n cshomaker@McKoolSmith.com\n MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.\n 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1200\n Dallas, TX 75201\n Telephone: (214) 978-4000\n Facsimile: (214) 978-4044\n\n Clara Bourget\n cbourget@McKoolSmith.com\n MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.\n 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900\n Los Angeles, CA 90071\n Telephone: (213) 694-1200\n Facsimile: (213) 694-1234\n\n Michael E. Catapano\n New York State Bar No. 5933700\n mcatapano@McKoolSmith.com\n Mariel Talmage\n New York State Bar No. 5948831\n mtalmage@McKoolSmith.com\n MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.\n 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor\n New York, NY 10019\n Telephone: (212) 402-9400\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 46 Filed 09/15/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:\n 741\n\n\n\n Facsimile: (212) 402-9444\n\n Kevin L. Burgess\n Texas State Bar No. 24006927\n kburgess@bkbclaw.com\n BUDWIN KAMPRATH BURGESS\n CAMPBELL, PLLC\n 508 Oakwood Estates Blvd\n Marshall, TX 75672\n Telephone: (512) 626-7253\n\n John B. Campbell\n Texas State Bar No. 24036314\n jcampbell@bkbclaw.com\n BUDWIN KAMPRATH BURGESS\n CAMPBELL, PLLC\n 3600 Wellspring Drive\n Austin, Texas 78738\n Telephone: (512) 655-3820\n\n\n ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF\n NOVACLOUD LICENSING, LLC.\n\n\n /s/ Natalie A. Bennett\n Natalie A. Bennett*\n Illinois Bar No. 6304611\n natalie.bennett@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW\n Washington, DC 20004-2541\n Telephone: (202) 739-5559\n Facsimile: (202) 739-3001\n\n Jason C. White*\n Illinois Bar No. 6238352\n jason.white@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 110 North Wacker Drive\n Chicago, IL 60606\n Telephone: (312) 324-1000\n Facsimile: (312) 324-1001\n\n Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman*\n TX State Bar No. 24053269\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 46 Filed 09/15/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:\n 742\n\n\n\n ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com\n Katerina Hora Jacobson*\n CA State Bar No. 342384\n katerina.horajacobson@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1400 Page Mill Road\n Palo Alto, California 94304\n Telephone: (650) 843-4000\n Facsimile: (650) 843-4001\n\n Melissa Richards Smith\n TX State Bar No. 24001351\n melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com\n GILLAM & SMITH LLP\n 303 South Washington Avenue\n Marshall, Texas 75670\n Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n Facsimile: (903) 934-9257\n *Admitted to Practice\n\n ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been\n\nserved on all counsel of record via the Court\u2019s ECF system on September 15, 2026.\n\n /s/ Jennifer L. Truelove\n Jennifer L. Truelove\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-16T05:09:45.919503-07:00","document_number":"46","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015695595","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation of Dismissal","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493787735/","id":493787735,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72051755/46/1/novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-16T05:09:38.499309-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T10:06:05.752274-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":68138,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"46","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"175015695596","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-15T15:15:12.300704-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:36.375717-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-15","time_filed":"17:07:58","entry_number":46,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":140,"description":"JOINT STIPULATION of Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(ii) by NovaCloud Licensing, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Truelove, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/15/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473413864/","id":473413864,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488878944/","id":488878944,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72051755/45/novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-05T17:24:31.654199-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-05T17:24:31.662681-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"45","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015590877","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Attorney Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-05T17:24:31.632807-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:36.361262-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-05","time_filed":"19:16:27","entry_number":45,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-05.002","pacer_sequence_number":136,"description":"NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Andrew Devkar on behalf of Microsoft Corporation (Devkar, Andrew) (Entered: 08/05/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473323654/","id":473323654,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488786664/","id":488786664,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72051755/44/novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-05T09:15:42.622509-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-05T09:15:42.631847-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"44","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015588031","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-05T09:15:42.597515-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:36.347538-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-05","time_filed":"10:24:35","entry_number":44,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":134,"description":"ORDER granting 43 Motion to Amend the Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 08/04/2026. (mdj) (Entered: 08/05/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473113139/","id":473113139,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488569474/","id":488569474,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72051755/43/novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-03T15:57:33.059454-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-03T15:57:33.069355-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"43","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015583753","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-03T15:57:33.035603-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:36.334751-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-03","time_filed":"17:29:59","entry_number":43,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-03.002","pacer_sequence_number":132,"description":"JOINT MOTION TO ENTER SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER AS TO MR. KARIM FANOUSS ACCESS TO DESIGNATED MATERIAL UNDER THE PROTECTIVE ORDER (DKT. 39) by Microsoft Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Smith, Melissa) (Entered: 08/03/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473036329/","id":473036329,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488491059/","id":488491059,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72051755/42/novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-03T09:56:28.768104-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-03T09:56:28.776897-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"42","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015581714","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Attorney Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-03T09:56:28.748402-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:36.319460-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-03","time_filed":"10:59:44","entry_number":42,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":129,"description":"NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by James Travis Underwood on behalf of Microsoft Corporation (Underwood, James) (Entered: 08/03/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471121444/","id":471121444,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486517303/","id":486517303,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72051755/41/novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-07-16T12:24:57.187851-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-16T12:24:57.202561-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"41","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015539652","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Compliance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-16T12:24:57.130216-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:36.303515-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-16","time_filed":"13:40:15","entry_number":41,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-16.001","pacer_sequence_number":127,"description":"NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE by Microsoft Corporation regarding PR 3-3 and 3-4 Invalidity Contentions (Smith, Melissa) (Entered: 07/16/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/469639787/","id":469639787,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484985677/","id":484985677,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72051755/40/novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-07-02T14:56:34.977720-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-02T14:56:34.984056-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"40","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015508915","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Compliance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-02T14:56:34.950048-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:36.288299-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-02","time_filed":"16:34:33","entry_number":40,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":125,"description":"NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE by Microsoft Corporation regarding Initial Disclosures (Smith, Melissa) (Entered: 07/02/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/468511752/","id":468511752,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/483809601/","id":483809601,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72051755/39/novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-06-23T22:00:29.240654-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T22:00:29.273412-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"39","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015484409","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Protective Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-23T22:00:29.203654-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:36.272578-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-22","time_filed":null,"entry_number":39,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":123,"description":"PROTECTIVE ORDER. (Motion(s) 37 terminated). Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 6/22/2026. (wea) (Entered: 06/23/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/468062298/","id":468062298,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/483339604/","id":483339604,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72051755/38/novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-06-18T13:25:58.868995-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-18T13:25:58.878983-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"38","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015472978","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Scheduling Order/Docket Control Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-18T13:25:58.839152-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:36.259188-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-18","time_filed":"15:22:33","entry_number":38,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-18.002","pacer_sequence_number":121,"description":"FIRST AMENDED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER: Pretrial Conference set for 1/3/2028 at 09:00 AM in Mag Ctrm (Marshall) before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. Amended Pleadings due by 5/26/2027. Jury Selection set for 2/7/2028 at 09:00 AM in Ctrm 106 (Marshall) before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Claim Construction Hearing set for 8/11/2027 at 09:00 AM in Mag Ctrm (Marshall) before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. Motions in Limine due by 12/13/2027. Joint Pretrial Order due by 12/27/2027. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 6/18/2026. (slo) (Entered: 06/18/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/468048563/","id":468048563,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/483325571/","id":483325571,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72051755/37/novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-06-18T12:24:25.363624-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T17:23:57.527665-07:00","sha1":"93ab8bbf9c587de219f9b741a004204e80601ddb","page_count":4,"file_size":124980,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.242548/gov.uscourts.txed.242548.37.0_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.242548/gov.uscourts.txed.242548.37.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37 Filed 06/18/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:\n 663\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\nNOVACLOUD LICENSING, LLC,\n\n Plaintiff, No. 2:25-cv-1228-JRG-RSP\n\n vs.\n\nMICROSOFT CORPORATION, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n JOINT MOTION TO ENTER AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\n Plaintiff NovaCloud Licensing, LLC and Defendant Microsoft Corporation (the \u201cParties\u201d)\n\n have conferred and jointly submit this Motion to enter an agreed Protective Order in the above-\n\n captioned matter. A proposed Protective Order bearing the language agreed between the Parties is\n\n attached hereto, and the Parties respectfully request the Court enter this Order.\n\n\n\n Dated: June 18, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Kevin L. Burgess\n Kevin L. Burgess\n Texas State Bar No. 24006927\n kburgess@mckoolsmith.com\n MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.\n 104 East Houston Street, Suite 300\n Marshall, TX 75670\n Telephone: (903) 923-9002\n Facsimile: (903) 923-9099\n\n John B. Campbell\n Texas State Bar No. 24036314\n jcampbell@mckoolsmith.com\n Stone A. Martin\n Texas State Bar No. 24143713\n smartin@mckoolsmith.com\n Rania Khamees\n Texas State Bar No. 24149673\n\n 1\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37 Filed 06/18/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:\n 664\n\n\n\n rkhamees@McKoolSmith.com\n MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.\n 303 Colorado Street Suite 2100\n Austin, TX 78701\n Telephone: (512) 692-8700\n Facsimile: (512) 692-8744\n\n Nicholas M. Mathews\n Texas State Bar No. 24085457\n nmathews@McKoolSmith.com\n Gregory Saltz\n Texas State Bar No. 24131641\n gsaltz@McKoolSmith.com\n Casey L. Shomaker\n Texas State Bar No. 24110359\n cshomaker@McKoolSmith.com\n MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.\n 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1200\n Dallas, TX 75201\n Telephone: (214) 978-4000\n Facsimile: (214) 978-4044\n\n Clara Bourget\n cbourget@McKoolSmith.com\n MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.\n 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900\n Los Angeles, CA 90071\n Telephone: (213) 694-1200\n Facsimile: (213) 694-1234\n\n Michael E. Catapano\n New York State Bar No. 5933700\n mcatapano@McKoolSmith.com\n Mariel Talmage\n New York State Bar No. 5948831\n mtalmage@McKoolSmith.com\n MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.\n 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor\n New York, NY 10019\n Telephone: (212) 402-9400\n Facsimile: (212) 402-9444\n\n ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF\n NOVACLOUD LICENSING, LLC.