{"cached_at":"2026-10-06T09:52:16.686401+00:00","cl_docket_id":"62597135","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","id":62597135,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/txwd/","court_id":"txwd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/8533/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2022-01-13T14:58:37.966058-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-05T14:05:35.175320-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Alan D. Albright","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2024-09-09T12:22:24.394101-07:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2022-01-13","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-05-05","case_name_short":"","case_name":"Midas Green Technologies, LLC v. Rhodium Enterprises, Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc","docket_number":"6:22-cv-00050","docket_number_core":"2200050","docket_number_raw":"6:22-cv-00050","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"6","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"ADA","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"1159083","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":"2022-01-13T14:58:37.961937-08:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1335/"],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/12300084/","id":12300084,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645521/","attorney_id":8645521,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":10},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":"2022-12-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-01-31T08:43:16.534729-08:00","date_modified":"2023-01-31T08:43:16.534739-08:00","name":"Jordan HPC Sub LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/12300083/","id":12300083,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645520/","attorney_id":8645520,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":10},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":"2022-12-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-01-31T08:43:16.489370-08:00","date_modified":"2023-01-31T08:43:16.489384-08:00","name":"Jordan HPC LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/12300082/","id":12300082,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645519/","attorney_id":8645519,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":10},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":"2022-12-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-01-31T08:43:16.295300-08:00","date_modified":"2023-01-31T08:43:16.295317-08:00","name":"Air HPC LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/12300081/","id":12300081,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645518/","attorney_id":8645518,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":10},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":"2022-12-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"formerly known as\nEnergy Tech LLC","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-01-31T08:43:16.209378-08:00","date_modified":"2023-01-31T08:43:16.209396-08:00","name":"i Ventures Enterprises LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/12300080/","id":12300080,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":"2022-12-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-01-31T08:43:16.129860-08:00","date_modified":"2023-01-31T08:43:16.129870-08:00","name":"Rhodium 30MW Sub LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/12300079/","id":12300079,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":"2022-12-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-01-31T08:43:16.075518-08:00","date_modified":"2023-01-31T08:43:16.075530-08:00","name":"Rhodium 10MW Sub LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/12300078/","id":12300078,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869999/","attorney_id":8869999,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":"2022-12-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8402556/","attorney_id":8402556,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8402556/","attorney_id":8402556,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645506/","attorney_id":8645506,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645506/","attorney_id":8645506,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645506/","attorney_id":8645506,"date_action":"2024-02-27","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645506/","attorney_id":8645506,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645507/","attorney_id":8645507,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645507/","attorney_id":8645507,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645507/","attorney_id":8645507,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645508/","attorney_id":8645508,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645508/","attorney_id":8645508,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8402557/","attorney_id":8402557,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"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/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Counter Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-01-31T08:43:16.005577-08:00","date_modified":"2023-01-31T08:43:16.005595-08:00","name":"Rhodium Ready Ventures LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/12300077/","id":12300077,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869999/","attorney_id":8869999,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":"2022-12-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8402556/","attorney_id":8402556,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8402556/","attorney_id":8402556,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645506/","attorney_id":8645506,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645506/","attorney_id":8645506,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645506/","attorney_id":8645506,"date_action":"2024-02-27","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645506/","attorney_id":8645506,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645507/","attorney_id":8645507,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645507/","attorney_id":8645507,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645507/","attorney_id":8645507,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645508/","attorney_id":8645508,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645508/","attorney_id":8645508,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8402557/","attorney_id":8402557,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Counter 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/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-01-31T08:43:15.938277-08:00","date_modified":"2023-01-31T08:43:15.938287-08:00","name":"Rhodium Renewables Sub LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/12300076/","id":12300076,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":"2022-12-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-01-31T08:43:15.886917-08:00","date_modified":"2023-01-31T08:43:15.886928-08:00","name":"Rhodium Encore Sub LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/12300075/","id":12300075,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":"2022-12-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-01-31T08:43:15.842813-08:00","date_modified":"2023-01-31T08:43:15.842825-08:00","name":"Rhodium 2.0 Sub LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11290841/","id":11290841,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645513/","attorney_id":8645513,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":10},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":"2022-12-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-01-13T14:58:38.265532-08:00","date_modified":"2022-01-13T14:58:38.265562-08:00","name":"Nathan Nichols","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11290840/","id":11290840,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":"2022-12-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7415215/","attorney_id":7415215,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7415215/","attorney_id":7415215,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-01-13T14:58:38.255592-08:00","date_modified":"2022-01-13T14:58:38.255619-08:00","name":"Cameron Blackmon","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11290839/","id":11290839,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":"2022-12-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7415215/","attorney_id":7415215,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7415215/","attorney_id":7415215,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-01-13T14:58:38.250779-08:00","date_modified":"2022-01-13T14:58:38.250802-08:00","name":"Chase Blackmon","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11290838/","id":11290838,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":"2022-12-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-01-13T14:58:38.246232-08:00","date_modified":"2022-01-13T14:58:38.246250-08:00","name":"Rhodium Shared Services PR Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11290837/","id":11290837,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":"2022-12-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-01-13T14:58:38.239864-08:00","date_modified":"2022-01-13T14:58:38.239891-08:00","name":"Rhodium Shared Services LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11290836/","id":11290836,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869999/","attorney_id":8869999,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":"2022-12-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8402556/","attorney_id":8402556,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8402556/","attorney_id":8402556,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645506/","attorney_id":8645506,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645506/","attorney_id":8645506,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645506/","attorney_id":8645506,"date_action":"2024-02-27","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645506/","attorney_id":8645506,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645507/","attorney_id":8645507,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645507/","attorney_id":8645507,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645507/","attorney_id":8645507,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645508/","attorney_id":8645508,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645508/","attorney_id":8645508,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8402557/","attorney_id":8402557,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Counter 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/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-01-13T14:58:38.235283-08:00","date_modified":"2022-01-13T14:58:38.235298-08:00","name":"Rhodium Renewables LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11290835/","id":11290835,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":"2022-12-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-01-13T14:58:38.230966-08:00","date_modified":"2022-01-13T14:58:38.230981-08:00","name":"Rhodium JV LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11290834/","id":11290834,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":"2022-12-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-01-13T14:58:38.225412-08:00","date_modified":"2022-01-13T14:58:38.225439-08:00","name":"Rhodium Industries LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11290833/","id":11290833,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869999/","attorney_id":8869999,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":"2022-12-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8402556/","attorney_id":8402556,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8402556/","attorney_id":8402556,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645506/","attorney_id":8645506,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645506/","attorney_id":8645506,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645506/","attorney_id":8645506,"date_action":"2024-02-27","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645506/","attorney_id":8645506,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645507/","attorney_id":8645507,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645507/","attorney_id":8645507,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645507/","attorney_id":8645507,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645508/","attorney_id":8645508,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645508/","attorney_id":8645508,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8402557/","attorney_id":8402557,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Counter 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/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-01-13T14:58:38.219072-08:00","date_modified":"2022-01-13T14:58:38.219099-08:00","name":"Rhodium Encore LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/11290832/","id":11290832,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869999/","attorney_id":8869999,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7931841/","attorney_id":7931841,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":"2022-12-29","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535717/","attorney_id":7535717,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8402556/","attorney_id":8402556,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8402556/","attorney_id":8402556,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535718/","attorney_id":7535718,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8214819/","attorney_id":8214819,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645506/","attorney_id":8645506,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645506/","attorney_id":8645506,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645506/","attorney_id":8645506,"date_action":"2024-02-27","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645506/","attorney_id":8645506,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645507/","attorney_id":8645507,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645507/","attorney_id":8645507,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645507/","attorney_id":8645507,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8869998/","attorney_id":8869998,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645508/","attorney_id":8645508,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8645508/","attorney_id":8645508,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7535719/","attorney_id":7535719,"date_action":"2023-08-04","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8402557/","attorney_id":8402557,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Counter 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/62597135/","docket_id":62597135,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-01-13T14:58:38.212162-08:00","date_modified":"2022-01-13T14:58:38.212180-08:00","name":"Rhodium 30mw LLC","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463056019/","id":463056019,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478190770/","id":478190770,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/192/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-05T14:05:35.419056-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-05T14:05:35.428283-07:00","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":"192","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036466894","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Sealed Order on Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-05T14:05:35.386223-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-05T14:05:35.393355-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-05","time_filed":"15:25:07","entry_number":192,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":862,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/462920202/","id":462920202,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478046257/","id":478046257,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-05-04T14:20:21.436580-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-04T14:20:21.443221-07:00","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":"Sealed Order on Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-04T14:20:21.420982-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-04T14:20:21.420999-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-04","time_filed":"16:01:34","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/425000239/","id":425000239,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/439124496/","id":439124496,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/190/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2025-05-09T16:05:12.661269-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:04.072979-08:00","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":"190","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181034163089","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-05-09T16:05:12.648071-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:04.037234-08:00","date_filed":"2025-05-09","time_filed":"17:18:38","entry_number":190,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-05-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":855,"description":"NOTICE OF FILING OF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES, LLCS RESPONSE TO DEBTORS AMENDED OMNIBUS OBJECTION TO CLAIM NUMBERS 004, 062, AND 068-072 FILED IN BANKRUPTCY COURT BY MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC by Rhodium 10mw LLC, Rhodium 2.0 LLC, Rhodium 30mw LLC, Rhodium Encore LLC, Rhodium Enterprises, Inc., Rhodium Ready Ventures LLC, Rhodium Renewables LLC, Rhodium Renewables Sub LLC, Rhodium Technologies, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Smith, Melissa) (Entered: 05/09/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/415461656/","id":415461656,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/429162378/","id":429162378,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/189/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2025-02-03T16:16:44.262870-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:04.000961-08:00","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":"189","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181033576914","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-02-03T16:16:44.251608-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:03.971209-08:00","date_filed":"2025-02-03","time_filed":"18:02:31","entry_number":189,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-02-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":853,"description":"NOTICE OF ORDER MODIFYING STAY by Rhodium Renewables Sub LLC, Rhodium Ready Ventures LLC, Rhodium 10MW Sub LLC, Rhodium Enterprises, Inc., Rhodium Technologies, LLC, Rhodium 2.0 LLC, Rhodium 30mw LLC, Rhodium Encore LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Smith, Melissa) (Entered: 02/03/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/400940153/","id":400940153,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/410184272/","id":410184272,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/188/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-08-30T08:06:20.240340-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:03.939284-08:00","sha1":"7b4ada04275a0eb2b45c0964cce2e4b59f5fb478","page_count":4,"file_size":211822,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.188.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.188.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA      Document 188   Filed 08/30/24   Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n                   IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                    FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                              WACO DIVISION\n\n\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC,         )\n                                       )\n                           Plaintiff,  )\n                                       )\n      v.                               ) Civil Action No. 6:22-CV-00050-ADA\n                                       )\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc.;             )\nRhodium Technologies LLC;              )\nRhodium 10MW LLC;                      ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\nRhodium 2.0 LLC;                       )\nRhodium 30MW LLC;                      )\nRhodium Encore LLC;                    )\nRhodium Renewables LLC;                )\nRhodium Renewables Sub LLC; and        )\nRhodium Ready Ventures LLC,            )\n                                       )\n                           Defendants. )\n_______________________________________)\n\n\n\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 SUGGESTION OF BANKRUPTCY AND NOTICE OF OPERATION\n                      OF AUTOMATIC STAY\n\f       Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 188         Filed 08/30/24     Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\n       PLEASE BE ADVISED that on August 24, 2024, and August 29, 2024, Defendants\n\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc., Rhodium Technologies LLC, Rhodium 10MW LLC, Rhodium 2.0\n\nLLC, Rhodium 30MW LLC, Rhodium Encore LLC, Rhodium Renewables LLC, Rhodium\n\nRenewables Sub LLC, and Rhodium Ready Ventures LLC (the \u201cDebtors\u201d) each filed a voluntary\n\npetition for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 101-1330,\n\nas amended (the \u201cBankruptcy Code\u201d), in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern\n\nDistrict of Texas (the \u201cBankruptcy Court\u201d), In re Rhodium Encore LLC et al., Case No. 24-90448\n\n(Jointly Administered). As a result of the filing, any further action against the Debtors is stayed\n\nunder section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, and this case is stayed in its entirety.\n\n       PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED that any action taken against the Debtors or their\n\nproperty without first obtaining relief from the automatic stay from the Bankruptcy Court may be\n\nsubject to findings of contempt and the assessment by the Bankruptcy Court of penalties, fines,\n\nand/or sanctions, as may be appropriate.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 1\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 188    Filed 08/30/24     Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n\nDATED: August 30, 2024               Respectfully submitted,\n\n                                     /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n                                     Melissa R. Smith\n                                     Texas Bar No. 24001351\n                                     GILLAM & SMITH, LLP\n                                     303 South Washington Avenue\n                                     Marshall, Texas 75670\n                                     Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n                                     Facsimile: (903) 934-9257\n                                     melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com\n                                     J. Travis Underwood\n                                     Texas Bar No. 24102587\n                                     GILLAM & SMITH, LLP\n                                     102 North College Avenue, Suite 800\n                                     Marshall, Texas 75670\n                                     Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n                                     Facsimile: (903) 934-9257\n                                     travis@gillamsmithlaw.com\n\n                                     Elizabeth R. Brannen\n                                     Kenneth J. Halpern (Pro Hac Vice)\n                                     Peter J. Brody (Pro Hac Vice)\n                                     Sarah Rahimi (Pro Hac Vice)\n                                     STRIS & MAHER LLP\n                                     777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3850\n                                     Los Angeles, California 90017\n                                     Telephone: (213) 995-6800\n                                     Facsimile: (213) 216-0299\n                                     ebrannen@stris.com\n                                     khalpern@stris.com\n                                     pbrody@stris.com\n                                     srahimi@stris.com\n\n\n                                     Attorneys for Rhodium Defendants\n\n\n\n\n                                    2\n\f      Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 188   Filed 08/30/24     Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n\n                                CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n       I certify that on August 30, 2024, the documents filed with the Clerk of Court via the\n\nCourt\u2019s CM/ECF system under seal in the above-captioned case were subsequently served on all\n\ncounsel of record by electronic mail.\n\n\n                                                                /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n\n\n\n\n                                              3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T10:51:25.299130-08:00","document_number":"188","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181032745642","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Suggestion of Bankruptcy","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-08-30T08:06:20.065477-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:03.903700-08:00","date_filed":"2024-08-30","time_filed":"09:22:37","entry_number":188,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-08-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":851,"description":"SUGGESTION OF BANKRUPTCY as to Rhodium 10mw LLC, Rhodium 2.0 LLC, Rhodium 30mw LLC, Rhodium Encore LLC, Rhodium Enterprises, Inc., Rhodium Ready Ventures LLC, Rhodium Renewables LLC, Rhodium Renewables Sub LLC, Rhodium Technologies, LLC . (Smith, Melissa) (Entered: 08/30/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/387162293/","id":387162293,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/427868618/","id":427868618,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-01-22T10:50:27.391714-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:05:59.246511-08:00","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":"Set/Reset Deadlines","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-04-29T08:32:53.643598-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:05:59.173633-08:00","date_filed":"2024-02-21","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-02-21.003","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 3/1/2024. (ad3)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/384396018/","id":384396018,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/392603413/","id":392603413,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/187/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-04-11T14:48:41.157596-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:03.864219-08:00","sha1":"415335d0b45076dea6693571593f123864cd8aba","page_count":56,"file_size":478642,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.187.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.187.