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37 Filed 06/18/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:\n 665\n\n\n\n /s/ Natalie A. Bennett\n Natalie A. Bennett*\n Illinois Bar No. 6304611\n natalie.bennett@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW\n Washington, DC 20004-2541\n Telephone: (202) 739-5559\n Facsimile: (202) 739-3001\n\n Jason C. White*\n Illinois Bar No. 6238352\n jason.white@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 110 North Wacker Drive\n Chicago, IL 60606\n Telephone: (312) 324-1000\n Facsimile: (312) 324-1001\n\n Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman*\n TX State Bar No. 24053269\n ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com\n Katerina Hora Jacobson*\n CA State Bar No. 342384\n katerina.horajacobson@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1400 Page Mill Road\n Palo Alto, California 94304\n Telephone: (650) 843-4000\n Facsimile: (650) 843-4001\n\n Melissa Richards Smith\n TX State Bar No. 24001351\n melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com\n GILLAM & SMITH LLP\n 303 South Washington Avenue\n Marshall, Texas 75670\n Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n Facsimile: (903) 934-9257\n *Admitted to Practice\n\n ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37 Filed 06/18/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:\n 666\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been\n\nserved on all counsel of record via the Court\u2019s ECF system on June 18, 2026.\n\n /s/ Kevin L. Burgess\n Kevin L. Burgess\n\n CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE\n The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for Plaintiff met and conferred with counsel\n\nfor Defendant to discuss the relief sought in this Motion pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(h). The\n\nParties are in agreement and are filing this Motion jointly.\n\n /s/ Kevin L. Burgess\n Kevin L. Burgess\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-07-07T14:24:56.018909-07:00","document_number":"37","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015472363","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/485375117/","id":485375117,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72051755/37/1/novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-07-07T14:25:06.543467-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T10:38:17.893676-07:00","sha1":"f4930a19318df55a6dd388fc0b64697853827ee6","page_count":23,"file_size":208168,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.242548/gov.uscourts.txed.242548.37.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.242548/gov.uscourts.txed.242548.37.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 1 of 23 PageID\n #: 667\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\nNOVACLOUD LICENSING, LLC,\n\n Plaintiff, No. 2:25-cv-1228-JRG-RSP\n\n vs.\n\nMICROSOFT CORPORATION, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\n WHEREAS, Plaintiff NovaCloud Licensing LLC (\u201cNovaCloud\u201d or \u201cPlaintiff\u201d) and\n\n Defendant Microsoft Corporation (\u201cMicrosoft\u201d or \u201cDefendant\u201d) (collectively, the \u201cParties\u201d),\n\n believe that discovery in this action is likely to involve the production or disclosure of trade secrets,\n\n confidential business information, or other proprietary information;\n\n WHEREAS, the Parties seek a protective order limiting disclosure thereof in accordance\n\n with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c):\n\n THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated among the Parties and ORDERED that:\n\n 1. The following definitions apply throughout this Order.\n\n (a) \u201cProtected Material\u201d means confidential or proprietary information or trade secrets\n of the Party or a Third Party to whom the Party reasonably believes it owes an\n obligation of confidentiality with respect to such document(s), information, or\n material. For the avoidance of doubt, \u201cProtected Material\u201d is a collective, catch-all\n term encompassing materials that are eligible for designation at least as\n \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d under this Order.\n\n (b) \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d information is information that is non-public, proprietary,\n commercially sensitive, or otherwise confidential information that is not generally\n known and that the producing Party maintains in confidence in the ordinary course\n of its business or is obligated to keep confidential. By way of example and without\n limitation, \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d information may include: (i) non-public technical,\n product, design, or development information; (ii) non-public business plans,\n marketing plans, or strategies; (iii) non-public financial information, budgets,\n\n 1\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 2 of 23 PageID\n #: 668\n\n\n\n forecasts, pricing, revenue, costs, or profit data; (iv) non-public customer, supplier,\n or partner information, including contracts and communications; (v) non-public\n licensing terms, negotiations, or valuations; (vi) personal data or personally\n identifiable information protected by law; and (vii) other information that, if\n disclosed beyond the limitations of this Order, could reasonably be expected to\n cause competitive, commercial, privacy, or other harm.\n\n (c) \u201cHighly Sensitive Material\u201d means material designated \u201cHIGHLY\n CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY\n CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE CODE\u201d.\n\n (d) \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d (or \u201cAEO\u201d)\n information is information that is extremely sensitive and the disclosure of which\n to another Party or non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious competitive\n or other significant harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. By\n way of example and without limitation, AEO information may include: (i) current\n or future detailed technical specifications, architecture, or non-public\n implementation details for products in development; (ii) detailed, non-public\n pricing, margins, costs, profitability analyses, or non-public competitive analyses;\n (iii) sensitive business plans or strategies, including unreleased product roadmaps\n and go-to-market plans; (iv) non-public customer or supplier lists, key account\n information, or terms of strategic relationships; (v) non-public licensing strategies\n or highly sensitive terms of licenses, settlements, or acquisitions; and (vi) other\n information of similar sensitivity the disclosure of which to business personnel of\n a receiving Party would risk significant competitive injury.\n\n (e) \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE CODE\u201d information is information that\n the producing Party in good faith believes in fact is or contains computer source\n code; hardware description language (\u201cHDL\u201d) code; executable, interpretable, or\n compilable code; machine readable code; and/or live data (that is, data as it exists\n residing in a database or databases) (\u201cSource Code Material\u201d).\n\n (f) \u201cDesignated Material\u201d means Protected Material that has been designated in\n accordance with this Order as either \u201cCONFIDENTIAL,\u201d \u201cHIGHLY\n CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY,\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY\n CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE CODE.\u201d\n\n (g) \u201cSource Code Material\u201d means documents containing confidential, proprietary,\n and/or trade secret source code, object code (i.e., computer instructions and data\n definitions expressed in a form suitable for input to an assembler, compiler, or other\n translator), microcode, register transfer language (\u201cRTL\u201d), firmware, and hardware\n description language (\u201cHDL\u201d), as well as any programmer notes, annotations, and\n other comments of any type accompanying the code.\n\n (h) \u201cSource Code Document\u201d means a pleading, exhibit, expert report, discovery\n document, deposition transcript, or other Court document that includes excerpts of\n Source Code Material.\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 3 of 23 PageID\n #: 669\n\n\n\n 2. Designation Mechanics. Each Party may designate for protection under this Order, in\n\n whole or in part, any document(s), information, or material that constitutes or includes, in\n\n whole or in part, Protected Material. Such material shall be designated by the Party\n\n producing it by affixing a legend or stamp on such document(s), information, or material\n\n as follows: \u201cCONFIDENTIAL,\u201d \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES\n\n ONLY,\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE CODE.\u201d The designation shall be\n\n placed clearly on each page of the Designated Material (except deposition and hearing\n\n transcripts) for which such protection is sought. For deposition and hearing transcripts, the\n\n word(s) \u201cCONFIDENTIAL,\u201d \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES\n\n ONLY,\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE CODE\u201d shall be placed on the cover\n\n page of the transcript (if not already present on the cover page of the transcript when\n\n received from the court reporter) by each attorney receiving a copy of the transcript after\n\n that attorney receives notice of the designation of some or all of that transcript. Where\n\n electronic files and documents are produced in native electronic format, such electronic\n\n files and documents shall be designated for protection by appending to the file names or\n\n designators information indicating whether the file contains \u201cCONFIDENTIAL,\u201d\n\n \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY,\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY\n\n CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE CODE\u201d material. If such electronic files or documents are\n\n printed (for example, for use at a deposition, in a court proceeding, or for provision in\n\n printed form to an approved expert or consultant), the Party printing the electronic files or\n\n documents shall place on the printed document the appropriate designation, as well as the\n\n production-identifying numbers associated with the native electronic files or documents.\n\n Documents, information or material so marked are \u201cDesignated Material.\u201d\n\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 4 of 23 PageID\n #: 670\n\n\n\n 3. Any document produced under Patent Rules 2-2, 3-2, and/or 3-4 before issuance of this\n\n Order with the designation \u201cConfidential\u201d or \u201cHighly Confidential - Attorneys\u2019 Eyes Only\u201d\n\n shall receive the same treatment as if designated \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d under this Order, unless and until such document is\n\n redesignated to have a different classification under this Order.\n\n 4. Scope. With respect to Designated Material, subject to the provisions herein and unless\n\n otherwise stated, this Order governs, without limitation: (a) all documents, electronically\n\n stored information, and/or things as defined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (b)\n\n all pretrial, hearing, or deposition testimony, or documents marked as exhibits or for\n\n identification in depositions and hearings; (c) pretrial pleadings, exhibits to pleadings, and\n\n other court filings; (d) affidavits; and (e) stipulations. All copies, reproductions, extracts,\n\n digests, and complete or partial summaries prepared from any Designated Material shall\n\n also be considered Designated Material and treated as such under this Order.\n\n 5. Inadvertent Failure to Designate. A designation of Protected Material may be made at any\n\n time. Inadvertent or unintentional production of documents, information or material that\n\n has not been designated shall not be deemed a waiver in whole or in part of a claim for\n\n confidential treatment. Any Party that inadvertently or unintentionally produces Protected\n\n Material without designating it may request destruction of that Protected Material by\n\n promptly notifying the recipient(s), after the producing Party becomes aware of the\n\n inadvertent or unintentional disclosure, and providing replacement version(s) that are\n\n properly designated under this Order. The recipient(s) shall then destroy all copies of the\n\n inadvertently or unintentionally produced Protected Material and any documents,\n\n information, or material derived from or based thereon.\n\n\n\n 4\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 5 of 23 PageID\n #: 671\n\n\n\n 6. Disclosure of \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d Material. Documents, information, and material\n\n designated as \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d under this Order may be disclosed only to the following\n\n persons, except upon (i) prior written consent of the designating Party or (ii) order of the\n\n Court:\n\n (a) outside counsel of record in the above captioned action (\u201cAction\u201d) for the Parties;\n\n (b) employees of such counsel assigned to and reasonably necessary to assist such\n counsel in the litigation of this Action;\n\n (c) in-house counsel for the Parties who either have responsibility for making decisions\n dealing directly with the litigation of this Action, or who are assisting outside\n counsel in the litigation of this Action and who have completed the Undertaking\n attached at Appendix A hereto (the \u201cUndertaking\u201d) and the same is served upon the\n Parties;\n\n (d) up to and including three (3) designated representatives of each of the Parties to the\n extent reasonably necessary for the litigation of this Action, except that either party\n may in good faith request the other party\u2019s consent to designate one or more\n additional representatives, the other party shall not unreasonably withhold such\n consent, and the requesting party may seek leave of Court to designate such\n additional representative(s) if the requesting party believes the other party has\n unreasonably withheld such consent. Each designated representative shall be\n disclosed five (5) business days prior to receiving access to any Protected Material;\n\n (e) mock jurors, provided that (a) an appropriate screening shall be used to ensure that\n the mock jurors are not current or former officers, directors, employees, or\n consultants of any party or direct competitors of any party, and (b) they sign an\n undertaking to maintain confidentiality consistent with this Order and are not\n permitted to retain Protected Material;\n\n (f) outside consultants or experts (i.e., not existing employees or affiliates of a Party\n or an affiliate of a Party) retained for the purpose of this litigation, provided that:\n (1) such consultants or experts are not presently employed by the Parties hereto for\n purposes other than this Action, or by a competitor of a Party, nor anticipated at the\n time of retention to become an officer, director, or employee of a Party or a\n competitor of a Party;1 and (2) before access is given, the consultant or expert has\n completed the Undertaking attached as Appendix A hereto and the same is served\n upon the producing Party with a notice that shall include: (a) the individual\u2019s name,\n business title, and current employer(s); (b) business address; (c) the individual\u2019s\n\n 1\n For avoidance of doubt, an independent expert or consultant retained (as opposed to employed)\n by a Party or a competitor of a Party on another litigation would not be precluded under this\n section.\n\n 5\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 6 of 23 PageID\n #: 672\n\n\n\n CV; (d) a list of other cases in which the individual has testified (at trial or\n deposition) within the last five years; and (e) a list of all companies with which the\n individual has consulted or by which the individual has been employed, including\n in connection with a litigation, within the last four years. The Undertaking and\n notice shall be served at least seven (7) days before access to the Designated\n Material is to be given to that expert or consultant. Within seven (7) days of being\n served with the notice of the intended disclosure, the producing Party may object\n to disclosure of Designated Material to the consultant or expert. The Parties shall\n promptly confer and use good faith to resolve any such objection. A producing\n Party\u2019s objection to the disclosure of Designated Material to an outside consultant\n or expert must state with particularity the ground(s) of the objections. If no Party\n raises such an objection within seven (7) days of receiving notice of the intended\n disclosure, the outside consultant or expert shall be deemed qualified to receive the\n Designated Material described in the notice. If the Parties are unable to resolve any\n objection, the objecting Party may file a motion with the Court within seven (7)\n days of the objection, or within such other time as the Parties may agree, seeking a\n protective order. The objecting Party shall have the burden of proving the need for\n a protective order. No disclosure shall occur until all such objections are resolved\n by agreement or Court order. A failure to file a motion within seven (7) days after\n raising the objection, absent an agreement of the Parties to the contrary or for an\n extension of such seven (7) day period, shall operate to allow disclosure of the\n Designated Material to the outside consultant or expert objected to. The Parties\n agree to cooperate in good faith to shorten the time frames set forth in this paragraph\n if necessary to abide by any discovery or briefing schedules;\n\n (g) any mediator who is assigned to hear this matter, and his or her staff, subject to\n their agreement to maintain confidentiality consistent with this Order;\n\n (h) independent litigation support services, including persons working for or as court\n reporters, graphics or design services, jury or trial consulting services, interpreters\n or translators, and photocopy, document imaging, and database services retained\n by counsel and reasonably necessary to assist counsel with the litigation of this\n Action;\n\n (i) the Court and its personnel.\n\n 7. Good-Faith Designations. A Party shall designate Protected Material only upon a good\n\n faith belief that the documents, information or materials contain confidential or proprietary\n\n information or trade secrets of the Party or a Third Party to whom the Party reasonably\n\n believes it owes an obligation of confidentiality.\n\n 8. Use Restrictions. Designated Material shall be used by the Parties only in the litigation of\n\n this Action and shall not be used for any other purpose. Any person or entity who obtains\n\n 6\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 7 of 23 PageID\n #: 673\n\n\n\n access to Designated Material or the contents thereof pursuant to this Order shall not make\n\n any copies, duplicates, extracts, summaries or descriptions of such Designated Material or\n\n any portion thereof except as may be reasonably necessary in the litigation of this Action.\n\n Any such copies, duplicates, extracts, summaries, or descriptions shall be classified as\n\n Designated Material and subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Order.\n\n 9. To the extent a producing Party believes that certain Protected Material qualifying to be\n\n designated CONFIDENTIAL is so sensitive that its dissemination deserves even further\n\n limitation, the producing Party may designate such Protected Material \u201cHIGHLY\n\n CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY,\u201d or to the extent such Protected\n\n Material includes computer source code; hardware description language (\u201cHDL\u201d) code;\n\n executable, interpretable, or compilable code; machine readable code; and/or live data (that\n\n is, data as it exists residing in a database or databases) (\u201cSource Code Material\u201d), the\n\n producing Party may designate such Protected Material as \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -\n\n SOURCE CODE.\u201d\n\n 10. Source Code in Filings. A receiving Party may include excerpts of Source Code Material\n\n in Source Code Documents, provided that the Source Code Documents are appropriately\n\n marked, restricted to those entitled to access under this Order, and, if filed with the Court,\n\n filed under seal in accordance with the Court\u2019s rules, procedures, and orders. To the extent\n\n portions of Source Code Material are quoted in a Source Code Document, either (1) the\n\n entire Source Code Document will be stamped and treated as \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL\n\n \u2013 SOURCE CODE,\u201d or (2) those pages containing quoted Source Code Material will be\n\n separately stamped and treated as such.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 8 of 23 PageID\n #: 674\n\n\n\n 11. Access to AEO Material. For material designated as \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY,\u201d access to, and disclosure of, such Designated Material\n\n shall be limited to individuals listed in paragraphs 6(a-b) and (e-i). The individuals listed\n\n in paragraph 6(e) may only review presentations or summaries derived from information\n\n or documents designated \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY,\u201d\n\n provided they are not themselves given custody of any material designated \u201cHIGHLY\n\n CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d or of any such derivative materials.\n\n Financial amounts must be altered in derivative materials but may be within the same\n\n magnitude as those in the underlying \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019\n\n EYES ONLY\u201d information or documents.\n\n 12. Access to Source Code. For material designated under this Order as \u201cHIGHLY\n\n CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE CODE,\u201d access to, and disclosure of such material shall be\n\n limited to only the individuals listed below (\u201cAuthorized Reviewers\u201d):\n\n (a) outside counsel of record for the Parties to this action, including any attorneys,\n paralegals, technology specialists, and clerical employees of their respective law\n firms;\n\n (b) up to five (5) outside experts or consultants per Party,2 pre-approved pursuant to\n paragraph 6 of this Order; and\n\n (c) the Court, its technical advisor (if one is appointed), the jury, court personnel, and\n court reporters or videographers recording testimony or other proceedings in this\n action. Court reporters and/or videographers shall not retain or be given copies of\n any portions of the Source Code Material; copies of exhibits containing Source\n Code Material shall not be retained by the court reporter or attached to the\n deposition transcript; rather, the deposition record will identify the exhibit by its\n production numbers.\n\n\n 2\n For the purpose of this paragraph, an outside consultant or expert is defined to include the outside\n consultant\u2019s or expert\u2019s direct reports and other support personnel, such that the disclosure to a\n consultant or expert who employs others within their firm to help in their analysis shall count as a\n disclosure to a single consultant or expert.\n\n 8\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 9 of 23 PageID\n #: 675\n\n\n\n (d) While testifying at deposition or trial in this action, only: (i) any current or former\n officer, director, or employee of the producing Party or original source of the\n information; (ii) any person designated by the producing Party to provide testimony\n pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6); and/or (iii) any person who authored, previously\n received (other than in connection with this litigation), or was directly involved in\n creating, modifying, or editing the Source Code Material, as evident from its face\n or reasonably certain in view of other testimony or evidence. Persons authorized to\n view Source Code Material pursuant to this subparagraph shall not retain or be\n given copies of the Source Code Material, except while so testifying.\n\n 13. Purpose Limitation (Source Code). Access to and review of Source Code Material shall be\n\n strictly for the purpose of investigating the claims and defenses at issue in this Action. No\n\n person shall review or analyze any Source Code Material for purposes unrelated to this\n\n case, nor may any person use any knowledge gained as a result of reviewing Source Code\n\n Material in this case in any other dispute, proceeding, or litigation.\n\n 14. Source Code Inspection Protocols. The inspection of Source Code Material shall be\n\n governed by the following provisions:\n\n (a) All Source Code Material shall be made available by the producing Party to the\n receiving Party\u2019s outside counsel and experts on a \u201cstand-alone\u201d computer (that is,\n the computer may not be linked to any network, including a local area network\n (\u201cLAN\u201d), an intranet, or the Internet). A second \u201cstand-alone\u201d computer may be\n provided at the same location at a receiving Party\u2019s request to accommodate\n simultaneous review by multiple reviewers. All stand-alone computers on which\n Source Code Material is made available shall be subject to the restrictions described\n herein. The stand-alone computers may be connected to a monitor (of size no less\n than 27 inches), keyboard, and mouse, and must conform to reasonable, modern\n specifications. The stand-alone computer(s) shall only be made available at the\n offices of the producing Party\u2019s outside counsel or at the offices of a secure,\n reputable vendor under the control of the producing Party\u2019s outside counsel, or at\n such other location mutually agreed by the Parties. The Parties shall cooperate in\n good faith to ensure that the location does not unreasonably hinder efficient review.\n\n (b) The receiving Party\u2019s outside counsel, consultants, and/or experts shall be entitled\n to take notes relating to the source code, provided that no Source Code is copied or\n transcribed verbatim into such notes (file names and function names may be\n referenced, but may not be used to replicate the Source Code Material in the notes).\n Notes may not be taken on the stand-alone computer itself. Reviewing experts and\n outside counsel may take such notes during review on a stand-alone laptop that is\n not linked to any network, including a local area network (\u201cLAN\u201d), an intranet, or\n the Internet (the \u201cNote-Taking Computer\u201d), All such notes shall be marked\n\n 9\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 10 of 23 PageID\n #: 676\n\n\n\n \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE CODE\u201d and may be removed from the\n Source Code Review Room. The producing Party may implement reasonable\n security procedures and may observe reviewers during sessions, but shall not\n review or monitor their screens or notes. Unless otherwise agreed in advance by the\n parties in writing, following each inspection, the receiving Party\u2019s outside counsel,\n consultants, and/or experts shall remove all notes, documents, and all other\n materials from the room that may contain work product and/or attorney-client\n privileged information. The producing Party shall not be responsible for any items\n left in the room following the inspection. Any such notes, copies, or printouts may\n only be created or retained by the receiving Party in accordance with the provisions\n of this order, and all notes, copies, or printouts reflecting information that is\n designated HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE CODE must be marked with\n the appropriate designation. Nothing in the foregoing shall relieve the receiving\n Party of its obligations to promptly identify for printing portions of source code.\n\n (c) The producing Party will make the stand-alone computers available between the\n hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on business days (i.e., weekdays that are not\n Federal holidays), and will reasonably accommodate requests for other times. The\n Parties agree to cooperate in good faith such that maintaining the producing Party\u2019s\n Source Code Material at the offices of its outside counsel shall not unreasonably\n hinder the receiving Party\u2019s ability to efficiently and effectively conduct the\n prosecution or defense of this Action. The receiving Party shall provide notice to\n the producing Party of its request to inspect source code ten (10) business days in\n advance of the first requested inspection and three (3) business days in advance of\n each subsequent requested inspection, and shall identify the individuals who will\n be reviewing the source code, as well as a good faith estimate of the anticipated\n length of the review. The producing Party will make reasonable efforts to\n accommodate requested date and times. The receiving Party\u2019s qualified persons\n shall sign, on each day they view Source Code Material, a log with names and\n entry/exit times.\n\n (d) Proper identification of all authorized persons shall be provided prior to any access\n to the room containing a stand-alone computer. Proper identification requires, at a\n minimum, a government-issued photo identification card. Access may be denied,\n to any individual who fails to provide proper identification.\n\n (e) Except for the Note-Taking Computer described above, the receiving Party may\n not bring any electronic devices, including but not limited to cellular devices,\n personal digital assistants (PDAs), tablets, laptops, USB flash drives, zip drives,\n portable printers, devices with camera functionalities, or the like into the room\n where stand-alone computers are provided. The receiving Party will not copy,\n remove, or otherwise transfer any Source Code Material from a stand-alone\n computer. The receiving Party will not remove copies of all or any portion of the\n Source Code Material from the room in which the Source Code Material is\n inspected. Further, no electronic copies of Source Code Material shall be made\n without prior written consent of the producing Party, except as reasonably\n necessary to create documents that must be filed or served electronically (such as\n\n 10\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 11 of 23 PageID\n #: 677\n\n\n\n expert reports, discovery responses and motions, summary judgment motions,\n demonstrative or other exhibits, or infringement contentions), provided that such\n documents include the minimal amount of Source Code Material reasonably\n necessary, are appropriately marked, and, if filed, are filed under seal. Wherever\n possible, the receiving Party will make reasonable and good-faith efforts to limit\n information to references to production numbers, file names, and line numbers.\n\n (f) The producing Party shall provide information explaining how to start, log on to,\n and operate the stand-alone computer(s). All access to the source code shall be\n maintained on a source code Access Log identifying, for each and every time any\n source code is viewed, accessed, or analyzed: (1) the name of each person who\n accessed the code; (2) the date and time of access; and (3) the date and time at\n which such access ended. The producing Party shall be entitled to have a person\n observe all entrances and exits from the reviewing room and may visually monitor\n the activities of the receiving Party\u2019s representative during any source code review,\n but only to ensure that there is no electronic device in the room beyond the\n standalone computer and that there is no unauthorized recording, copying or\n transmission of the source code.\n\n (g) The producing Party will produce Source Code Material in native, computer\n searchable format on the stand-alone computer(s).\n\n (h) Source Code Material may only be transported between persons authorized under\n this Order on paper or on encrypted removable electronic media (e.g., encrypted\n DVD, encrypted CD-ROM, or encrypted flash drive) via hand carry or reputable\n courier (e.g., Federal Express, but not United States Postal Service). Source Code\n Material shall not be transmitted electronically over any network, including the\n Internet, intranet, or LAN. The receiving Party may request that one stand-alone\n computer (\u201cSource Code Deposition Computer\u201d) be provided at a deposition for\n use during the deposition of a witness who would otherwise be permitted access to\n Source Code Material. Such requests shall be made at least five (5) days before the\n deposition. Any request under this provision shall (i) identify the deposition\n witness, date, time, and location; and (ii) specify, by Bates number or other unique\n identifier used in production, the specific printed-and-produced copies of Source\n Code material to be accessible on the Source Code Deposition Computer, provided\n that the copies of Source Code Material are not more than reasonably necessary to\n conduct the deposition. For avoidance of doubt, the Source Code Deposition\n Computer will only contain copies of the specific Source Code Material identified\n by the receiving Party at least five (5) days before the deposition and that have\n already been printed and produced at least five (5) days before the deposition.