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 187   Filed 04/11/24   Page 1 of 56\n                                                                             1\n\n 1                    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                       FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n 2                               WACO DIVISION\n\n 3      MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES,\n          LLC                   *\n 4                              *   April 9, 2024\n        VS.                     *\n 5                              * CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:22-CV-50\n        RHODIUM ENTERPRISES,    *\n 6        INC., ET AL.          *\n\n 7                   BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT\n                          PRETRIAL HEARING (via Zoom)\n 8\n        APPEARANCES:\n 9\n        For the Plaintiff:         William J. Kolegraff, Esq.\n10                                 Joseph E. Thomas, Esq.\n                                   Grant J. Thomas, Esq.\n11                                 Thomas Whitelaw & Kolegraff LLP\n                                   18101 Von Karman Ave., Suite 230\n12                                 Irvine, CA 92612\n\n13      For the Defendant:         Elizabeth Rogers Brannen, Esq.\n                                   Peter Jacob Brody, Esq.\n14                                 Sarah Rahimi, Esq.\n                                   Stris & Maher LLP\n15                                 777 South Figueroa Street, Ste 3850\n                                   Los Angeles, CA 90017\n16\n                                   Melissa Richards Smith, Esq.\n17                                 Gillam and Smith, LLP\n                                   303 South Washington Avenue\n18                                 Marshall, TX 75670\n\n19                                 James Travis Underwood, Esq.\n                                   Gillam & Smith\n20                                 102 N. College, Suite 800\n                                   Tyler, TX 75702\n21\n        Court Reporter:            Kristie M. Davis, CRR, RMR\n22                                 PO Box 20994\n                                   Waco, Texas 76702-0994\n23                                 (254) 340-6114\n\n24         Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography,\n\n25      transcript produced by computer-aided transcription.\n\n\n\n                    KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                   U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 187     Filed 04/11/24   Page 2 of 56\n                                                                                              2\n\n09:33    1                        (Hearing begins.)\n\n09:33    2                        DEPUTY CLERK:         A civil action in Case\n\n09:33    3      6:22-CV-50, Midas Green Technologies, LLC versus\n\n09:33    4      Rhodium Enterprises, Incorporated, et al.                   Case called\n\n09:33    5      for a pretrial conference.\n\n09:33    6                        THE COURT:         If I could have announcements\n\n09:33    7      from counsel, please.\n\n09:33    8                        MR. SMITH:         Your Honor, for plaintiff\n\n09:33    9      Midas Green, Michael Smith.             And with me today are\n\n09:33   10      Mr. Joe Thomas, Mr. Bill Kolegraff, and Mr. Grant\n\n09:33   11      Thomas; and we're ready to proceed.\n\n09:33   12                        MR. UNDERWOOD:         Good morning, Your Honor.\n\n09:33   13      Travis Underwood on behalf of the Rhodium defendants.\n\n09:33   14      With me is my law partner Melissa Smith.                   We also have\n\n09:33   15      from the Stris & Maher firm our lead counsel, Liz\n\n09:33   16      Brannen, along with two other members from her firm,\n\n09:33   17      Peter Brody and Sarah Rahimi; and we're ready to\n\n09:33   18      proceed.\n\n09:34   19                        THE COURT:         With this group, I feel like\n\n09:34   20      I'm an honorary Eastern District of Texas judge.                       What\n\n09:34   21      an honor.      If I could have only been picked to serve\n\n09:34   22      there.\n\n09:34   23                        I will take up first the motion to\n\n09:34   24      correct inventorship.         And I'll hear argument on that,\n\n09:34   25      please.\n\n\n\n                            KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                           U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187     Filed 04/11/24   Page 3 of 56\n                                                                                          3\n\n09:34    1                        Mr. Thomas, I think that's you, or\n\n09:34    2      Mr. Kolegraff.         Okay.\n\n09:34    3                        MR. KOLEGRAFF:          Good morning.         This is\n\n09:34    4      William Kolegraff.\n\n09:34    5                        THE COURT:          Good morning to you, sir.\n\n09:34    6                        MR. KOLEGRAFF:          Yes.     So this patent was\n\n09:34    7      originally issued with seven named inventors.                      However,\n\n09:34    8      during the process of preparing for this case for\n\n09:34    9      trial, we discovered that six of the inventors should\n\n09:34   10      not have been named.           We provided a correction of\n\n09:35   11      inventorship document, which was sent to the Patent and\n\n09:35   12      Trademark Office about a year ago.                 We're still waiting\n\n09:35   13      to hear back from them.\n\n09:35   14                        So what we did is, in an abundance of\n\n09:35   15      caution, just in case we don't get this resolved by the\n\n09:35   16      PTO by the time trial starts, we've asked the Court to\n\n09:35   17      order the director of the office to correct the\n\n09:35   18      inventorship.         So right here, we believe we've met our\n\n09:35   19      burden for clear and convincing evidence.                    Every one of\n\n09:35   20      the --\n\n09:35   21                        THE COURT:          Does that mean I get to tell\n\n09:35   22      Kathi Vidal what to do, or is it someone else?\n\n09:35   23                        MR. KOLEGRAFF:          Yes.     You do.      I could\n\n09:35   24      help draft that order for you.\n\n09:35   25                        (Laughter.)\n\n\n\n                            KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                           U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 187   Filed 04/11/24   Page 4 of 56\n                                                                                           4\n\n09:35    1                        MR. KOLEGRAFF:        But we do believe we've\n\n09:35    2      met the burden for clear and convincing evidence.\n\n09:35    3      First of all, the package that we have duplicated for\n\n09:35    4      you in the filing is the exact package that we\n\n09:35    5      submitted to the Patent and Trademark Office, which\n\n09:35    6      meets all the statutory requirements.                 All the six\n\n09:35    7      inventors that are being removed have signed\n\n09:35    8      declarations that they agree that they should be\n\n09:35    9      removed from the patent.\n\n09:35   10                        The remaining inventor, Christopher Boyd,\n\n09:36   11      has agreed that he is the sole inventor.                 And Midas\n\n09:36   12      Technology, the assignee of all the rights in interest\n\n09:36   13      in the patent, has also agreed to this change.                     So we\n\n09:36   14      don't see any reason why this can't be allowed because\n\n09:36   15      there's clear and convincing evidence to remove these\n\n09:36   16      inventors.\n\n09:36   17                        Now, Rhodium does try to muddy the water\n\n09:36   18      and they bring up the names of two other people that\n\n09:36   19      they say may be inventors, Rainone and Christian Best.\n\n09:36   20      That really is irrelevant to this particular motion.\n\n09:36   21                        This motion is merely to remove six named\n\n09:36   22      inventors that were wrongly named on the patent, and if\n\n09:36   23      they believe others should be added, then they can take\n\n09:36   24      that up at a separate -- separate matter.                 And just as\n\n09:36   25      a point of interest, they don't have any standing to do\n\n\n\n                            KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                           U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 187     Filed 04/11/24   Page 5 of 56\n                                                                                            5\n\n09:36    1      this anyway because they don't represent Rainone or\n\n09:36    2      Christian Best, as far as we know.\n\n09:36    3                        THE COURT:         Okay.    Response?\n\n09:36    4                        MS. BRANNEN:         Good morning, Your Honor.\n\n09:36    5      Elizabeth Brannen from Stris & Maher on behalf of the\n\n09:37    6      Rhodium defendants.\n\n09:37    7                        I guess we really should have briefed the\n\n09:37    8      point about Ms. Vidal, who -- Director Vidal, who I\n\n09:37    9      remember fondly as Kathi Kelly Lutton, but the reason\n\n09:37   10      we think this Court should not tell her agency what to\n\n09:37   11      do:\n\n09:37   12                        First of all, I think they say in their\n\n09:37   13      reply, they expect the agency to rule soon anyway.                     So\n\n09:37   14      there is the chance that we can just see what the\n\n09:37   15      Patent Office does.         But the reason I would ask the\n\n09:37   16      Court to deny the motion is that the correct\n\n09:37   17      inventorship is a disputed issue in our litigation.\n\n09:37   18                        We do contend that there are two omitted\n\n09:37   19      inventors, who they're not even trying to add.                     And we\n\n09:37   20      don't think the record that they've submitted to this\n\n09:37   21      Court even tries to meet their clear and convincing\n\n09:37   22      burden to prove that all six of the guys they say\n\n09:37   23      should come off actually didn't contribute.\n\n09:37   24                        You know, two of them, and we've cited\n\n09:37   25      examples in our brief, testified that they contributed\n\n\n\n                            KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                           U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 187     Filed 04/11/24   Page 6 of 56\n                                                                                         6\n\n09:37    1      to conception of one or more aspects of the claimed\n\n09:38    2      invention.      So I don't -- if you grant the motion, we\n\n09:38    3      don't believe you'd be correcting anything.                    We just\n\n09:38    4      don't think they met their burden.                And at this point,\n\n09:38    5      it may be best to see what the agency does.\n\n09:38    6                        THE COURT:         Anything else from the\n\n09:38    7      plaintiffs?\n\n09:38    8                        MR. KOLEGRAFF:         Yeah.      Just on the issue\n\n09:38    9      of disputes of inventorship, there is no dispute on the\n\n09:38   10      removal of these six.         Those six, all six, have agreed\n\n09:38   11      to do this.      All six have testified that they're not\n\n09:38   12      inventors.      All six have testified that they are\n\n09:38   13      comfortable with, and believe it's correct, that\n\n09:38   14      Christopher Boyd is the sole inventor.\n\n09:38   15                        That's all, Your Honor.\n\n09:38   16                        THE COURT:         Anything else?\n\n09:38   17                        MS. BRANNEN:         Your Honor, in our brief,\n\n09:38   18      we cited testimony from two of them to the effect that\n\n09:38   19      they contributed to conception, and so that would not\n\n09:38   20      make it proper to remove them.               We don't think they've\n\n09:38   21      met the clear and convincing burden.\n\n09:38   22                        THE COURT:         Okay.    I'll be back in a\n\n09:38   23      second.\n\n09:38   24                        (Pause in proceedings.)\n\n09:43   25                        THE COURT:         Okay.    I'm going to grant the\n\n\n\n                            KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                           U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 187     Filed 04/11/24    Page 7 of 56\n                                                                                            7\n\n09:43    1      dismissal of the six; but with regard to the additional\n\n09:43    2      two, I'm not sure -- I'll hear from defendant.                      I'm not\n\n09:43    3      sure, procedurally, that issue is in front of me.                       I\n\n09:43    4      don't think you're raising it in a response to a motion\n\n09:43    5      properly put in front of me.\n\n09:44    6                        I'm really asking you.                Is that wrong?\n\n09:44    7      I'm thinking if it were, like, in a pleading or\n\n09:44    8      something, it would be in front of me, or it's an issue\n\n09:44    9      that the Patent Office should take up.\n\n09:44   10                        MS. BRANNEN:         Good morning, Your Honor.\n\n09:44   11      I think we would agree that doesn't -- the point I was\n\n09:44   12      trying to make on this motion is, it wouldn't, from our\n\n09:44   13      perspective, be a correction.                