\n Copies of printed Source Code Material marked as deposition exhibits may be\n provided to the court reporter during the deposition but shall not be retained by the\n reporter or attached to transcripts; rather, the deposition record will identify the\n exhibit by its production numbers. All paper copies of Source Code Material used\n as deposition exhibits shall remain with the producing Party\u2019s outside counsel.\n\n\n\n 11\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 12 of 23 PageID\n #: 678\n\n\n\n (i) The receiving Party may make printouts and photocopies of limited portions of\n Source Code Material, up to 550 pages total and no more than 30 consecutive pages,\n all of which shall be designated and clearly labeled \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL\n \u2013 SOURCE CODE,\u201d provided that such printouts and photocopies are: (1)\n necessary for use as exhibits at trial; (2) necessary to prepare court filings,\n pleadings, or other papers (including a testifying expert\u2019s expert report); (3)\n necessary for deposition, or (4) necessary to prepare and develop claims,\n contentions, and defenses in the case. If the Receiving Party reasonably believes it\n is necessary to print more, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith to resolve\n the issue. The receiving Party shall maintain a log of all files printed or photocopied\n (identifying date, file/path, and number of pages), and shall make the log available\n upon reasonable request for audit purposes. Any printouts or photocopies of Source\n Code Material must be made on colored (i.e., non-white) paper. The stand\u2011alone\n computer(s) may be connected to a printer for this limited purpose. Outside counsel\n may make a limited number of copies of printed pages as reasonably necessary for\n filings, depositions, hearings, or trial, provided that such copies remain secured as\n set forth herein. Should such printouts or photocopies be transferred back to\n electronic media, such media shall be labeled \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n SOURCE CODE\u201d and shall continue to be treated as such.\n\n (j) If the receiving Party\u2019s outside counsel, consultants, or experts obtain printouts or\n photocopies of Source Code Material, the receiving Party shall ensure that such\n individuals keep the printouts or photocopies in a secured, locked area in their\n offices. The receiving Party may also temporarily keep the printouts or photocopies\n at: (i) the Court for proceeding(s) relating to the Source Code Material, for the dates\n associated with the proceeding(s); (ii) the sites where any deposition(s) relating to\n the Source Code Material are taken, for the dates associated with the deposition(s);\n and (iii) any intermediate location reasonably necessary to transport the printouts\n or photocopies.\n\n (k) Except as provided in this Order, absent express written permission from the\n producing Party, the receiving Party may not create electronic images, or any other\n images, or make electronic copies, of Source Code Material from any paper copy\n for use in any manner. The receiving Party shall not include excerpts of Source\n Code Material in correspondence between the Parties (references to production\n numbers shall be used instead), and shall omit images or copies of Source Code\n Material from pleadings and other papers unless reasonably necessary. If included,\n the documents must be appropriately marked, restricted to those entitled to access,\n include the minimal necessary amount, and, if filed, be filed under seal. Wherever\n possible, the receiving Party will make a reasonable and good-faith efforts to limit\n information to references to production numbers, file names, and line numbers.\n\n (l) The producing Party shall provide a reasonable set of software tools on each stand-\n alone computer to view and search human-readable Source Code Material. The\n producing Party shall provide a list of such tools five (5) business days prior to the\n availability of Source Code Material. The receiving Party may request that\n additional commercially available software tools be installed on the stand-alone\n\n 12\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 13 of 23 PageID\n #: 679\n\n\n\n computers, provided that (a) the receiving Party possesses an appropriate license to\n such tools; (b) the producing Party approves such tools, such approval not to be\n unreasonably withheld; and (c) such tools are reasonably necessary for the\n receiving Party to perform its review of the Source Code Material consistent with\n this Order. The receiving Party must provide licensed software tool(s) at least three\n (3) business days in advance of the requested installation date.\n\n 15. Prosecution Bar. Absent written consent from the designating Party, any outside counsel\n\n representing a Party and any person associated with a Party and permitted to receive the\n\n other Party\u2019s Highly Sensitive Material, who obtains, receives, has access to, or otherwise\n\n learns, in whole or in part, the other Party\u2019s Highly Sensitive Material under this Order\n\n shall not thereafter prepare, prosecute, supervise, or assist in the preparation or prosecution\n\n of any patent application pertaining to the field of the invention of the patents-in-suit on\n\n behalf of the receiving Party or its acquirer, successor, predecessor, or other affiliate during\n\n the pendency of this Action and for one year after its conclusion, including any appeals.\n\n The prohibitions in this paragraph do not preclude participation in reexamination, inter\n\n partes review, interference, or post-grant review proceedings, provided that any attorney\n\n with access to Highly Sensitive Material may not advise, consult, or participate in the\n\n drafting of amended or substitute claims, and will not use any Highly Sensitive Material in\n\n such proceedings. For sake of clarity, all attorneys of any Party may participate, supervise,\n\n and assist in any and all post-grant review proceedings (e.g., reexamination, inter partes\n\n review) related to the patents-in-suit, even if they have received and/or reviewed the Highly\n\n Sensitive Material, provided that they do not participate or provide guidance on any claim\n\n drafting or amendment of claims in such proceedings. This provision shall not bar entire\n\n firms, rather only the individuals who actually review or learn the substance of a Party\u2019s\n\n Highly Sensitive Material.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 14 of 23 PageID\n #: 680\n\n\n\n 16. Privilege and Clawback. Nothing in this Order shall require production of documents,\n\n information or other material that a Party contends is protected from disclosure by the\n\n attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or other privilege, doctrine, or\n\n immunity. The production or disclosure of any information that a producing Party later\n\n claims should not have been produced due to a privilege or protection from discovery\n\n (including but not limited to the attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, joint\n\n defense privilege, or settlement privilege) shall not be deemed to waive any such privilege\n\n or protection. If a receiving Party receives information it believes may be subject to a claim\n\n of privilege or protection from discovery, it shall promptly identify the information to the\n\n producing Party. When a producing Party identifies such information as privileged or\n\n protected, the receiving Party: (1) shall not use, and shall immediately cease any prior use\n\n of, such information; (2) shall take reasonable steps to retrieve the information from others\n\n to whom it was disclosed; (3) shall, within five (5) business days of the producing Party\u2019s\n\n request, return or destroy the information and all copies; and (4) shall confirm destruction\n\n under of all copies not returned. No one shall use the fact or circumstances of production\n\n of the information in this Action to argue that any privilege or protection has been waived.\n\n Within three (3) business days after providing notice of the disclosure, the producing Party\n\n shall provide a log that describes the basis for the claim of privilege or protection. Within\n\n five (5) business days thereafter, a Party disputing a claim of privilege shall provide in\n\n writing the identification of the information at issue and the reasons (including legal\n\n support) for its assertion that the information is not privileged, or that any privilege has\n\n been waived by some act other than production. Within three (3) business days thereafter,\n\n the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith as to the claims of privilege. Within five (5)\n\n\n\n 14\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 15 of 23 PageID\n #: 681\n\n\n\n business days after the meet and confer, and not thereafter, the receiving Party may file a\n\n motion to compel the production of the information. For the avoidance of doubt, backup\n\n or disaster-recovery systems need not be purged; however, no use shall be made of any\n\n such materials retrieved from backup systems unless otherwise ordered by the Court.\n\n 17. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools. The Parties agree that they may utilize AI tools,\n\n including, but not limited to, legal research, document review, and analysis platforms such\n\n as Harvey, in connection with the review, analysis, and management of materials\n\n designated as \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019\n\n EYES ONLY,\u201d provided that: (1) the Party uses the AI tool only through a proprietary,\n\n private, and secure environment licensed exclusively for that party; (2) the AI tool is\n\n operated in a manner that maintains the confidentiality of the \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or\n\n \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d materials in accordance\n\n with this agreement; (3) the AI tool and any associated service provider shall not use,\n\n access, or retain the \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d materials for any purpose other than to provide the\n\n contracted services to the Party; (4) the AI tool shall not use the \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or\n\n \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d materials to train its\n\n models or for any other purpose unrelated to this litigation; (5) the use of the AI tool shall\n\n not result in disclosure of \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d materials to any person or entity not otherwise authorized\n\n under this Order; and (6) the AI tool is capable of purging, deleting, and/or destroying any\n\n \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d\n\n materials in compliance with Paragraph 27 of this Order. Nothing in this paragraph shall\n\n\n\n 15\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 16 of 23 PageID\n #: 682\n\n\n\n be interpreted as expanding the categories of authorized recipients set forth in paragraphs\n\n 6, 11, 12, and 13 above. The Parties may not use AI tools in connection with the review,\n\n analysis, and management of materials designated as \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n\n SOURCE CODE\u201d. For the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph does not preclude the\n\n installation and use of software tools or applications that have AI capabilities that are\n\n disabled during source code review. The Parties reserve the right to further discuss the use\n\n of AI tools if issues arise regarding the use of AI tools that are not expressly contemplated\n\n herein.\n\n 18. Inadvertent Unauthorized Disclosure. If a receiving Party learns that, by inadvertence or\n\n otherwise, it has disclosed Designated Material to any person or in any circumstance not\n\n authorized under this Order, the receiving Party must immediately (a) notify the\n\n designating Party in writing of the unauthorized disclosures, and provide all known,\n\n relevant information concerning the nature and circumstances of the disclosure; and (b) use\n\n best efforts to retrieve all unauthorized copies of the Designated Material and to ensure that\n\n no further or greater unauthorized disclosure and/or use occurs.\n\n 19. Use at Depositions or Hearings. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prejudice\n\n any Party\u2019s right to use any Designated Material in taking testimony at any deposition or\n\n hearing, provided that the Designated Material is only disclosed to a person(s) who is\n\n eligible to have access to such material under this Order. Designated Material shall not be\n\n disclosed to any other persons unless prior authorization is obtained from counsel for the\n\n producing Party or from the Court.\n\n 20. Deposition/Hearing Designations. Parties may, at a deposition or hearing or within ten (10)\n\n days after receipt of a deposition or hearing transcript, designate the transcript or any\n\n\n\n 16\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 17 of 23 PageID\n #: 683\n\n\n\n portion thereof as \u201cCONFIDENTIAL,\u201d \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019\n\n EYES ONLY,\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE CODE.\u201d Access to the\n\n transcript so designated shall be limited in accordance with the terms of this Order. Until\n\n expiration of the 10-day period and unless previously designated, the entire deposition or\n\n hearing transcript shall be treated as \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES\n\n ONLY.\u201d\n\n 21. Filing Under Seal. Any Designated Material that is filed with the Court shall be filed under\n\n seal and shall remain under seal until further order of the Court. The filing party shall\n\n inform the Clerk that the filing should be sealed and shall place the legend \u201cFILED\n\n UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER\u201d above the caption and\n\n conspicuously on each page of the filing. Exhibits to a filing shall conform to the labeling\n\n requirements set forth in this Order. If a pleading filed with the Court, or an exhibit thereto,\n\n discloses or relies on Designated Material, such portions shall be redacted to the extent\n\n necessary and the pleading or exhibit filed publicly.\n\n 22. Trial. This Order applies to pretrial discovery. Nothing herein shall be deemed to prevent\n\n the Parties from introducing any Designated Material into evidence at trial, or from using\n\n any information contained in Designated Material at trial, subject to any pretrial order\n\n issued by this Court. The Parties may request that the Court seal the courtroom or enact\n\n other measures to prevent unauthorized disclosure of Designated Material during hearings\n\n or trial.\n\n 23. Challenges to Designations. A Party may request in writing that the designation given to\n\n any Designated Material be modified or withdrawn. If the designating Party does not agree\n\n to re-designation within ten (10) days of receipt of the written request, the requesting Party\n\n\n\n 17\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 18 of 23 PageID\n #: 684\n\n\n\n may apply to the Court for relief. Upon any such application to the Court, the burden shall\n\n be on the designating Party to show why its classification is proper. Such application shall\n\n be treated procedurally as a motion to compel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n\n 37. Pending the Court\u2019s determination or mutual agreement, the designation shall be\n\n maintained.\n\n 24. Expert Undertakings. Each outside consultant or expert to whom Designated Material is\n\n disclosed shall be advised by counsel of the terms of this Order, informed that he or she is\n\n subject to the terms and conditions of this Order, and shall sign the acknowledgment\n\n attached as Appendix A.\n\n 25. Third Parties. To the extent that any discovery is taken of persons who are not Parties to\n\n this Action (\u201cThird Parties\u201d), and in the event that such Third Parties contend the discovery\n\n sought involves trade secrets, confidential business information, or other proprietary\n\n information, then such Third Parties may agree to be bound by this Order. Information\n\n originating with a Third Party and in a producing Party\u2019s custody or control that the\n\n producing Party reasonably and in good faith believes is subject to a confidentiality\n\n obligation may be designated and treated in accordance with this Order, thus satisfying any\n\n confidentiality obligations to that Third Party.\n\n 26. Third-Party Designations. To the extent that discovery or testimony is taken of Third\n\n Parties, the Third Parties may designate as \u201cCONFIDENTIAL,\u201d \u201cHIGHLY\n\n CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY,\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n\n SOURCE CODE\u201d any documents, information, or other material produced or given by\n\n such Third Parties. The Third Parties shall have ten (10) days after production to make such\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 19 of 23 PageID\n #: 685\n\n\n\n a designation. Until that time period lapses or until such a designation has been made,\n\n whichever occurs sooner, all such materials shall be treated as \u201cCONFIDENTIAL.\u201d\n\n 27. Final Disposition. The provisions of this Order shall continue to be binding after final\n\n termination of this Action until a producing Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court\n\n order otherwise directs. Within thirty (30) days of final termination of this Action,\n\n including any appeals, all Designated Material stored in electronic form in the possession\n\n of a receiving Party including all copies, duplicates, abstracts, indexes, summaries,\n\n descriptions, and excerpts or extracts thereof, shall be taken \u201coffline,\u201d meaning that any\n\n access to those materials available via login over the public Internet (for example, login to\n\n an e-discovery vendor hosting Designated Material) shall be removed. Within sixty (60)\n\n days of final termination of this Action, including any appeals, all Designated Material in\n\n the possession of a receiving Party, including all copies, duplicates, abstracts, indexes,\n\n summaries, descriptions, and excerpts or extracts thereof (excluding excerpts or extracts\n\n incorporated into privileged memoranda and materials admitted into evidence), shall be\n\n destroyed, with the exception that any Source Code shall be returned to the producing\n\n Party. The receiving Party shall verify the return or destruction by affidavit furnished to\n\n the producing Party, upon request.\n\n 28. Reservation of Rights. The failure to designate documents, information, or material in\n\n accordance with this Order and the failure to object to a designation at a given time shall\n\n not preclude a later motion seeking to impose or challenge such designation. The entry of\n\n this Order and/or the production of documents, information, and material protected\n\n hereunder shall in no way constitute a waiver of any objection to the furnishing thereof.\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 20 of 23 PageID\n #: 686\n\n\n\n 29. Enforcement and Data Breach Notice: Any Party knowing or believing that any other Party\n\n is in violation of or intends to violate this Order and has raised the question of violation or\n\n potential violation with the opposing Party and has been unable to resolve the matter by\n\n agreement may move the Court for appropriate relief. Pending disposition of the motion,\n\n the Party alleged to be in violation shall discontinue the performance of, and shall not\n\n undertake the further performance of, any action alleged to constitute a violation of this\n\n Order. In the event the receiving Party becomes aware of any potential, suspected,\n\n apparent, or actual unauthorized access to Designated Material, including any \u201cdata\n\n breach\u201d of Designated Material, the receiving Party shall immediately provide written\n\n notice of the potential, suspected, apparent, or actual unauthorized access to the producing\n\n Party. \u201cImmediately\u201d for purposes of this paragraph shall be defined to mean \u201cas soon as\n\n reasonably possible\u201d and, in any event, no longer than three (3) business days from the date\n\n of first awareness. The written notice shall include complete information regarding the\n\n potential, suspected, apparent, or actual unauthorized access, including all applicable facts\n\n and circumstances leading up to and resulting from the potential, suspected, apparent, or\n\n actual unauthorized access. The receiving Party will reasonably cooperate to investigate\n\n the potential, suspected, apparent, or actual unauthorized access. Neither Party waives any\n\n rights that would otherwise be available to them to seek compensation for actual\n\n unauthorized access. Such rights include the right of the producing Party to seek an order\n\n from the Court that the receiving Party shall bear the losses and expenses (including any\n\n attorneys\u2019 fees) associated with actual unauthorized access.\n\n 30. No Publication. Production of Designated Material shall not be deemed a publication so as\n\n to void or make voidable any claim of confidentiality or proprietary status.\n\n\n\n 20\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 21 of 23 PageID\n #: 687\n\n\n\n 31. Privileges Preserved. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to effect an abrogation,\n\n waiver, or limitation of any kind on the rights of the Parties to assert any applicable\n\n discovery or trial privilege.\n\n 32. Jurisdiction and Venue for Enforcement. The United States District Court for the Eastern\n\n District of Texas is responsible for the interpretation and enforcement of this Protective\n\n Order. All disputes concerning Designated Material produced under the protection of this\n\n Protective Order shall be resolved by this Court.\n\n 33. Modifications. Each Party retains the right to file a motion with the Court (a) to modify\n\n this Order to allow disclosure of Designated Material to additional persons or entities if\n\n reasonably necessary to prepare and present this Action and (b) to apply for additional\n\n protection of Designated Material.\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 22 of 23 PageID\n #: 688\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\nNOVACLOUD LICENSING, LLC,\n\n Plaintiff, No. 2:25-cv-1228-JRG-RSP\n\n vs.\n\nMICROSOFT CORPORATION, JURY TRIAL\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n APPENDIX A\n UNDERTAKING OF EXPERTS OR CONSULTANTS REGARDING\n PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\n\n I, _______________________________________________, declare that:\n\n 1. My current address is ______________________________________________________.\n\n My current employer is ____________________________________________________.\n\n My current occupation is ___________________________________________________.\n\n 2. I have received a copy of the Protective Order in this action. I have carefully read and\n\n understand the provisions of the Protective Order.\n\n 3. I will comply with all provisions of the Protective Order. I will hold in confidence, will not\n\n disclose to anyone not qualified under the Protective Order, and will use only for purposes\n\n of this action any information designated as \u201cCONFIDENTIAL,\u201d \u201cHIGHLY\n\n CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY,\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL\n\n SOURCE CODE\u201d that is disclosed to me.\n\n 4. Promptly upon termination of this action, I will return or destroy all documents and things\n\n designated as \u201cCONFIDENTIAL,\u201d \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 37-1 Filed 06/18/26 Page 23 of 23 PageID\n #: 689\n\n\n\n ONLY,\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE CODE\u201d that came into my\n\n possession, and all documents and things that I have prepared relating thereto.\n\n 5. I hereby submit to the jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of enforcement of the\n\n Protective Order in this action.\n\n I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\n Signature ___________________________________\n\n Date _______________________________________\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-07-07T14:25:06.542698-07:00","document_number":"37","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"175015472364","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-18T12:24:25.325620-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:36.239777-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-18","time_filed":"14:21:27","entry_number":37,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":119,"description":"JOINT MOTION to Enter Agreed Protective Order by NovaCloud Licensing, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burgess, Kevin) (Entered: 06/18/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/467935074/","id":467935074,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/483208666/","id":483208666,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72051755/36/novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-06-17T15:22:22.629971-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T17:24:36.572076-07:00","sha1":"c4b18f802601f10c5935fd3bf55d8ba1ff8e4486","page_count":4,"file_size":150862,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.242548/gov.uscourts.txed.242548.36.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.242548/gov.uscourts.txed.242548.36.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 36 Filed 06/17/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:\n 652\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n\nNOVACLOUD LICENSING, LLC,\n\n Plaintiff,\nv. Case No. 2:25-CV-01228-JRG-RSP\n\nMICROSOFT CORPORATION,\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND DOCKET CONTROL ORDER\n\n Defendant Microsoft Corporation (\u201cMicrosoft\u201d) files this Unopposed Motion to Amend\n\n Docket Control Order and would show the Court as follows:\n\n Pursuant to the Court\u2019s Docket Control Order, the deadline for Plaintiff NovaCloud\n\n Licensing, LLC (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d) and Microsoft (together, \u201cthe Parties\u201d) to Comply with Paragraphs\n\n 1 & 3 of the Discovery Order (Initial and Additional Disclosures) is June 18, 2026. Dkt. No. 34\n\n at 4. At this time, Microsoft seeks a two-week extension of time up to and including July 2, 2026,\n\n for the Parties to Comply with Paragraphs 1 & 3 of the Discovery Order (Initial and Additional\n\n Disclosures).\n\n Microsoft represents that good cause exists for this brief extension of time. Microsoft is\n\n diligently investigating and identifying the appropriate witnesses to disclose in its Initial and\n\n Additional Disclosures. This brief extension will ensure that Microsoft has sufficient time to\n\n complete its investigation and serve its compliant set of Initial and Additional Disclosures in\n\n accordance with the Court\u2019s Discovery Order (Dkt. No. 35). To promote fairness, Microsoft\n\n represents that a reciprocal extension of time for Plaintiff to serve its Initial and Additional\n\n Disclosures is appropriate.\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 36 Filed 06/17/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:\n 653\n\n\n\n Microsoft represents that this extension is not sought for the purposes of delay.\n\nCounsel for Microsoft met and conferred with counsel for Plaintiff to discuss the substantive relief\n\nsought in this Motion, and counsel for Plaintiff indicated that Plaintiff does not oppose this Motion.\n\n Accordingly, Microsoft respectfully requests that the Court grant this Unopposed Motion\n\nand enter an order extending the Parties\u2019 deadline to Comply with Paragraphs 1 & 3 of the\n\nDiscovery Order (Initial and Additional Disclosures) up to and including July 2, 2026.\n\n\nDated: June 17, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n _______________________\n Natalie A. Bennett*\n Illinois Bar No. 6304611\n natalie.bennett@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW\n Washington, DC 20004-2541\n Telephone: (202) 739-5559\n Facsimile: (202) 739-3001\n\n Jason C. White*\n Illinois Bar No. 6238352\n jason.white@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 110 North Wacker Drive\n Chicago, Illinois 60606\n Telephone: (312) 324-1000\n Facsimile: (312) 324-1001\n\n Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman*\n Texas Bar No. 24053269\n ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1400 Page Mill Road\n Palo Alto, California 94304\n Telephone: (650) 843-4000\n Facsimile: (650) 843-4001\n\n Melissa Richards Smith\n Texas Bar No. 24001351\n melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com\n\n 2\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 36 Filed 06/17/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:\n 654\n\n\n\n GILLAM & SMITH LLP\n 303 South Washington Avenue\n Marshall, Texas 75670\n Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n Facsimile: (903) 934-9257\n\n Counsel for Defendant\n Microsoft Corporation\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 36 Filed 06/17/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:\n 655\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE\n\n The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that counsel for Microsoft met and conferred with\n\ncounsel for Plaintiff to discuss the substantive relief sought in this Motion in accordance with\n\nLocal Rule CV-7(h). Counsel for Plaintiff indicated that Plaintiff does not oppose this Motion.\n\n /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n _________________________\n Melissa R. Smith\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that on June 17, 2026, a true and correct copy of\n\nthe foregoing was served on all counsel of record who have appeared in this case via the Court\u2019s\n\nCM/ECF system.\n\n /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n _________________________\n Melissa R. Smith\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-07-07T14:08:17.404439-07:00","document_number":"36","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015469679","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Amend/Correct","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/485371853/","id":485371853,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72051755/36/1/novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-07-07T14:08:34.724376-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T17:19:51.759047-07:00","sha1":"2ebb79eacd9b0abe087847eecd594e3f8c6e0219","page_count":7,"file_size":219736,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.242548/gov.uscourts.txed.242548.36.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.242548/gov.uscourts.txed.242548.36.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 36-1 Filed 06/17/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:\n 656\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n\nNOVACLOUD LICENSING, LLC,\n\n Plaintiff,\nv. Case No. 2:25-CV-01228-JRG-RSP\n\nMICROSOFT CORPORATION,\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n FIRST AMENDED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER\n\n In accordance with the Defendant Microsoft Corporation\u2019s Unopposed Motion to Amend\n\n Docket Control Order, it is hereby ORDERED that the following schedule of deadlines is in effect\n\n until further order of this Court:\n\n Amended Description\n Original Deadline\n Deadline\n\n February 7, 2028 *Jury Selection \u2013 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas\n\n *Defendant to disclose final invalidity theories,\n 7 days before Jury final prior art references/combinations, and final\n Selection equitable defenses with notice of the same filed\n with the Court. 1\n\n *Plaintiff to disclose final election of Asserted\n 10 days before Jury\n Claims with notice of the same filed with the\n Selection\n Court.2\n\n\n\n\n 1\n The proposed DCO shall include this specific deadline. The deadline shall read, \u201c7 days before\n Jury Selection,\u201d and shall not include a specific date.