So we were hoping the\n\n09:44   14      Court would deny this motion on that basis.                     But I\n\n09:44   15      think we can present evidence to the jury about whether\n\n09:44   16      the patent is invalid for failure to list those two\n\n09:44   17      individuals who we believe should be listed, who\n\n09:44   18      they're not even asking you to add.\n\n09:44   19                        THE COURT:         And have you raised that\n\n09:44   20      issue formally in the case?\n\n09:44   21                        MS. BRANNEN:         We have, Your Honor.\n\n09:44   22                        THE COURT:         Okay.    Okay.       Well, then\n\n09:44   23      we'll take that up at trial.\n\n09:44   24                        Next up, I have -- give me one second --\n\n09:44   25      the motion to exclude rebuttal report and testimony of\n\n\n\n                            KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                           U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 8 of 56\n                                                                                        8\n\n09:44    1      Dr. Alfonso Ortega.\n\n09:45    2                        And for the record, I have:              Paragraphs\n\n09:45    3      91, 92, 133 through 146, 178, 184, 189 and 90, 213,\n\n09:45    4      222, 239 and 277.\n\n09:45    5                        I'll hear argument on that, please.\n\n09:45    6                        MR. THOMAS:        Good morning, Your Honor.\n\n09:45    7      Joseph Thomas on behalf of the plaintiff Midas Green\n\n09:45    8      Technology.\n\n09:45    9                        Your Honor, this is a case that is, in my\n\n09:45   10      40 years of practice, I've never seen.                 A law firm\n\n09:45   11      directly engage a party who was supporting an expert\n\n09:45   12      and use the privilege to shield from discovery all\n\n09:45   13      communications, all test data, all test parameters, and\n\n09:45   14      produce nothing but a simple result file, which is what\n\n09:46   15      happened here today -- or happened in this case.\n\n09:46   16                        We think the law's very clear under\n\n09:46   17      Rule 26 that anything the expert relies upon must be\n\n09:46   18      produced in a case, and had Mr. Ortega functioned, as\n\n09:46   19      the defendants claim, as his support staffer -- is the\n\n09:46   20      term that they've used -- all of this would have been\n\n09:46   21      discoverable, none of this would have been hidden from\n\n09:46   22      us.\n\n09:46   23                        And as it stands, the only thing we have\n\n09:46   24      access to is a simple result file that, of course,\n\n09:46   25      shows a result that Dr. Ortega likes and counsel for\n\n\n\n                            KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                           U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 187     Filed 04/11/24   Page 9 of 56\n                                                                                            9\n\n09:46    1      Rhodium likes, but none of the underlying test\n\n09:46    2      parameters, test conditions, test failures, the\n\n09:46    3      convergence data has been produced.                 And this kind\n\n09:46    4      of -- I guess it's almost a policy argument, I mean,\n\n09:46    5      whether the Court would sanction and allow lawyers\n\n09:46    6      to --\n\n09:46    7                        THE COURT:         I got it.      I got it.\n\n09:47    8                        Is there anything else you need to add?\n\n09:47    9                        MR. THOMAS:         No, Your Honor.         We briefed\n\n09:47   10      this and it seems like you've read it.                  I would just\n\n09:47   11      point out, we think the Cellular Communications\n\n09:47   12      Equipment case is really on point here, and this report\n\n09:47   13      should be excluded.\n\n09:47   14                        THE COURT:         The portion -- the paragraphs\n\n09:47   15      I just read out should be excluded, right?\n\n09:47   16                        MR. THOMAS:         Well, we think the --\n\n09:47   17      there's a basis to exclude the entire report.                     We've\n\n09:47   18      also, alternatively, cited specifically paragraphs that\n\n09:47   19      rely on and use in reference to this CFD report.                       I can\n\n09:47   20      recite those for you if you want, Your Honor.                     They're\n\n09:47   21      in our moving papers.\n\n09:47   22                        THE COURT:         No.   I -- okay.\n\n09:47   23                        I'll hear a response.\n\n09:47   24                        MS. BRANNEN:         Good morning, Your Honor.\n\n09:47   25                        We think that the criticisms are wrong on\n\n\n\n                            KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                           U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187   Filed 04/11/24   Page 10 of 56\n                                                                                   10\n\n09:47    1   the facts about what happened, and also about the law.\n\n09:47    2   So Dr. Ortega, to start with, opines that limitations\n\n09:48    3   of the patent claims are missing and this motion, as I\n\n09:48    4   think the Court has observed, only affects one\n\n09:48    5   limitation, the plenum limitation.\n\n09:48    6                        And what Dr. Ortega did for that\n\n09:48    7   limitation, it requires a plenum at the bottom of the\n\n09:48    8   tank; and that has to be adapted to dispense the\n\n09:48    9   dielectric fluid in the tank substantially uniformly\n\n09:48   10   upwardly through each appliance slot.\n\n09:48   11                        The first thing that Dr. Ortega did was\n\n09:48   12   to look at the design of the tank, the thing they're\n\n09:48   13   pointing to is the plenum.           One part of it has a bunch\n\n09:48   14   of holes in it and it's designed to send the fluid\n\n09:48   15   where things are hottest and need to be cooled the\n\n09:48   16   most.\n\n09:48   17                        And he used his expertise to say this --\n\n09:48   18   you know, this doesn't go substantially uniformly\n\n09:48   19   upwardly.     He reached that conclusion separately on the\n\n09:48   20   plenum limitation.\n\n09:48   21                        Then he used data from the CFD analysis\n\n09:48   22   that they challenge.         Now, whether they're right, that\n\n09:49   23   the -- his graduate student, who he trained how to do\n\n09:49   24   CFD -- whether they're right, that that was an\n\n09:49   25   independent expert, nontestifying expert, or whether\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187   Filed 04/11/24   Page 11 of 56\n                                                                                         11\n\n09:49    1   we're right, that that was his support staff, his\n\n09:49    2   graduate student, the standard for what we had to do\n\n09:49    3   was the same.         Any of the data that Dr. Ortega relied\n\n09:49    4   upon, reviewed and relied upon, we had to produce to\n\n09:49    5   them.    And we did that.\n\n09:49    6                        And their motion says we didn't give CAD\n\n09:49    7   files, for example.         That's flatly wrong.           We can look\n\n09:49    8   at their own expert's report at Paragraphs 132 and 52,\n\n09:49    9   and he cites those CAD files because we produced them\n\n09:49   10   in November.\n\n09:49   11                        They're also -- they also try to say that\n\n09:49   12   there was cherry-picking.            No.   Dr. Ortega said,\n\n09:49   13   here's -- that's a very large set of data.                  I want to\n\n09:49   14   see the part that's right -- you know, he chose the\n\n09:49   15   place he wanted to see it based on the claim language,\n\n09:49   16   which requires the fluid to be going substantially\n\n09:50   17   uniformly upwardly through the appliance slot.\n\n09:50   18                        That data that he relied upon, we have\n\n09:50   19   produced to them.         They never asked for additional data\n\n09:50   20   from us in discovery.         They never used this Court's\n\n09:50   21   robust and efficient discovery dispute processes to say\n\n09:50   22   we should have given them anything more.\n\n09:50   23                        And they're just wrong that\n\n09:50   24   communications with support staff or nontestifying\n\n09:50   25   experts get produced under Rule 26.               They don't.         The\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187   Filed 04/11/24   Page 12 of 56\n                                                                                          12\n\n09:50    1   thing that gets produced is what we have produced, what\n\n09:50    2   the expert relied upon.\n\n09:50    3                        There is a case in response to the\n\n09:50    4   argument they make in reply that I would like to call\n\n09:50    5   the Court's attention to where the fact pattern is very\n\n09:50    6   similar and the expert who was undisclosed was found to\n\n09:50    7   be -- there was no exclusion of the testifying expert's\n\n09:50    8   report.     That is National Wildlife Insurance Company\n\n09:50    9   versus Western National Life Insurance Company.                       It's a\n\n09:51   10   2011 case, 2011 Westlaw 840976, from the Western\n\n09:51   11   District of Texas on March 3rd of 2011.\n\n09:51   12                        And there is also a major goose/gander\n\n09:51   13   violation going on here, because we haven't had a\n\n09:51   14   privilege log or the production of any communications\n\n09:51   15   with the support staff of any of Midas Green's experts.\n\n09:51   16                        They want to have their Dr. Lee testify\n\n09:51   17   about claim charts that he admittedly did not prepare.\n\n09:51   18   They want to have their damages expert Mr. O'Bryan be\n\n09:51   19   able to rely on hearsay from his subordinates.\n\n09:51   20                        So with everything going on, there's\n\n09:51   21   certainly no basis, no authority whatsoever, for\n\n09:51   22   excluding the entirety of Dr. Ortega's opinions.                       But\n\n09:51   23   even his opinions about the CFD that they're\n\n09:51   24   challenging, there is no basis to exclude those, not\n\n09:51   25   under the facts of what actually happened and not under\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24    Page 13 of 56\n                                                                                      13\n\n09:52    1   the law of what Rule 26 protects from discovery and\n\n09:52    2   what it allows to be discoverable.\n\n09:52    3                        THE COURT:      I'll be back in just a\n\n09:52    4   second.\n\n09:52    5                        (Pause in proceedings.)\n\n09:52    6                        THE COURT:      The Court is going to grant\n\n09:52    7   the motion with respect to those paragraphs.\n\n09:52    8                        With respect to the issues that counsel\n\n09:52    9   brought up at the end under the goose/gander standard,\n\n09:52   10   if you have issues with what they've done, I'll\n\n09:53   11   certainly entertain those separately.\n\n09:53   12                        Next I have the motion to exclude\n\n09:53   13   Dr. Pokharna.\n\n09:53   14                        MS. BRANNEN:      Good morning, Your Honor.\n\n09:53   15                        We are asking to control aspects of\n\n09:53   16   Dr. Pokharna's expert report that we learned about for\n\n09:53   17   the first time in the -- in his report itself that were\n\n09:53   18   not in the final infringement contentions and also to\n\n09:53   19   exclude his opinion about a system at the Temple\n\n09:53   20   facility of my client that is admittedly inoperable\n\n09:53   21   because they ran out of money and they never actually\n\n09:53   22   finished installing what is accused.                   And so we think\n\n09:53   23   it would not be -- it's just unreliable to convene a\n\n09:53   24   jury, and there's no fact issue over that.\n\n09:53   25                        So to start with the new opinions that\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187   Filed 04/11/24   Page 14 of 56\n                                                                                   14\n\n09:53    1   were undisclosed, we set those forth in our brief, but\n\n09:54    2   I would point out, Your Honor, this is a case where\n\n09:54    3   they didn't even tell us they were planning to amend\n\n09:54    4   the contentions.         They didn't move to amend earlier,\n\n09:54    5   give us any warning.\n\n09:54    6                        And so the prejudice that we are\n\n09:54    7   complaining about is that if we had known that these\n\n09:54    8   theories might be something Dr. Pokharna would present,\n\n09:54    9   we would have had the ability to take fact discovery\n\n09:54   10   and conduct our fact discovery with that in mind.\n\n09:54   11                        And it's not a simple case of just\n\n09:54   12   getting to depose Dr. Pokharna again for an hour.\n\n09:54   13   There are seven named inventors, six of whom are coming\n\n09:54   14   off.    There were two -- there was a corporate witness\n\n09:54   15   for Midas Green and another witness for Midas Green\n\n09:54   16   about their systems.         There were many Rhodium\n\n09:54   17   witnesses.