\n 2\n Given the Court\u2019s past experiences with litigants dropping claims and defenses during or on the\n eve of trial, the Court is of the opinion that these additional deadlines are necessary. The proposed\n DCO shall include this specific deadline. The deadline shall read, \u201c10 days before Jury Selection,\u201d\n and shall not include a specific date.\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 36-1 Filed 06/17/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:\n 657\n\n\n\n * If a juror questionnaire is to be used, an editable\n (in Microsoft Word format) questionnaire shall\n January 10, 2028\n be jointly submitted to the Deputy Clerk in\n Charge by this date.3\n\n *Pretrial Conference \u2013 9:00 a.m. in\n January 3, 2028 Marshall, Texas before Magistrate Judge Roy\n S. Payne.\n\n *Notify Court of Agreements Reached During\n Meet and Confer\n\n The parties are ordered to meet and confer on any\n December 27, 2027\n outstanding objections or motions in limine. The\n parties shall advise the Court of any agreements\n reached no later than 1:00 p.m. three (3) business\n days before the pretrial conference.\n\n *File Joint Pretrial Order, Joint Proposed Jury\n Instructions, Joint Proposed Verdict Form,\n December 27, 2027 Responses to Motions in Limine, Updated Exhibit\n Lists, Updated Witness Lists, and Updated\n Deposition Designations\n\n *File Notice of Request for Daily Transcript or\n Real Time Reporting.\n\n If a daily transcript or real time reporting of court\n December 20, 2027 proceedings is requested for trial, the party or\n parties making said request shall file a notice with\n the Court and e-mail the Court Reporter, Shawn\n McRoberts, at\n shawn_mcroberts@txed.uscourts.gov.\n\n File Motions in Limine\n\n The parties shall limit their motions in limine to\n December 13, 2027 issues that if improperly introduced at trial would\n be so prejudicial that the Court could not alleviate\n the prejudice by giving appropriate instructions to\n the jury.\n\n\n\n 3\n The Parties are referred to the Court\u2019s Standing Order Regarding Use of Juror Questionnaires in\n Advance of Voir Dire.\n\n\n\n -2-\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 36-1 Filed 06/17/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:\n 658\n\n\n\n December 13, 2027 Serve Objections to Rebuttal Pretrial Disclosures\n\n Serve Objections to Pretrial Disclosures; and\n December 6, 2027\n Serve Rebuttal Pretrial Disclosures\n\n Serve Pretrial Disclosures (Witness List,\n November 22, 2027 Deposition Designations, and Exhibit List) by the\n Party with the Burden of Proof\n\n *Response to Dispositive Motions (including\n Daubert Motions). Responses to dispositive\n motions that were filed prior to the dispositive\n motion deadline, including Daubert Motions,\n November 15, 2027\n shall be due in accordance with Local Rule CV-\n 7(e), not to exceed the deadline as set forth in this\n Docket Control Order.4 Motions for Summary\n Judgment shall comply with Local Rule CV-56.\n\n *File Motions to Strike Expert Testimony\n (including Daubert Motions)\n November 1, 2027\n No motion to strike expert testimony (including a\n Daubert motion) may be filed after this date\n without leave of the Court.\n\n *File Dispositive Motions\n\n No dispositive motion may be filed after this date\n without leave of the Court.\n November 1, 2027\n Motions shall comply with Local Rule CV-56 and\n Local Rule CV-7. Motions to extend page limits\n will only be granted in exceptional\n circumstances. Exceptional circumstances\n require more than agreement among the parties.\n\n October 25, 2027 Deadline to Complete Expert Discovery\n\n October 12, 2027 Serve Disclosures for Rebuttal Expert Witnesses\n\n\n 4\n The parties are directed to Local Rule CV-7(d), which provides in part that \u201c[a] party\u2019s failure to\n oppose a motion in the manner prescribed herein creates a presumption that the party does not\n controvert the facts set out by movant and has no evidence to offer in opposition to the motion.\u201d\n If the deadline under Local Rule CV-7(e) exceeds the deadline for Response to Dispositive\n Motions, the deadline for Response to Dispositive Motions controls.\n\n\n\n -3-\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 36-1 Filed 06/17/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:\n 659\n\n\n\n Deadline to Complete Fact Discovery and File\n September 20, 2027\n Motions to Compel Discovery\n\n Serve Disclosures for Expert Witnesses by the\n September 20, 2027\n Party with the Burden of Proof\n\n Comply with P.R. 3-7 (Opinion of Counsel\n September 1, 2027\n Defenses)\n\n *Claim Construction Hearing \u2013 9:00 a.m. in\n August 11, 2027\n Marshall, Texas before Judge Roy Payne\n\n *Comply with P.R. 4-5(d) (Joint Claim\n July 28, 2027\n Construction Chart)\n\n *Comply with P.R. 4-5(c) (Reply Claim\n July 21, 2027\n Construction Brief)\n\n Comply with P.R. 4-5(b) (Responsive Claim\n July 14, 2027\n Construction Brief)\n\n Comply with P.R. 4-5(a) (Opening Claim\n Construction Brief) and Submit Technical\n Tutorials (if any)\n June 30, 2027\n Good cause must be shown to submit technical\n tutorials after the deadline to comply with P.R. 4-\n 5(a).\n\n Deadline to Substantially Complete Document\n Production and Exchange Privilege Logs\n\n June 30, 2027 Counsel are expected to make good faith efforts\n to produce all required documents as soon as they\n are available and not wait until the substantial\n completion deadline.\n\n Comply with P.R. 4-4 (Deadline to Complete\n June 16, 2027\n Claim Construction Discovery)\n\n June 9, 2027 File Response to Amended Pleadings\n\n *File Amended Pleadings\n\n May 26, 2027 It is not necessary to seek leave of Court to amend\n pleadings prior to this deadline unless the\n amendment seeks to assert additional patents.\n\n\n\n -4-\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 36-1 Filed 06/17/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:\n 660\n\n\n\n Comply with P.R. 4-3 (Joint Claim Construction\n May 19, 2027\n Statement)\n\n Comply with P.R. 4-2 (Exchange Preliminary\n April 28, 2027\n Claim Constructions)\n\n Comply with P.R. 4-1 (Exchange Proposed Claim\n April 7, 2027\n Terms)\n\n Comply with Standing Order Regarding Subject-\n July 15, 2026\n Matter Eligibility Contentions5\n\n Comply with P.R. 3-3 & 3-4 (Invalidity\n July 15, 2026\n Contentions)\n\n *Comply with Paragraphs 1 & 3 of the\n June 18, 2026 July 2, 2026\n Discovery Order (Initial and Additional\n Disclosures)\n\n *File Proposed Protective Order\n\n June 18, 2026 The Proposed Protective Order shall be filed as a\n separate motion with the caption indicating\n whether or not the proposed order is opposed in\n any part.\n\n (*) indicates a deadline that cannot be changed without an acceptable showing of good cause.\n Good cause is not shown merely by indicating that the parties agree that the deadline should\n be changed.\n\n ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS\n\n Mediation: While certain cases may benefit from mediation, such may not be appropriate\n for every case. The Court finds that the Parties are best suited to evaluate whether mediation will\n benefit the case after the issuance of the Court\u2019s claim construction order. Accordingly, the Court\n ORDERS the Parties to file a Joint Notice indicating whether the case should be referred for\n mediation within fourteen days of the issuance of the Court\u2019s claim construction order. As a\n part of such Joint Notice, the Parties should indicate whether they have a mutually agreeable\n mediator for the Court to consider. If the Parties disagree about whether mediation is appropriate,\n the Parties should set forth a brief statement of their competing positions in the Joint Notice.\n\n Summary Judgment Motions, Motions to Strike Expert Testimony, and Daubert\n Motions: For each motion, the moving party shall provide the Court with two (2) hard copies of\n the completed briefing (opening motion, response, reply, and if applicable, sur-reply), excluding\n exhibits, in D-three-ring binders, appropriately tabbed. All documents shall be single-sided and\n\n\n -5-\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 36-1 Filed 06/17/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:\n 661\n\n\n\n must include the CM/ECF header. These copies shall be delivered to the Court within three (3)\n business days after briefing has completed. For expert-related motions, complete digital copies of\n the relevant expert report(s) and accompanying exhibits shall be submitted on a single flash drive\n to the Court. Complete digital copies of the expert report(s) shall be delivered to the Court no later\n than the dispositive motion deadline.\n\n Indefiniteness: In lieu of early motions for summary judgment, the parties are directed to\n include any arguments related to the issue of indefiniteness in their Markman briefing, subject to\n the local rules\u2019 normal page limits.\n\n Lead Counsel: The Parties are directed to Local Rule CV-11(a)(1), which provides that\n \u201c[o]n the first appearance through counsel, each party shall designate a lead attorney on the\n pleadings or otherwise.\u201d Additionally, once designated, a party\u2019s lead attorney may only be\n changed by the filing of a Motion to Change Lead Counsel and thereafter obtaining from the Court\n an Order granting leave to designate different lead counsel. The true lead counsel should be\n designated early and should not expect to parachute in as lead once the case has been largely\n developed.\n\n Motions for Continuance: The following will not warrant a continuance nor justify a\n failure to comply with the discovery deadline:\n\n (a) The fact that there are motions for summary judgment or motions to dismiss pending;\n\n (b) The fact that one or more of the attorneys is set for trial in another court on the same day,\n unless the other setting was made prior to the date of this order or was made as a special\n provision for the parties in the other case;\n\n (c) The failure to complete discovery prior to trial, unless the parties can demonstrate that it\n was impossible to complete discovery despite their good faith effort to do so.\n\n Amendments to the Docket Control Order (\u201cDCO\u201d): Any motion to alter any date on\n the DCO shall take the form of a motion to amend the DCO. The motion to amend the DCO shall\n include a proposed order that lists all of the remaining dates in one column (as above) and the\n proposed changes to each date in an additional adjacent column (if there is no change for a date\n the proposed date column should remain blank or indicate that it is unchanged). In other words,\n the DCO in the proposed order should be complete such that one can clearly see all the remaining\n deadlines and the changes, if any, to those deadlines, rather than needing to also refer to an earlier\n version of the DCO.\n\n Joint Pretrial Order: In the contentions of the Parties included in the Joint Pretrial Order,\n the Plaintiff shall specify all allegedly infringed claims that will be asserted at trial. The Plaintiff\n shall also specify the nature of each theory of infringement, including under which subsections of\n 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 271 it alleges infringement, and whether the Plaintiff alleges divided infringement or\n infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Each Defendant shall indicate the nature of each\n theory of invalidity, including invalidity for anticipation, obviousness, subject-matter eligibility,\n written description, enablement, or any other basis for invalidity. The Defendant shall also specify\n each prior art reference or combination of references upon which the Defendant shall rely at trial,\n\n\n -6-\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 36-1 Filed 06/17/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:\n 662\n\n\n\n with respect to each theory of invalidity. Other than as set forth in the above deadlines, the\n contentions of the Parties may not be amended, supplemented, or dropped without leave of the\n Court based upon a showing of good cause. The Parties in a case which has been consolidated for\n pre-trial purposes and which is moving towards a separate trial on the merits (subsequent to pre-\n trial) shall file, as an exhibit to the parties\u2019 Joint Pretrial Order, a list identifying all docket entries\n from the lead case that relate to the applicable member case.\n\n Trial: All parties must appear in person at trial. All non-individual (including but not\n limited to corporate) parties must appear at trial through the presence in person of a designated\n representative. Once they have appeared, any representative of a non-individual party shall not be\n replaced or substituted without express leave of Court.\n\n\n\n\n -7-\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-07-07T14:08:34.723885-07:00","document_number":"36","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"175015469680","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-17T15:22:22.601063-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:36.220855-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-17","time_filed":"17:01:15","entry_number":36,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":117,"description":"UNOPPOSED MOTION to Amend/Correct Docket Control Order by Microsoft Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Smith, Melissa) (Entered: 06/17/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/467445796/","id":467445796,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482709692/","id":482709692,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72051755/35/novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-06-15T08:50:55.319420-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-15T08:50:55.326554-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"35","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015460742","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-15T08:50:55.297041-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:36.205522-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-15","time_filed":"10:21:44","entry_number":35,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":115,"description":"DISCOVERY ORDER re 33 Motion to Enter Agreed Discovery Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 6/12/2026. (NKL) (Entered: 06/15/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/467307813/","id":467307813,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482567750/","id":482567750,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72051755/34/novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-06-12T13:35:28.369999-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-12T13:35:28.379463-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"34","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015458940","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Scheduling Order/Docket Control Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-12T13:35:28.338669-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:36.189777-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-12","time_filed":"15:31:16","entry_number":34,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":113,"description":"DOCKET CONTROL ORDER: Pretrial Conference set for 1/3/2028 at 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. Jury Selection set for 2/7/2028 at 09:00AM before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Markman/Claim Construction Hearing set for 8/11/2027 at 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 06/11/2026. (KLC) (Entered: 06/12/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/467174964/","id":467174964,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72051755/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482432371/","id":482432371,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72051755/33/novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-06-11T15:27:41.233758-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-10T05:26:12.069883-07:00","sha1":"3d54d004d6f8de653d15dae4b4290a28baeba3e8","page_count":4,"file_size":125861,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.242548/gov.uscourts.txed.242548.33.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.242548/gov.uscourts.txed.242548.33.