\n\n09:54   18                        It's just really unfair, and it shows a\n\n09:54   19   disrespect for the rules to have not even alerted us\n\n09:54   20   that they wanted to amend the final infringement\n\n09:54   21   contentions and to disclose these theories for the\n\n09:54   22   first time there.\n\n09:54   23                        With regard to the systems that are\n\n09:55   24   inoperable, that's just silly to have a trial about\n\n09:55   25   that.    There's no fact dispute over that, and it would\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 15 of 56\n                                                                                       15\n\n09:55    1   be a waste of judicial and party resources to do it.\n\n09:55    2                        So we would ask that that not -- you\n\n09:55    3   know, the system was over two years ago.                   Our client\n\n09:55    4   concededly ran out of money, never installed it.\n\n09:55    5                        Their expert has conceded it cannot\n\n09:55    6   measure temperature.         It's not wired in.            There's just\n\n09:55    7   nothing to present to the jury.\n\n09:55    8                        And it would be unreliable for\n\n09:55    9   Dr. Pokharna to opine that systems in that state\n\n09:55   10   practice any of the limitations.\n\n09:55   11                        THE COURT:      A response?\n\n09:55   12                        MR. KOLEGRAFF:      Yes.     This is William\n\n09:55   13   Kolegraff.\n\n09:55   14                        First of all, there's absolutely no --\n\n09:55   15   nothing was hidden here from them.                There's nothing new\n\n09:55   16   that was put in Dr. Pokharna's report.                  For example,\n\n09:55   17   this whole idea that Prime Controls, they were\n\n09:55   18   surprised about, is, well, just very surprising.\n\n09:56   19                        Because on March 15th, 2023, we fully set\n\n09:56   20   out to them in a supplement to Interrog 4 (sic), which\n\n09:56   21   is Exhibit D here, the exact way that the Prime\n\n09:56   22   Controls was set up and that Prime Controls was going\n\n09:56   23   to be the infringing set of devices.\n\n09:56   24                        In response to our having done that\n\n09:56   25   supplement to Rog 10, they came back in their\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187   Filed 04/11/24   Page 16 of 56\n                                                                                   16\n\n09:56    1   Supplement Rog 1 and said:           As a result of the system\n\n09:56    2   described in plaintiff's supplemental response to\n\n09:56    3   Interrogatory No. 10 and accused in plaintiff's final\n\n09:56    4   infringement contentions...\n\n09:56    5                        They admitted that what was in the final\n\n09:56    6   infringement contentions were these Prime Control\n\n09:56    7   devices.     So there's absolutely no surprise here.\n\n09:56    8                        Also, this actually is in the\n\n09:56    9   contentions.         We don't say the name \"Prime Controls\"\n\n09:56   10   with the name \"Prime Controls,\" but it's actually set\n\n09:56   11   out that says:         The control -- from the contentions --\n\n09:57   12   the control facility includes an automated controlling\n\n09:57   13   with software that measures and monitors and controls\n\n09:57   14   the pumps, dry coolers, and temperature of the fluid.\n\n09:57   15                        That's exactly what the Prime Control\n\n09:57   16   systems does.         So Prime Control has been fully set out,\n\n09:57   17   including Exhibit E, which is a manual that we have\n\n09:57   18   cited to, that is the exact Prime Controls manual.\n\n09:57   19                        As far as the Kelvion coolers, in the\n\n09:57   20   contentions themselves, we lay out that there are two\n\n09:57   21   Kelvion coolers.         There's a Guntner coolers at the\n\n09:57   22   Rockdale facilities; there's Kelvion coolers at the\n\n09:57   23   Temple facility.         And they form the second -- secondary\n\n09:57   24   cooling facility.\n\n09:57   25                        Again, those are fully disclosed in the\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                        U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 17 of 56\n                                                                                    17\n\n09:57    1   contentions, and they were the basis for Dr. Pokharna's\n\n09:57    2   report.\n\n09:57    3                        As far as what was installed not being\n\n09:57    4   reliable, yes.         It is true that they installed\n\n09:57    5   significant portions of the Prime Control systems at\n\n09:58    6   Temple, and then because they ran out of money, they\n\n09:58    7   did delay that process.\n\n09:58    8                        However, we do know that there is\n\n09:58    9   evidence that says that they are planning on re- --\n\n09:58   10   turning that system on -- finishing that system and\n\n09:58   11   turning it on later.\n\n09:58   12                        So they have substantially installed the\n\n09:58   13   Prime Control systems.          They're on the 99-yard line.\n\n09:58   14   They just haven't flipped the actual switch.\n\n09:58   15                        The system is still adapted to -- it's\n\n09:58   16   still capable of taking these measurements once they\n\n09:58   17   finish and flip the switch.\n\n09:58   18                        So they also have this issue where they\n\n09:58   19   don't believe that we have disclosed the slots, that\n\n09:58   20   they were surprised that we have the slots.\n\n09:58   21                        Well, again, if you look through the --\n\n09:58   22   our opposition, we put pictures of the slots in the\n\n09:58   23   first amended complaint.             We had -- in our supplement\n\n09:58   24   to No. 4, we actually had a picture of the tape with\n\n09:58   25   red lines showing where the slots were.\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 18 of 56\n                                                                                    18\n\n09:59    1                        There's absolutely no surprise whatsoever\n\n09:59    2   to anything in the -- Dr. Pokharna's report.\n\n09:59    3                        THE COURT:      I'll be back in just a\n\n09:59    4   second.\n\n09:59    5                        (Pause in proceedings.)\n\n10:00    6                        THE COURT:      The Court grants that motion.\n\n10:00    7                        The next motion we have up is the motion\n\n10:00    8   the exclude James Lee.            I'll hear from defendants on\n\n10:00    9   that.\n\n10:00   10                        MS. BRANNEN:      Your Honor, on this motion,\n\n10:00   11   we had two aspects of it.             Sorry.     For a moment, I\n\n10:00   12   wasn't sure if you were calling on us or the other\n\n10:00   13   counsel.\n\n10:00   14                        But the first aspect is a correction --\n\n10:00   15   what they call a correction, but it's really an\n\n10:00   16   addition to Dr. Lee's report that he served at the end\n\n10:00   17   of a deposition.\n\n10:00   18                        Their position just doesn't make any\n\n10:00   19   sense on this.         They argue simultaneously that it is\n\n10:01   20   duplicative of what was already in his report and that\n\n10:01   21   it's necessary.\n\n10:01   22                        It can't be both.         And all I know is that\n\n10:01   23   it's too late, and we ask Your Honor to exclude it.\n\n10:01   24                        The other thing that we are focusing on\n\n10:01   25   in this motion is the fact that Dr. Lee is their\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                        U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 19 of 56\n                                                                                        19\n\n10:01    1   rebuttal expert, not their opening expert.\n\n10:01    2                        And he gave an opinion that based on\n\n10:01    3   charts that he did not prepare, that apparently counsel\n\n10:01    4   prepared, as they say they had been produced in\n\n10:01    5   discovery, he gave an opinion that Midas' products\n\n10:01    6   practice the patents.\n\n10:01    7                        We think that opinion is unreliable.                But\n\n10:01    8   in any event, it's too late -- too late for their\n\n10:01    9   damages expert, their opening expert to have relied\n\n10:01   10   upon it.\n\n10:01   11                        And that's basically about it for that\n\n10:01   12   opinion.     It's not plausible, and it also is too late\n\n10:01   13   for the purposes they want to use it for in the case.\n\n10:02   14                        THE COURT:      Who's going to respond to\n\n10:02   15   this?\n\n10:02   16                        MR. THOMAS:      Joseph Thomas.\n\n10:02   17                        THE COURT:      Is there any reason why -- I\n\n10:02   18   think I've gone over this -- why this couldn't be taken\n\n10:02   19   care of by just allowing this gentleman to be deposed\n\n10:02   20   now?\n\n10:02   21                        I'm asking you, Counsel.\n\n10:02   22                        MR. THOMAS:      You're asking Mr. Thomas?\n\n10:02   23                        THE COURT:      I'm asking you.        I'm asking\n\n10:02   24   you.    I don't know how to make it any clearer.                   I'm\n\n10:02   25   asking you to respond.\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                        U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 20 of 56\n                                                                                     20\n\n10:02    1                        MR. THOMAS:      The -- Mr. Thomas.         Yes.\n\n10:02    2                        THE COURT:      Yes.\n\n10:02    3                        MR. THOMAS:      We're happy to let him be\n\n10:02    4   deposed again if they want to.               We don't think they\n\n10:02    5   need to.     They had his --\n\n10:02    6                        THE COURT:      Well, I'm -- stop while\n\n10:02    7   you're ahead.         I'm going to allow them -- I'm going to\n\n10:02    8   deny the motion and allow them to depose the witness.\n\n10:02    9                        Now, going back to Mr. -- or\n\n10:02   10   Dr. Pokharna.         Is he your only infringement expert?\n\n10:03   11                        MR. THOMAS:      Yes.\n\n10:03   12                        THE COURT:      So what I'm going to do is --\n\n10:03   13   it will obviously impact the trial setting, but I'm\n\n10:03   14   going to allow you to amend his report, see if you can\n\n10:03   15   fix it.     And you all will need to get together with\n\n10:03   16   opposing counsel and figure out how long you think\n\n10:03   17   it'll take for Dr. Pokharna to address any of the\n\n10:03   18   issues that you think would make his opinion survive a\n\n10:03   19   future challenge.\n\n10:03   20                        And then y'all can set up a schedule to\n\n10:03   21   figure out how to deal with that in terms of rebuttal\n\n10:03   22   reports and all that.         So I'm going to allow him to\n\n10:03   23   amend his report.\n\n10:03   24                        Next up I have the motion to exclude -- I\n\n10:03   25   don't know if it's a doctor or not.                I don't think it\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                        U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 21 of 56\n                                                                                         21\n\n10:03    1   is -- Duross O'Bryan.         This is the defendants' motion.\n\n10:04    2                        MS. BRANNEN:      Thank you, Your Honor.\n\n10:04    3                        THE COURT:      This one -- this one has both\n\n10:04    4   lost profits and a reasonable royalty analysis.\n\n10:04    5                        MS. BRANNEN:      That's correct.\n\n10:04    6                        Is my screen successfully sharing?                We\n\n10:04    7   prepared a few slides on this one.\n\n10:04    8                        Midas' damages opinion -- damages expert\n\n10:04    9   makes four main errors that we believe are substantial\n\n10:04   10   and not just matters that we should have to cross them\n\n10:04   11   on, Your Honor.         The first error pervades both his lost\n\n10:04   12   profits and his reasonable royalty damages.\n\n10:08   13                        (Clarification by Reporter.)\n\n10:08   14                        (Recess taken.)\n\n10:08   15                        THE COURT:      Let's go back on the record.\n\n10:08   16                        MS. BRANNEN:      Thank you, Your Honor.\n\n10:08   17   This is Elizabeth Brannen, addressing the motion to\n\n10:08   18   exclude Midas' damages expert, Mr. O'Bryan.\n\n10:08   19                        The first error he made pervades his lost\n\n10:08   20   profits and reasonable royalty opinions, both of them.\n\n10:08   21   And he basically doubles his damages number by assuming\n\n10:08   22   that Rhodium would continue infringing for almost three\n\n10:09   23   years past trial, even if there's a jury verdict of\n\n10:09   24   infringement.\n\n10:09   25                        Now, the patent -- he's -- the patent\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 22 of 56\n                                                                                           22\n\n10:09    1   doesn't expire till something like 2035.                   He's not\n\n10:09    2   giving an opinion about a fully paid-up license.                       This\n\n10:09    3   is something different going on.               He's saying he has\n\n10:09    4   the ability to award damages after trial based on\n\n10:09    5   speculation that my client would continue to infringe.\n\n10:09    6   And there's just no basis for that.                Certainly no\n\n10:09    7   reliable basis.\n\n10:09    8                        If we look at the basis he said he had --\n\n10:09    9   I'll try sharing my screen here to put some of this --\n\n10:09   10   make some of this visible -- he's relying only on a\n\n10:09   11   single projection, and that projection is something\n\n10:09   12   that Rhodium filed in connection with a potential\n\n10:09   13   merger transaction.         And that document just says that\n\n10:09   14   Midas -- that Rhodium -- excuse me -- plans to expand\n\n10:09   15   its operations to full capacity if the merger goes\n\n10:10   16   through.\n\n10:10   17                        Well, two problems.        First of all,\n\n10:10   18   expanding your operations doesn't say anything about\n\n10:10   19   whether you would continue infringing or ignore an\n\n10:10   20   infringing verdict.         And even more importantly, that\n\n10:10   21   merger never happened.            It was canceled.         And\n\n10:10   22   Mr. O'Bryan omitted the -- didn't take into account the\n\n10:10   23   fact that he just assumed that --\n\n10:10   24                        THE COURT:      Let me interrupt you and hear\n\n10:10   25   a response to that argument.\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                        U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 23 of 56\n                                                                                    23\n\n10:10    1                        MR. THOMAS:      Your Honor, the\n\n10:10    2   representations made in that S-1 were for a merger that\n\n10:10    3   was canceled, but the representations were not\n\n10:10    4   conditional.         They did not say, If we get the merger,\n\n10:10    5   we'll do this expansion.             They just said that our\n\n10:10    6   business plan is to expand.\n\n10:10    7                        That's what they told their investors.\n\n10:10    8   They had existing investors and the prospective new\n\n10:10    9   investors through the merger.                So those representations\n\n10:11   10   are from Rhodium of their own expansion plans, which\n\n10:11   11   are reasonable for Mr. O'Bryan to rely upon.\n\n10:11   12                        THE COURT:      Did he or did he not rely on\n\n10:11   13   that merger when he -- when he comes in and he says,\n\n10:11   14   This is what I did.         I looked and there's this document\n\n10:11   15   that shows there's going to be a merger and -- to rely\n\n10:11   16   on and the merger didn't happen, is that what he's\n\n10:11   17   going to say?\n\n10:11   18                        MR. THOMAS:      No.    He's going to say these\n\n10:11   19   are representations that they issued that were not\n\n10:11   20   conditioned upon the merger.                They were made in the\n\n10:11   21   public forum.         And I'm going to rely on their\n\n10:11   22   representations to their investors that they had a\n\n10:11   23   plan -- they have a plan to expand.\n\n10:11   24                        THE COURT:      Okay.    Is there anything else\n\n10:11   25   you'd like to say with respect to the lost profits\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 24 of 56\n                                                                                       24\n\n10:11    1   argument that the defendant is making?\n\n10:11    2                        MR. THOMAS:      Yes, Your Honor.         The lost\n\n10:11    3   profit analysis was done correctly.                It was based on\n\n10:12    4   information that was available to the experts.                     Both\n\n10:12    5   sides' experts have acknowledged there are no licenses.\n\n10:12    6   This is relatively brand-new technology in this field.\n\n10:12    7   This immersion cooling technology hasn't been licensed.\n\n10:12    8                        Mr. O'Bryan properly used the sales of\n\n10:12    9   the product as a basis, and there's good case law we\n\n10:12   10   cited for him to rely upon the sales as a basis to\n\n10:12   11   determine the reasonable royalty, and the profits from\n\n10:12   12   those sales to support that reasonable royalty\n\n10:12   13   analysis.\n\n10:12   14                        THE COURT:      Would you give me an example?\n\n10:12   15                        MR. THOMAS:      Yes.    They -- they -- our\n\n10:12   16   deadlines made a significant sale to a company known as\n\n10:12   17   RITE.    It's a public company.              It's one of the largest\n\n10:12   18   bitcoin mining companies in the -- North America, if\n\n10:12   19   not the U.S. -- if not nationally -- internationally.\n\n10:12   20                        And those sales occurred well within\n\n10:13   21   months or within a year or so of the time that the\n\n10:13   22   license would have been negotiated.                And under the Book\n\n10:13   23   of Wisdom, Mr. O'Bryan used those sales to forecast\n\n10:13   24   what the expected profits would be of my client in\n\n10:13   25   terms of making assumption on how to --\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 25 of 56\n                                                                                      25\n\n10:13    1                        THE COURT:      How does the Book of Wisdom,\n\n10:13    2   what does that have to do with lost profits?\n\n10:13    3                        MR. THOMAS:      Well, the lost -- we believe\n\n10:13    4   that the sale of the --\n\n10:13    5                        THE COURT:      No, no.     What does the book\n\n10:13    6   of profits -- what does that have to do with lost\n\n10:13    7   profits?     I don't understand.\n\n10:13    8                        MR. THOMAS:      Well, the -- we believe that\n\n10:13    9   the case law allows Mr. O'Bryan --\n\n10:14   10                        THE COURT:      Tell me any case that\n\n10:14   11   discusses the Book of Wisdom in a context of lost\n\n10:14   12   profits.\n\n10:14   13                        MR. THOMAS:      Okay.     Well, Your Honor, we\n\n10:14   14   don't need the Book of Wisdom.                Rhodium installed\n\n10:14   15   200 megawatts.         He's using their actual installation as\n\n10:14   16   the basis to determine a sale that would have been made\n\n10:14   17   by my client to Rhodium of those products.                   And using\n\n10:14   18   those -- that sales information, he projected his lost\n\n10:14   19   profits.\n\n10:14   20                        THE COURT:      Okay.     I'll be back in just a\n\n10:14   21   second.\n\n10:14   22                        (Pause in proceedings.)\n\n10:15   23                        THE COURT:      This question is for -- sorry\n\n10:15   24   for all the coughing -- either party, but I'll start\n\n10:15   25   with the party that is moving for this, the defendant.\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                        U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 26 of 56\n                                                                                      26\n\n10:15    1                        What specific paragraphs in his -- in the\n\n10:16    2   report are you asking me to strike on lost profits?\n\n10:16    3   Can you articulate those into the record?\n\n10:16    4                        MS. BRANNEN:      Your Honor, I would need a\n\n10:16    5   moment to pull it up and articulate them into the\n\n10:16    6   record, but we're asking to strike his entire lost\n\n10:16    7   profits opinion, because he has no basis --\n\n10:16    8                        THE COURT:      Is it -- I'm sorry.         Is it\n\n10:16    9   divided up, lost profits -- I'm making this up --\n\n10:16   10   Page 1 through 10, reasonable royalty, 11 through 20.\n\n10:16   11   Is it -- is it that clean?\n\n10:16   12                        MS. BRANNEN:      I believe it's fairly\n\n10:16   13   clean.     Let me show my screen to give an example of one\n\n10:16   14   page.     Let me see if I can do it.\n\n10:16   15                        So here's an example of a table in his\n\n10:16   16   report.     And he's very clear at the top about what his\n\n10:16   17   reasonable royalty number is.              And then underneath\n\n10:16   18   that, he's clear -- he's got a separate line item for\n\n10:16   19   what his lost profits opinion is.               And so the report is\n\n10:16   20   well organized in the sense that his lost profits\n\n10:16   21   opinions are coherent.            And I apologize that I don't\n\n10:17   22   know exactly those, but if we take a short break, I\n\n10:17   23   can --\n\n10:17   24                        THE COURT:      Here's what I'm going to do.\n\n10:17   25   We've gone over -- I'm going to grant the motion with\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                        U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24    Page 27 of 56\n                                                                                     27\n\n10:17    1   respect to lost profits.             Same deal.        If the\n\n10:17    2   defendant -- I'm sorry -- the plaintiff wants to have\n\n10:17    3   their expert redo the lost profits and try and go\n\n10:17    4   again, that's fine.         You all need to figure out how to\n\n10:17    5   do the schedule.\n\n10:17    6                        I'm going to deny the motion with respect\n\n10:17    7   to the -- his reasonable royalty calculations.\n\n10:17    8                        Next up, I have the motion for summary\n\n10:17    9   judgment of noninfringement.             I'll hear from the\n\n10:17   10   defendant on that, please.\n\n10:17   11                        MS. BRANNEN:      Thank you, Your Honor.\n\n10:17   12                        May I clarify the Court's ruling on\n\n10:17   13   Mr. O'Bryan?         The posttrial damages period that he has\n\n10:17   14   is in his lost profits, but it also pervades his\n\n10:18   15   reasonable royalty.         Is there a separate ruling on the\n\n10:18   16   aspect of damages --\n\n10:18   17                        THE COURT:      So I usually don't have a\n\n10:18   18   problem with the jury answering future reasonable\n\n10:18   19   royalty, because then at least we have a reasonable\n\n10:18   20   royalty rate.         And if the plaintiff is successful, then\n\n10:18   21   the jury will have spoken as to the reasonable royalty\n\n10:18   22   rate, which is probably what I would consider applying\n\n10:18   23   on damages going forward, if you continued to make\n\n10:18   24   sales.\n\n10:18   25                        And they're not going to get those\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 28 of 56\n                                                                                            28\n\n10:18    1   damages, future damages, unless you -- the sales were\n\n10:18    2   actually made.         And the way I've done it in the past,\n\n10:18    3   both as a lawyer and as a judge, is let's say plaintiff\n\n10:18    4   wins.     Reasonable royalty rate -- I'll make up\n\n10:18    5   something -- 5 percent.            I would allow you -- allow the\n\n10:18    6   defendant to continue to sell and -- but they would\n\n10:18    7   have to put into the registry of the Court the\n\n10:19    8   6 percent.      If you stopped selling, there would be no\n\n10:19    9   future damages under a reasonable royalty deal.                        Does\n\n10:19   10   that sound -- is that what you were asking me?\n\n10:19   11                        MS. BRANNEN:      Thank you, Your Honor.\n\n10:19   12   Yes.     I think it clarifies it.            In other words, as I\n\n10:19   13   understand it, lost profits, they've got to completely\n\n10:19   14   redo it if they want to try to get it in.\n\n        15                        THE COURT:      Correct.\n\n10:19   16                        MS. BRANNEN:      Reasonable royalty, they --\n\n10:19   17                        THE COURT:      And I'll say right now, lost\n\n10:19   18   profits -- is there -- let me ask the plaintiffs:                        Is\n\n10:19   19   there no request for an injunction here?\n\n10:19   20                        MR. THOMAS:      No.    No, Your Honor.           There\n\n10:19   21   isn't.\n\n10:19   22                        THE COURT:      Okay.    Is there a reason\n\n10:19   23   there's not a request for injunction?\n\n10:19   24                        MR. THOMAS:      I'm sorry.       I misspoke.\n\n10:19   25   There is a request for an injunction.\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                        U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 29 of 56\n                                                                                     29\n\n10:19    1                        THE COURT:      Okay.   So generally speaking\n\n10:19    2   again, what I will do is, with regard -- if it's a lost\n\n10:19    3   profits, I probably will have to -- I probably won't\n\n10:19    4   give them a question on future lost profits, but again,\n\n10:20    5   and this is because we don't know whether there'd be\n\n10:20    6   any, I will take up the injunction question because you\n\n10:20    7   all, I assume, are competitors or you wouldn't have\n\n10:20    8   lost profits.