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 33 Filed 06/11/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:\n 612\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\nNOVACLOUD LICENSING, LLC,\n\n Plaintiff, No. 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP\n\n vs.\n\nMICROSOFT CORPORATION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n\n Defendant,\n\n\n JOINT MOTION TO ENTER AGREED DISCOVERY ORDER\n\n Plaintiff NovaCloud Licensing, LLC and Defendant Microsoft Corporation (the \u201cParties\u201d)\n\nhave conferred and jointly submit this Motion to enter an agreed Discovery Order in the above-\n\ncaptioned matter. A proposed Discovery Order bearing the language agreed between the Parties is\n\nattached hereto, and the Parties respectfully request the Court enter this Order.\n\nDated: June 11, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.\n\n /s/ Kevin L. Burgess\n Kevin L. Burgess\n Texas State Bar No. 24006927\n kburgess@McKoolSmith.com\n Jennifer L. Truelove\n Texas State Bar No. 24012906\n jtruelove@McKoolSmith.com\n MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.\n 104 East Houston Street, Suite 300\n Marshall, TX 75670\n Telephone: (903) 923-9002\n Facsimile: (903) 923-9099\n\n John B. Campbell\n Texas State Bar No. 24036314\n jcampbell@McKoolSmith.com\n Stone A. Martin\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 33 Filed 06/11/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:\n 613\n\n\n\n Texas State Bar No. 24143713\n smartin@McKoolSmith.com\n Rania Khamees\n Texas State Bar No. 24149673\n rkhamees@McKoolSmith.com\n MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.\n 303 Colorado Street Suite 2100\n Austin, TX 78701\n Telephone: (512) 692-8700\n Facsimile: (512) 692-8744\n\n Nicholas M. Mathews\n Texas State Bar No. 24085457\n nmathews@McKoolSmith.com\n Gregory Saltz\n Texas State Bar No. 24131641\n gsaltz@McKoolSmith.com\n Casey L. Shomaker\n Texas State Bar No. 24110359\n cshomaker@McKoolSmith.com\n MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.\n 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1200\n Dallas, TX 75201\n Telephone: (214) 978-4000\n Facsimile: (214) 978-4044\n\n Clara Bourget\n cbourget@McKoolSmith.com\n McKool Smith, P.C.\n 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900\n Los Angeles, CA 90071\n Telephone: (213) 694-1200\n Facsimile: (213) 694-1234\n\n Michael E. Catapano\n New York State Bar No. 5933700\n mcatapano@McKoolSmith.com\n Mariel Talmage\n New York State Bar No. 5948831\n mtalmage@McKoolSmith.com\n McKool Smith, P.C.\n 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor\n New York, NY 10019\n Telephone: (212) 402-9400\n Facsimile: (212) 402-9444\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 33 Filed 06/11/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:\n 614\n\n\n\n ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF\n NOVACLOUD LICENSING, LLC.\n\n /s/ Natalie A. Bennett__________\n Natalie A. Bennett*\n Illinois Bar No. 6304611\n natalie.bennett@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW\n Washington, DC 20004-2541\n Telephone: (202) 739-5559\n Facsimile: (202) 739-3001\n\n Jason C. White*\n Illinois Bar No. 6238352\n jason.white@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 110 North Wacker Drive\n Chicago, IL 60606\n Telephone: (312) 324-1000\n Facsimile: (312) 324-1001\n\n Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman*\n TX State Bar No. 24053269\n ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com\n Katerina Hora Jacobson*\n CA State Bar No. 342384\n katerina.horajacobson@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1400 Page Mill Road\n Palo Alto, California 94304\n Telephone: (650) 843-4000\n Facsimile: (650) 843-4001\n\n Melissa Richards Smith\n TX State Bar No. 24001351\n melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com\n GILLAM & SMITH LLP\n 303 South Washington Avenue\n Marshall, Texas 75670\n Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n Facsimile: (903) 934-9257\n *Admitted to Practice\n\n ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 33 Filed 06/11/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:\n 615\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been\n\nserved on all counsel of record via the Court\u2019s ECF system on June 11, 2026.\n\n /s/ Kevin L. Burgess\n Kevin L. Burgess\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE\n\n The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for Plaintiff met and conferred with counsel\n\nfor Defendant to discuss the relief sought in this Motion pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(h). The\n\nParties are in agreement and are filing this Motion jointly.\n\n /s/ Kevin L. Burgess\n Kevin L. Burgess\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-07-07T14:09:53.920912-07:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015456271","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/485372167/","id":485372167,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72051755/33/1/novacloud-licensing-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-07-07T14:10:07.665349-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T19:40:26.662676-07:00","sha1":"8d690e4c4992f62501ab128f5de11c81819ad70d","page_count":15,"file_size":235930,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.242548/gov.uscourts.txed.242548.33.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.242548/gov.uscourts.txed.242548.33.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 33-1 Filed 06/11/26 Page 1 of 15 PageID\n #: 616\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\nNOVACLOUD LICENSING, LLC,\n\n Plaintiff, No. 2:25-cv-1228-JRG-RSP\n\n vs.\n\nMICROSOFT CORPORATION, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n DISCOVERY ORDER\n\n After a review of the pleaded claims and defenses in this action, in furtherance of the\n\n management of the Court\u2019s docket under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, and after receiving\n\n the input of the parties to this action, it is ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:\n\n 1. Initial Disclosures. In lieu of the disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n\n 26(a)(1), each party shall disclose to every other party the following information:\n\n (a) the correct names of the parties to the lawsuit;\n\n (b) the name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties;\n\n (c) the legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the disclosing party\u2019s claims\n\n or defenses (the disclosing party need not marshal all evidence that may be offered\n\n at trial);\n\n (d) the name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant\n\n facts, a brief statement of each identified person\u2019s connection with the case, and a\n\n brief, fair summary of the substance of the information known by any such person;\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 33-1 Filed 06/11/26 Page 2 of 15 PageID\n #: 617\n\n\n\n (e) any indemnity and insuring agreements under which any person or entity carrying\n\n on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment entered\n\n in this action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the\n\n judgment;\n\n (f) any settlement agreements relevant to the subject matter of this action; and\n\n (g) any statement of any party to the litigation.\n\n 2. Disclosure of Expert Testimony. 1 A party must disclose to the other parties the identity\n\n of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702,\n\n 703 or 705, and:\n\n (a) if the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in\n\n the case or one whose duties as the party\u2019s employee regularly involve giving expert\n\n testimony, provide the disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n\n 26(a)(2)(B) and Local Rule CV-26; and\n\n (b) for all other such witnesses, provide the disclosure required by Federal Rule of Civil\n\n Procedure 26(a)(2)(C).\n\n 3. Additional Disclosures. Without awaiting a discovery request, 2 each party will make the\n\n following disclosures to every other party:\n\n (a) provide the disclosures required by the Patent Rules for the Eastern District of\n\n Texas with the following modifications to P.R. 3-1 and P.R. 3-3:\n\n\n\n\n 1\n All expert reports should be written such that the report is organized with discrete paragraph\n numbers.\n 2\n The Court anticipates that this disclosure requirement will obviate the need for requests for\n production.\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 33-1 Filed 06/11/26 Page 3 of 15 PageID\n #: 618\n\n\n\n i. If a party claiming patent infringement asserts that a claim element is a\n\n software limitation, the party need not comply with P.R. 3-1 for those claim\n\n elements until 30 days after source code for each Accused Instrumentality\n\n is produced by the opposing party. Thereafter, the party claiming patent\n\n infringement shall identify, on an element-by-element basis for each\n\n asserted claim, what source code of each Accused Instrumentality allegedly\n\n satisfies the software limitations of the asserted claim elements.\n\n ii. If a party claiming patent infringement exercises the provisions of\n\n Paragraph 3(a)(i) of this Discovery Order, the party opposing a claim of\n\n patent infringement may serve, not later than 30 days after receipt of a\n\n Paragraph 3(a)(i) disclosure, supplemental \u201cInvalidity Contentions\u201d that\n\n amend only those claim elements identified as software limitations by the\n\n party claiming patent infringement.\n\n (b) produce or permit the inspection of all documents, electronically stored\n\n information, and tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of the party\n\n that are relevant to the pleaded claims or defenses involved in this action, except to\n\n the extent these disclosures are affected by the time limits set forth in the Patent\n\n Rules for the Eastern District of Texas; and\n\n (c) provide a complete computation of any category of damages claimed by any party\n\n to the action, and produce or permit the inspection of documents or other\n\n evidentiary material on which such computation is based, including materials\n\n bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered, except that the disclosure of\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 33-1 Filed 06/11/26 Page 4 of 15 PageID\n #: 619\n\n\n\n the computation of damages may be deferred until the time for Expert Disclosures\n\n if a party will rely on a damages\u2019 expert.\n\n 4. Protective Orders. The Court will enter the parties\u2019 Agreed Protective Order.\n\n 5. Discovery Limitations. The discovery in this cause is limited to the disclosures\n\n described in Paragraphs 1-3 together with:\n\n (a) Written Discovery:\n\n i. Each side shall be limited to 35 interrogatories. \u201cSide\u201d means a named party\n\n or group of named parties and includes entities that are corporate affiliates\n\n of a named party. To the extent a side consists of multiple parties, each party\n\n must serve its own response to each interrogatory; alternatively, all parties\n\n on a side may jointly serve a response to each interrogatory that responds\n\n for all parties on a side.\n\n ii. Each side shall be limited to 40 requests for admission, and an additional\n\n 100 requests for admission that seek an admission as to the authenticity of\n\n a particular document or thing. To the extent a side consists of multiple\n\n parties, each party must serve its own response to each request for\n\n admission; alternatively, all parties on a side may jointly serve a response\n\n to each request for admission that responds for all parties on a side.\n\n (b) Depositions of Party Witnesses and Third Parties:\n\n i. Each side shall be limited to 100 hours of deposition time for depositions of\n\n party witnesses (excluding expert depositions) and third parties, no more\n\n than 85 hours of which may be used for party witnesses. 3 Party fact\n\n\n 3\n The parties agree to confer in good faith to the extent additional time beyond the 100 hours is\n required to complete party depositions.\n\n\n\n 4\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 33-1 Filed 06/11/26 Page 5 of 15 PageID\n #: 620\n\n\n\n witnesses include a party\u2019s corporate designees under FRCP 30(b)(6) and a\n\n party\u2019s directors, officers, employees, agents, and representatives deposed\n\n in their individual capacity under FRCP 30(b)(1).\n\n ii. The parties may also conduct third party discovery including depositions\n\n and document subpoenas. For any third-party, the parties will serve each\n\n other with copies of any third-party subpoenas on the same day the\n\n subpoena or notice is served on the third-party. The parties will promptly\n\n serve each other with copies of any documents produced by third-parties\n\n (including former employees of the opposing party) pursuant to subpoena\n\n A party scheduling the deposition of a third-party agrees to work in good\n\n faith with the other party to schedule any third-party depositions at mutually\n\n agreeable dates and to ensure the parties have sufficient time to review any\n\n documents produced by a third-party in advance of a deposition.\n\n iii. A party may offer a fact or expert witness declaration in support of its claim\n\n construction positions without counting towards the above limits, and the\n\n opposing party may depose that witness for up to seven (7) hours on the\n\n record without counting against the time limits expressed in subsections (c)\n\n and (d).\n\n iv. In the event that either side asserts that additional depositions or deposition\n\n time becomes necessary, the parties agree to meet and confer in good faith\n\n regarding those additional depositions or additional deposition time. Any\n\n party may make application to the Court for additional depositions and/or\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 33-1 Filed 06/11/26 Page 6 of 15 PageID\n #: 621\n\n\n\n deposition time, which shall be granted upon a showing of good cause. The\n\n parties may also modify these number and time restrictions by agreement.\n\n v. If a party identifies in its Initial Disclosures (or otherwise in discovery)\n\n more than 10 fact witnesses who are: (i) affiliated with that party; or (ii)\n\n third-parties with knowledge of facts related to the case, then the parties\n\n agree to meet and confer in good faith during the fact discovery period to\n\n identify which of these persons are most likely to be called as trial\n\n witnesses, such that each likely trial witness is subject to deposition during\n\n the fact discovery period. If however a party subsequently identifies a\n\n witness who was not deposed in the fact discovery period on its may or will\n\n call trial witness list, the parties agree that any such witness will be subject\n\n to an out-of-time deposition reasonably in advance of trial at a time and\n\n place to be determined by the parties following a good faith meet and\n\n confer.\n\n (c) Depositions of Expert Witnesses:\n\n i. Each side may depose each of the other Side\u2019s experts for up to seven (7)\n\n hours; provided, however, that if an expert submits multiple reports on\n\n different issues (e.g., validity and infringement), ten (10) hours of\n\n deposition testimony shall be permitted. In the event that one expert covers\n\n a large number of issues, the parties agree to meet and confer in good faith\n\n regarding additional deposition time for that expert as necessary.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 33-1 Filed 06/11/26 Page 7 of 15 PageID\n #: 622\n\n\n\n (d) Depositions Generally:\n\n i. No witness shall be subjected to more than 7 hours of deposition time on\n\n the record on a single day, including if that witness is to testify on multiple\n\n days, without the consent of the witness and all parties.\n\n ii. Depositions involving non-English testimony will count as 1 hour for each\n\n 1.5 hours on the record. For example, three hours of such deposition time\n\n will count as two hours for purposes of deposition limits, with no more than\n\n 7 hours of translated testimony on any one day, absent consent of the\n\n deponent.\n\n iii. If additional time is needed for a translated deposition, the parties will meet\n\n and confer and will not unreasonably refuse requests for additional time for\n\n translated depositions. The parties can take unlimited depositions on written\n\n questions of custodians of business records for third parties.