\n\n10:20    9                        And so but I will -- so don't anticipate\n\n10:20   10   getting a lost profits question going forward, but if\n\n10:20   11   you can redo it and you think you can get past a\n\n10:20   12   Daubert challenge, I'll do it for both prior.                    And then\n\n10:20   13   if -- again, only if the plaintiff wins, if the\n\n10:20   14   defendant comes in and says, No, you shouldn't give an\n\n10:20   15   injunction, well, then we'll have to figure out a way\n\n10:20   16   to be fair to the plaintiff to make sure how we assess\n\n10:20   17   damages going forward.            And I'll take care of that.\n\n10:20   18                        So did I make it clearer or less clear on\n\n10:20   19   what I just said for everyone?               I'm happy to answer any\n\n10:20   20   questions that you have.\n\n10:20   21                        MS. BRANNEN:      Your Honor, this is\n\n10:20   22   Elizabeth Brannen for Rhodium.               Just I think it's clear\n\n10:21   23   with respect to the original question I was asking.\n\n10:21   24                        So for their reasonable royalty, they're\n\n10:21   25   not going to get a damages award past trial\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 30 of 56\n                                                                                       30\n\n10:21    1   automatically, they have to present what it is through\n\n10:21    2   trial and then they can get a separate ruling on if\n\n10:21    3   Rhodium were to continue to infringe, what could the\n\n10:21    4   reasonable royalty be after that.               Have I --\n\n10:21    5                        THE COURT:      Right.    And I've seen it\n\n10:21    6   handled two ways, and I would let you all argue what's\n\n10:21    7   fair.    I've seen it where the jury's given an amount --\n\n10:21    8   I'm making this up again -- 5 percent.                  And so you give\n\n10:21    9   the 5 percent.         This is where the Book of Wisdom does\n\n10:21   10   come in.     You know, they will have figured that out.\n\n10:21   11                        But I've also seen judges who have\n\n10:21   12   considered giving a slightly higher, going forward,\n\n10:21   13   because it's now -- the jury's now found infringement.\n\n10:21   14   So but they're -- I'm not going to award -- now, I\n\n10:21   15   didn't hear anyone talk about a lump sum.                   If there is\n\n10:21   16   a lump-sum award that goes through the end of the --\n\n10:22   17   that would go through the end of the patent, whenever\n\n10:22   18   that is, which is a period going forward, but\n\n10:22   19   obviously, it's an amount that neither of y'all have\n\n10:22   20   done yet and that someone would say, as opposed to\n\n10:22   21   reasonable royalty, we would take -- the plaintiff\n\n10:22   22   would have taken a lump sum of X and y'all would have\n\n10:22   23   paid a lump sum of X and -- y'all have -- but y'all\n\n10:22   24   haven't done that.         So that's not an issue here.\n\n10:22   25                        So as far as I can tell, from the way the\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                        U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 31 of 56\n                                                                                       31\n\n10:22    1   plaintiffs have structured their damages model, they\n\n10:22    2   won't be getting future damages until we see if they\n\n10:22    3   win and what I do on the injunction, and then if there\n\n10:22    4   is not an injunction and you all do continue to sell\n\n10:22    5   what the jury has determined to be infringing, I'll\n\n10:22    6   make sure we come up with some way of making sure the\n\n10:22    7   plaintiff is protected financially.\n\n10:22    8                        Anything else?\n\n10:22    9                        MS. BRANNEN:      Just I would like to\n\n10:22   10   clarify, my client is not a competitor of Midas Green,\n\n10:23   11   not even allegedly.         And that's part of why they have\n\n10:23   12   such a trouble of meeting the lost profits standard.\n\n10:23   13                        THE COURT:      Well, then they're going to\n\n10:23   14   have a really tough time getting an injunction.\n\n10:23   15                        MS. BRANNEN:      I don't even believe\n\n10:23   16   there's a live injunction request, Your Honor.                     That\n\n10:23   17   was news to me.         I do not think they've preserved it.\n\n10:23   18   I certainly don't think they have --\n\n10:23   19                        THE COURT:      Well, they've told me there's\n\n10:23   20   an injunction request.            Maybe there is; maybe there\n\n10:23   21   isn't.    I don't know.\n\n10:23   22                        MS. BRANNEN:      Thank you.\n\n10:23   23                        THE COURT:      I'm up with the law, that\n\n10:23   24   they only get one if y'all are competitors.                    And I\n\n10:23   25   don't know -- I'll know much better after trial whether\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 32 of 56\n                                                                                    32\n\n10:23    1   or not I think you're competitors.\n\n10:23    2                        MR. THOMAS:      Your Honor, that is a\n\n10:23    3   disputed issue in this case.             We contend, Your Honor,\n\n10:23    4   we are competitors.\n\n10:23    5                        THE COURT:      Well, I have no way of\n\n10:23    6   knowing which of you is right.\n\n10:23    7                        So next up we have the motion for summary\n\n10:23    8   judgment of noninfringement.             I'll take that up.\n\n10:23    9                        MS. BRANNEN:      Thank you, Your Honor.\n\n10:23   10                        So the technology at issue involves\n\n10:24   11   systems for pooling bitcoin miners.                The computers that\n\n10:24   12   do the mining get very hot when they're mining bitcoin.\n\n10:24   13                        And in particular, the patent and the\n\n10:24   14   accused systems -- and you can see a picture -- some of\n\n10:24   15   the accused systems, they relate to their immersion\n\n10:24   16   cooling systems.         Meaning, there are miners that get\n\n10:24   17   immersed in dielectric fluid.              It doesn't conduct\n\n10:24   18   electricity.         And as the liquid is circulated through\n\n10:24   19   the system, it removes heat from the miners.\n\n10:24   20                        We believe a lot of limitations are\n\n10:24   21   missing, but we focused our motion on a single claim\n\n10:24   22   limitation.      And we believe it's the rare case where\n\n10:24   23   Midas doesn't have any evidence that Rhodium uses\n\n10:24   24   anything like this limitation that's shown here.\n\n10:24   25                        And it requires the system to have a\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187   Filed 04/11/24   Page 33 of 56\n                                                                                   33\n\n10:24    1   control facility, and that control facility has to be\n\n10:24    2   adapted to coordinate the operation of two different\n\n10:25    3   fluid circulation facilities, a primary facility and a\n\n10:25    4   secondary facility.\n\n10:25    5                        And it has to be adapted to coordinate\n\n10:25    6   their operation based on this recited variable as a\n\n10:25    7   function of the temperature of the dielectric fluid in\n\n10:25    8   the tank containing the bitcoin miners.\n\n10:25    9                        And we don't -- basically, for the\n\n10:25   10   primary fluid circulation facility, you can think of\n\n10:25   11   that as the pipes and pumps.            That's what they say it\n\n10:25   12   is.   We may take issue with that at trial, but not for\n\n10:25   13   purposes of this motion.\n\n10:25   14                        Similarly, for the secondary fluid\n\n10:25   15   circulation facility, they point to these large coolers\n\n10:25   16   that have fans in them.          So you can think of the\n\n10:25   17   primary as pumps and pipes; secondary, they say it's\n\n10:25   18   the fans and the dry coolers.\n\n10:25   19                        And we pointed out in our motion that we\n\n10:25   20   don't take the temperature of the fluid in the tank,\n\n10:26   21   and we don't use it for anything, let alone to\n\n10:26   22   coordinate either of those facilities, those fluid\n\n10:26   23   circulation facilities.\n\n10:26   24                        Reading their opposition, you could be\n\n10:26   25   forgiven for assuming that I'd be standing in front of\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187   Filed 04/11/24   Page 34 of 56\n                                                                                        34\n\n10:26    1   you asking for a very narrow special construction of\n\n10:26    2   this term, but that's not what we're doing.\n\n10:26    3                        Our motion, we construed nothing.                We\n\n10:26    4   agree that this term gets its plain meaning, and we\n\n10:26    5   don't have this limitation or anything like it.\n\n10:26    6                        And so in our motion, we went through all\n\n10:26    7   the various theories their expert had put forth, some\n\n10:26    8   of which have been addressed in the motion to exclude\n\n10:26    9   Dr. Pokharna, where the opinions weren't in their final\n\n10:26   10   infringement contentions.\n\n10:26   11                        But we went through all the various\n\n10:26   12   theories of why they said this limitation was present,\n\n10:26   13   and we debunked each of them.             And we showed why the\n\n10:26   14   limitation isn't there literally and why, in those\n\n10:26   15   instances when he had offered an opinion under the\n\n10:26   16   doctrine of equivalents, there was no -- nothing in the\n\n10:27   17   report, no evidence that could satisfy that standard\n\n10:27   18   for insubstantial differences for same\n\n10:27   19   function-way-result.\n\n10:27   20                        So the first thing I'd like to hopefully\n\n10:27   21   establish in this motion is that based on the DMM\n\n10:27   22   Specialities case, which we cite in our reply at Page 2\n\n10:27   23   and also just common sense, their opposition makes no\n\n10:27   24   attempt whatsoever to defend or salvage any of\n\n10:27   25   Dr. Pokharna's theories under the doctrine of\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 35 of 56\n                                                                                      35\n\n10:27    1   equivalents.\n\n10:27    2                        You can scour their opposition.             The word\n\n10:27    3   \"equivalent\" isn't there.             \"Equivalents\" isn't there.\n\n10:27    4   \"DOE\" isn't there.         \"Insubstantial\" or \"substantial\n\n10:27    5   differences,\" it's just not discussed.                  They have\n\n10:27    6   waived this.\n\n10:27    7                        And I'm happy also to go through each of\n\n10:27    8   the things that they have -- all the various theories\n\n10:27    9   they pointed to and show why there is a failure under\n\n10:27   10   the plain meaning of this limitation to show that we\n\n10:27   11   have anything like it.\n\n10:28   12                        But the first system that they accuse are\n\n10:28   13   the Prime Controls and Kelvion sensors.                  Those are the\n\n10:28   14   ones that are admittedly inoperable that I believe have\n\n10:28   15   been excluded in connection with Dr. Pokharna's report.\n\n10:28   16                        And I don't think this is fixable, Your\n\n10:28   17   Honor.    There is no -- there's attorney argument, and\n\n10:28   18   we heard some of the attorney argument from\n\n10:28   19   Mr. Kolegraff.\n\n10:28   20                        But this is a system where most of the\n\n10:28   21   sensors are missing and none of the sensors they're\n\n10:28   22   pointing to is wired in.             And perhaps more importantly,\n\n10:28   23   their expert, you can see the interrogatory response\n\n10:28   24   they cite to in their opposition at Page 13, saying:\n\n10:28   25   Even where a sensor is connected, it is not wired in.\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187   Filed 04/11/24   Page 36 of 56\n                                                                                   36\n\n10:28    1                        Their expert, Dr. Pokharna, conceded that\n\n10:28    2   in its present state, this system cannot measure\n\n10:28    3   temperature.\n\n10:28    4                        Now, even if this was operational, they\n\n10:29    5   haven't explained what they believe the plain meaning\n\n10:29    6   of this limitation is or why what this system was\n\n10:29    7   designed to measure would actually be adapted to\n\n10:29    8   coordinate both control facilities.\n\n10:29    9                        And so that's also another problem with\n\n10:29   10   this whole theory, that you can see up here the\n\n10:29   11   sensors, where they would go, are in an entirely\n\n10:29   12   different building and they have a little sign they\n\n10:29   13   have labeled -- their own expert has labeled that the\n\n10:29   14   building containing the tanks with the miners is in a\n\n10:29   15   completely different place.\n\n10:29   16                        This wouldn't be the variable they need\n\n10:29   17   to show that we're using, and they also can't show that\n\n10:29   18   it would be adapted to coordinate both fluid\n\n        19   circulation facilities.