\n\n iv. Depositions may be taken in person or remotely over Zoom or similar web-\n\n based video conferencing software. If a party wants to take a deposition in\n\n person, they must notify the other side in the deposition notice and the\n\n deposition will take place at a location selected by the deponent.\n\n 6. Privileged Information. There is no duty to disclose privileged documents or information.\n\n However, the parties are directed to meet and confer concerning privileged documents or\n\n information after the Status Conference. By the deadline set in the Docket Control Order,\n\n the parties shall exchange privilege logs identifying the documents or information and the\n\n basis for any disputed claim of privilege in a manner that, without revealing information\n\n itself privileged or protected, will enable the other parties to assess the applicability of the\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 33-1 Filed 06/11/26 Page 8 of 15 PageID\n #: 623\n\n\n\n privilege or protection. Any party may move the Court for an order compelling the\n\n production of any documents or information identified on any other party\u2019s privilege log.\n\n If such a motion is made, the party asserting privilege shall respond to the motion within\n\n the time period provided by Local Rule CV-7. The party asserting privilege shall then file\n\n with the Court within 30 days of the filing of the motion to compel any proof in the form\n\n of declarations or affidavits to support their assertions of privilege, along with the\n\n documents over which privilege is asserted for in camera inspection. However, if the party\n\n asserting privilege seeks an in camera review by the Court, such party shall first obtain\n\n leave from the Court prior to delivery of documents to the Court.\n\n 7. Signature. The disclosures required by this Order shall be made in writing and signed by\n\n the party or counsel and shall constitute a certification that, to the best of the signer\u2019s\n\n knowledge, information and belief, such disclosure is complete and correct as of the time\n\n it is made. If feasible, counsel shall meet to exchange disclosures required by this Order;\n\n otherwise, such disclosures shall be served as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n\n 5. The parties shall promptly file a notice with the Court that the disclosures required under\n\n this Order have taken place.\n\n 8. Duty to Supplement. After disclosure is made pursuant to this Order, each party is under\n\n a duty to supplement or correct its disclosures immediately if the party obtains information\n\n on the basis of which it knows that the information disclosed was either incomplete or\n\n incorrect when made, or is no longer complete or true.\n\n 9. Discovery Disputes.\n\n (a) Except in cases involving claims of privilege, any party entitled to receive\n\n disclosures (\u201cRequesting Party\u201d) may, after the deadline for making disclosures,\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 33-1 Filed 06/11/26 Page 9 of 15 PageID\n #: 624\n\n\n\n serve upon a party required to make disclosures (\u201cResponding Party\u201d) a written\n\n statement, in letter form or otherwise, of any reason why the Requesting Party\n\n believes that the Responding Party\u2019s disclosures are insufficient. The written\n\n statement shall list, by category, the items the Requesting Party contends should be\n\n produced. The parties shall promptly meet and confer. If the parties are unable to\n\n resolve their dispute, then the Responding Party shall, within 14 days after service\n\n of the written statement upon it, serve upon the Requesting Party a written\n\n statement, in letter form or otherwise, which identifies (1) the requested items that\n\n will be disclosed, if any, and (2) the reasons why any requested items will not be\n\n disclosed. The Requesting Party may thereafter file a motion to compel.\n\n (b) An opposed discovery related motion, or any response thereto, shall not exceed 7\n\n pages. Attachments to a discovery related motion, or a response thereto, shall not\n\n exceed 5 pages. No further briefing is allowed absent a request or order from the\n\n Court.\n\n (c) Prior to filing any discovery related motion, the parties must fully comply with the\n\n substantive and procedural conference requirements of Local Rule CV-7(h) and (i).\n\n Within 72 hours of the Court setting any discovery motion for a hearing, each\n\n party\u2019s lead attorney (see Local Rule CV-11(a)) and local counsel shall meet and\n\n confer in person or by telephone, without the involvement or participation of other\n\n attorneys, in an effort to resolve the dispute without Court intervention.\n\n (d) Counsel shall promptly notify the Court of the results of that meeting by filing a\n\n joint report of no more than two pages. Unless excused by the Court, each party\u2019s\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 33-1 Filed 06/11/26 Page 10 of 15 PageID\n #: 625\n\n\n\n lead attorney shall attend any discovery motion hearing set by the Court (though\n\n the lead attorney is not required to argue the motion).\n\n (e) Any change to a party\u2019s lead attorney designation must be accomplished by motion\n\n and order.\n\n (f) Counsel are directed to contact the chambers of the undersigned for any \u201chot-line\u201d\n\n disputes before contacting the Discovery Hotline provided by Local Rule CV-\n\n 26(e). If the undersigned is not available, the parties shall proceed in accordance\n\n with Local Rule CV-26(e).\n\n 10. No Excuses. A party is not excused from the requirements of this Discovery Order because\n\n it has not fully completed its investigation of the case, or because it challenges the\n\n sufficiency of another party\u2019s disclosures, or because another party has not made its\n\n disclosures. Absent court order to the contrary, a party is not excused from disclosure\n\n because there are pending motions to dismiss, to remand or to change venue.\n\n 11. Filings. Only upon request from chambers shall counsel submit to the court courtesy\n\n copies of any filings.\n\n 12. Proposed Stipulations by the Parties Regarding Discovery.\n\n (a) Service by Electronic Mail: The parties will make every effort to serve all\n\n documents electronically, by email or through ECF. The parties will serve by email\n\n any documents filed under seal promptly after filing. A party may serve all\n\n documents by email on another party by sending the documents to the email group\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 33-1 Filed 06/11/26 Page 11 of 15 PageID\n #: 626\n\n\n\n address designated by a party, or if no such group is designated, to email addresses\n\n for all counsel of record for the party. 4\n\n (b) Document Production: Documents shall be produced in one of the following forms\n\n at the option of the receiving party: (1) single-page Tagged Image File Format\n\n (\u201cTIFF\u201d) format; or (2) multi page PDF files. For documents produced as TIFF\n\n files, these files shall be single page and shall be named with a unique production\n\n number followed by the appropriate file extension. Text files shall be provided\n\n along with the TIFF files. Load files shall be provided to indicate the location and\n\n unitization of the TIFF files. If a document is more than one page, the unitization\n\n of the document and any attachments and/or affixed notes shall be maintained as\n\n they existed in the original document. Each document image shall contain a footer\n\n with a sequentially ascending production number. Documents shall be produced in\n\n color to the extent they include colored text or images as maintained in the ordinary\n\n course of business. Absent a showing of good cause, voice-mails, PDAs, mobile\n\n phones, and communications on chat services (e.g., Skype, WhatsApp, iMessage,\n\n Snapchat, Facebook, Slack, Teams) are deemed not reasonably accessible and need\n\n not be collected and preserved.\n\n (c) Non-Waiver of Privilege: This Order is entered pursuant to Rule 502(d) of the\n\n Federal Rules of Evidence. This Order shall be interpreted to provide the maximum\n\n protection allowed by Federal Rules of Evidence 502(d). Inadvertent production\n\n of materials covered by the attorney-client privilege, work-product protection,\n\n\n\n 4\n Service via FTP site with emailed link and (if applicable) password information, or other\n appropriate electronic means shall be deemed as comporting with the requirements of electronic\n service.\n\n\n\n 11\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 33-1 Filed 06/11/26 Page 12 of 15 PageID\n #: 627\n\n\n\n common interest privilege, or a similar exemption from discoverability is not a\n\n waiver in the pending case or any other federal or state proceeding. For example,\n\n the mere production of privilege or work-product protected documents in this case\n\n as part of a mass production is not itself a waiver in this case or any other federal\n\n or state proceeding. A producing party may assert privilege or work product\n\n protection over any produced documents after becoming aware of the production\n\n by promptly (after learning of the inadvertent production) notifying the receiving\n\n party of the assertion of privilege or protection in writing. For any document\n\n produced for which notice is given that the producing party intends to assert\n\n privilege or work-product protection, at the receiving party\u2019s request, the producing\n\n party must immediately supply a privilege log supporting the claim of privilege\n\n with respect to the documents at issue, thereby enabling the receiving party to\n\n dispute the assertion of privilege in accordance with Paragraph 6 of this Order.\n\n Within three (3) business days of receiving notice of inadvertent production of\n\n protected materials, the receiving party shall promptly return or destroy the\n\n produced materials and destroy any copies and/or work product created from such\n\n material. However, if the claim of privilege is disputed by the receiving party, the\n\n receiving party may continue to retain the disputed materials until the dispute is\n\n resolved pursuant to FRCP 26(b)(5)(B).\n\n (d) Privilege Logs: No party has a duty to log any privileged documents or information\n\n dated on or after the filing of the Complaint. No party has a duty to log any\n\n communications with litigation counsel that relates to the subject matter of this case\n\n before or after the filing of the complaint absent a showing of good cause to log for\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 33-1 Filed 06/11/26 Page 13 of 15 PageID\n #: 628\n\n\n\n communications with litigation counsel prior to the complaint. Additionally, no\n\n party has a duty to log communications with patent prosecution counsel dated after\n\n the filing of the complaint absent a showing of good cause. The parties agree to\n\n meet and confer in good faith regarding the logging of communications with patent\n\n prosecution counsel dated prior to the filing of the complaint.\n\n (e) Limitations on Expert Discovery:\n\n i. Subject to provision 12(d)(iii) below, drafts of reports prepared by an expert\n\n or their assistants who will give testimony in this action (collectively,\n\n \u201cTestifying Expert\u201d), as part of the Testifying Expert\u2019s investigation and/or\n\n in developing the Testifying Expert\u2019s opinions and reports, shall not be\n\n subject to discovery. This limitation applies regardless of whether such draft\n\n reports have been disclosed, or otherwise transmitted to, or contain any\n\n notes, writing, or markings created by in- house counsel or outside counsel,\n\n or employees of or consultants for the party or parties who engaged such\n\n Testifying Expert.\n\n ii. Subject to provision 12(d)(iii) below, notes, preparatory materials, and other\n\n documents prepared by or for a Testifying Expert, or his or her assistants,\n\n as part of the investigation, in preparing an expert report, and/or in preparing\n\n for the expert\u2019s deposition shall not be subject to discovery.\n\n iii. Discovery of materials provided to Testifying Experts is limited to those\n\n materials, facts, consulting expert opinions, and other matters relied upon\n\n by the Testifying Expert in formulating his/her final report, trial or\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 33-1 Filed 06/11/26 Page 14 of 15 PageID\n #: 629\n\n\n\n deposition testimony, or any opinion in this action. Details regarding\n\n compensation and fee agreements remain discoverable.\n\n iv. No discovery may be taken from or about any consulting expert that will\n\n not provide testimony and/or an expert opinion in the above captioned\n\n action (\u201cConsulting Expert\u201d) except to the extent that the Consulting Expert\n\n has provided information, opinions, or other materials that a Testifying\n\n Expert relied on in formulating his/her final report, trial or deposition\n\n testimony, or any opinion in this action. In such a case where a Consulting\n\n Expert has provided materials or information that a Testifying Expert has\n\n relied on in formulating his/her final report or trial/deposition testimony,\n\n discovery may be taken of the Consulting Expert regarding those materials\n\n and information. The limitations herein do not preclude a party from\n\n discovery of prior opinions or testimony of an expert in matters other than\n\n the above-captioned action, to the extent the prior opinions or testimony are\n\n related to and/or may be inconsistent with the opinions given in this action.\n\n v. Written or oral communications exchanged between any Testifying Expert\n\n or Consulting Expert, his or her assistants, and/or in-house counsel or\n\n outside counsel, or employees of or consultants for the party or parties who\n\n engaged such Testifying Expert or Consulting Expert, are not subject to\n\n discovery unless the conversations or communications are relied upon by a\n\n Testifying Expert in formulating his/her final report, trial or deposition\n\n testimony, or any opinion in this action.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\fCase 2:25-cv-01228-JRG-RSP Document 33-1 Filed 06/11/26 Page 15 of 15 PageID\n #: 630\n\n\n\n vi. For the avoidance of doubt, (a) emails, lists, agendas, outlines, memoranda,\n\n presentations, letters, whether in draft or any other form, that are provided\n\n to, or by or on behalf of, any expert and (b) any other types of preliminary\n\n work product created by or on behalf of any expert, are not subject to\n\n discovery unless relied upon by a Testifying Expert in formulating his/her\n\n final report, trial or deposition testimony, or any opinion in this action.\n\n vii. Communications and materials exempt from discovery under this provision\n\n shall be treated as attorney work product and need not be listed on any\n\n privilege log.\n\n 13. Standing Orders. The parties and counsel are charged with notice of and are required to\n\n fully comply with each of the Standing Orders of this Court. Such are posted on the Court\u2019s\n\n website at http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/?q=court-annexed-mediation-plan. The substance\n\n of some such orders may be included expressly within this Discovery Order, while others\n\n (including the Court\u2019s Standing Order Regarding Protection of Proprietary and/or\n\n Confidential Information to Be Presented to the Court During Motion and Trial Practice)\n\n are incorporated herein by reference. All such standing orders shall be binding on the\n\n parties and counsel, regardless of whether they are expressly included herein or made a\n\n part hereof by reference.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-07-07T14:10:07.664847-07:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"175015456272","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-11T15:27:41.186584-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T05:09:36.169662-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-11","time_filed":"16:36:04","entry_number":33,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":111,"description":"JOINT MOTION to Enter Agreed Discovery Order by NovaCloud Licensing, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burgess, Kevin) (Entered: 06/11/2026)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=72051755&page_size=40"}