\n\n10:29   20                        The only evidence they give is shown\n\n10:29   21   here, that it would be adapted to adjust the fan speed.\n\n10:29   22   Well, that's what they say is the secondary circulation\n\n10:29   23   facility.     In order to survive summary judgment, they\n\n10:29   24   should have to present evidence and explain how that\n\n10:30   25   evidence could lead a reasonable juror to believe that\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187   Filed 04/11/24   Page 37 of 56\n                                                                                     37\n\n10:30    1   the claim language is satisfied with respect to both\n\n10:30    2   circulation facilities and being adapted to coordinate\n\n10:30    3   the operation of both of them.             And they just can't do\n\n10:30    4   that for the main thing that they spent the most time\n\n10:30    5   on in their brief, which is this Prime Controls and\n\n10:30    6   Kelvion coolers.\n\n10:30    7                        And by the way, they briefed those\n\n10:30    8   separately, but Prime Controls and other vendors were\n\n10:30    9   hired to build the monitoring system for the Kelvion\n\n10:30   10   cooler.     So even though they talk about the Prime\n\n10:30   11   Control system and then they talk about the Kelvion\n\n10:30   12   coolers, you can see, for example, from their brief at\n\n10:30   13   Page 18, the thing they're citing to for the Kelvion\n\n10:30   14   coolers as evidence that those infringe, that's all\n\n10:30   15   design documents of Prime Controls.               That was\n\n10:30   16   admittedly never installed and is admittedly\n\n10:30   17   inoperable, cannot measure any temperature.\n\n10:30   18                        So at the last page of their brief, they\n\n10:30   19   give a couple throwaways to try to defend a theory of\n\n10:31   20   infringement based on the Guntner coolers.                  These are\n\n10:31   21   shown here.      These are only at Rhodium's Rockdale\n\n10:31   22   facility.\n\n10:31   23                        And again, the tanks containing the\n\n10:31   24   miners are in one place, and the coolers they're\n\n10:31   25   pointing to are outside the building.                 And what their\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187   Filed 04/11/24   Page 38 of 56\n                                                                                   38\n\n10:31    1   theory is here is that Rhodium measures the temperature\n\n10:31    2   of the fluid after it comes out of the cooler.\n\n10:31    3                        Well, that obviously is not literally the\n\n10:31    4   same thing as the fluid in the tanks nor is it even\n\n10:31    5   arguably insubstantially different.\n\n10:31    6                        And they also -- for this one too, all\n\n10:31    7   they say is that we might use it to adjust the fan\n\n10:31    8   speed in these coolers.          There's no evidence they can\n\n10:31    9   point the Court to of how this is in any way adapted to\n\n10:31   10   coordinate the operation of what they've pointed to as\n\n10:31   11   the primary fluid circulation facility, the pumps and\n\n10:31   12   the pipes.\n\n10:31   13                        So it's deficient in multiple respects.\n\n10:31   14   And the single paragraph in their opposition that's\n\n10:32   15   dedicated to try to revive this doesn't answer the\n\n10:32   16   question of how this is using the right variable in any\n\n10:32   17   way, let alone using any variable to control both fluid\n\n10:32   18   circulation facilities.          They only talk about fans.\n\n10:32   19                        Then the final thing that they also try\n\n10:32   20   to revive is the fact that in both facilities, Temple\n\n10:32   21   and Rockdale, Rhodium can measure the temperature of\n\n10:32   22   the chips in the miners and the printed circuit boards\n\n10:32   23   in the miners.\n\n10:32   24                        Their expert, though -- obviously\n\n10:32   25   measuring a chip temperature or a board temperature is\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 39 of 56\n                                                                                          39\n\n10:32    1   not measuring the temperature of the tank fluid.                       And\n\n10:32    2   their expert admitted those are different.                   So there's\n\n10:32    3   no literal infringement.             There's no analysis of why it\n\n10:32    4   would be insubstantially different.\n\n10:32    5                        And again, here too, all they say with\n\n10:32    6   PCB temperature is that we can monitor it.                   All they\n\n10:32    7   say with chip temperature is that we can shut off the\n\n10:33    8   miner or reduce power to the miner.\n\n10:33    9                        But what they haven't said is what\n\n10:33   10   evidence is there anywhere in the record that we could\n\n10:33   11   use either the chip or PCB temperature to coordinate\n\n10:33   12   the operation of the pumps and pipes or of the fans,\n\n10:33   13   which they say are the primary and the secondary\n\n10:33   14   circulation facilities.\n\n10:33   15                        There is no evidence.         It's a rare case\n\n10:33   16   where none of their theories even make sense.                    And we\n\n10:33   17   hope they should have to articulate one that we can at\n\n10:33   18   least understand what this jury is going to be asked to\n\n10:33   19   decide before they would be allowed to proceed.\n\n10:33   20                        THE COURT:      A response?\n\n10:33   21                        MR. KOLEGRAFF:      Yes.     So as -- there are\n\n10:33   22   just a lot of triable issues of material fact here.\n\n10:33   23   And what Rhodium has done to try to eliminate those\n\n10:33   24   facts is they've taken a very unusual reading -- a\n\n10:33   25   plain reading of Claim 1.\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187   Filed 04/11/24    Page 40 of 56\n                                                                                     40\n\n10:33    1                        And what they're trying to say is that\n\n10:33    2   you have to have your temperature sensor in the tank to\n\n10:33    3   take the temperature of the fluid.\n\n10:34    4                        Their entire motion is based upon that\n\n10:34    5   premise, that they have to require a sensor in the tank\n\n10:34    6   taking the temperature of the fluid.                  But the claim\n\n10:34    7   just doesn't say that.\n\n10:34    8                        Now, this is extremely important to it.\n\n10:34    9   On Page 2 of their motion, they say:                  In other words,\n\n10:34   10   to infringe Midas' asserted claims, a cooling system\n\n10:34   11   must take advantage of the dielectric fluid while it\n\n10:34   12   is -- must take the temperature while it is in the\n\n10:34   13   tank.\n\n10:34   14                        They say the same thing on Page 4:\n\n10:34   15   Neither of the tanks have a fluid temperature in the\n\n10:34   16   tank.\n\n10:34   17                        This is repeated throughout their motion.\n\n10:34   18   That is the basis for this entire motion, is that there\n\n10:34   19   has to be a temperature sensor inside the tank in order\n\n10:34   20   to take the temperature.\n\n10:34   21                        If we look at Claim 1 and parse it, it\n\n10:34   22   talks about:         A control facility adapted to coordinate\n\n10:34   23   the operation of the primary and secondary fluid\n\n10:35   24   circulation facilities as a function of the temperature\n\n10:35   25   of the dielectric fluid in the tank.\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 41 of 56\n                                                                                      41\n\n10:35    1                        That plain reading does not say where a\n\n10:35    2   temperature sensor has to be.              It certainly doesn't\n\n10:35    3   place it in the tank.         It certainly doesn't even say\n\n10:35    4   you have to take the measurement of the fluid itself.\n\n10:35    5                        All you have to do is collect enough\n\n10:35    6   information so that you can coordinate the operation of\n\n10:35    7   the two circulation facilities.\n\n10:35    8                        So here you can have that sensor -- that\n\n10:35    9   temperature sensor, you could have it in the tank.                     You\n\n10:35   10   don't have to.         But you could have it on the pipe\n\n10:35   11   leading out of the tank.             You could have it on the\n\n10:35   12   inlet pipe to the tank.          You could have it further down\n\n10:35   13   towards the coolers.\n\n10:35   14                        Every one of those data points, every one\n\n10:35   15   of those points, is going to give you sufficient data\n\n10:35   16   in order to make decisions on how you want to run your\n\n10:35   17   pumps and fans.\n\n10:35   18                        For example, we are talking about the\n\n10:35   19   Guntner coolers, which are the coolers that sit out in\n\n10:35   20   the -- outside the building, there, we are measuring\n\n10:36   21   the fluid temperature that comes out of the cooler.\n\n10:36   22                        That is the exact same temperature as is\n\n10:36   23   going into the tank.         So we are measuring the\n\n10:36   24   temperature of the fluid in the tank, and we adjust the\n\n10:36   25   fan speeds of that Guntner -- excuse me -- Rhodium\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187   Filed 04/11/24   Page 42 of 56\n                                                                                   42\n\n10:36    1   adjusts the fan speeds of the Guntner cooler to make\n\n10:36    2   sure that that inlet temperature to the tank remains\n\n10:36    3   very constant.\n\n10:36    4                        We know for a fact that the claim does\n\n10:36    5   not require that the temperature sensor be in the tank,\n\n10:36    6   and we know it for at least a couple of reasons.\n\n10:36    7                        First of all, if we look at Figure 13 of\n\n10:36    8   the patent, there are sensors that are shown not only\n\n10:36    9   in the reservoir, which is separate from the tank, but\n\n10:36   10   the temperature sensors are also shown in the fluid\n\n10:36   11   pipes and shown in the fluid pipes of the primary\n\n10:36   12   circulation facility and shown as the temperature\n\n10:37   13   sensors in the secondary facility.\n\n10:37   14                        So even the embodiments that we have in\n\n10:37   15   the patent do not show the sensor in the tank.\n\n10:37   16                        It's also shown in Figures 4 and 12 where\n\n10:37   17   you have the tank, which is numbered 14, the tank 14\n\n10:37   18   does not have a sensor in it.             The only sensor is in\n\n10:37   19   the recovery reservoir, which is No. 42.                  So again,\n\n10:37   20   even the embodiments that we have in the patent do not\n\n10:37   21   require that the sensor be in the tank.\n\n10:37   22                        So let's talk a little bit about Prime\n\n10:37   23   Controls.     Prime Controls is a very sophisticated\n\n10:37   24   control system that has no other purpose in life but to\n\n10:37   25   control and manage the system at the Temple facility.\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187   Filed 04/11/24   Page 43 of 56\n                                                                                       43\n\n10:37    1   There are temperature sensors, there are pump controls,\n\n10:37    2   there are reporting facilities.              They spent millions of\n\n10:37    3   dollars putting this thing in, and it has no\n\n10:37    4   noninfringing functionality.\n\n10:37    5                        Again, if you look at Exhibit G of our\n\n10:38    6   opposition, you can see that they have the layout of\n\n10:38    7   the complete system, the entire plumbing and design\n\n10:38    8   system.     H shows a picture of the Kelvion and Temple\n\n10:38    9   coolers that have the temperature sensors installed.\n\n10:38   10   They're already there in the pipes.\n\n10:38   11                        They talked about saddles being\n\n10:38   12   installed.     They purchased saddles to put on those\n\n10:38   13   pipes so they can make the finishing of the\n\n10:38   14   installation even easier.\n\n10:38   15                        If you look at Exhibit I, there is an\n\n10:38   16   issued-for-approval manual on how this whole system is\n\n10:38   17   supposed to be put together, this Prime Control system,\n\n10:38   18   and it shows all of these things working and in\n\n10:38   19   operation.     So it's almost fully installed.                They just\n\n10:38   20   haven't flipped the final switch.\n\n10:38   21                        And let's -- we're going to suggest here,\n\n10:38   22   is that they have just not turned on that switch\n\n10:39   23   because of this litigation.            As soon as this litigation\n\n10:39   24   is over, you know, they're very likely to turn this\n\n10:39   25   thing back on because, again, they've got a million\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187   Filed 04/11/24   Page 44 of 56\n                                                                                    44\n\n10:39    1   dollars of sunk costs, that they're going to need to\n\n10:39    2   turn on.     And we have an e-mail, this is from a Depo\n\n10:39    3   Exhibit 77, that says:          Our plan -- and that's\n\n10:39    4   referring to Rhodium -- Our plan is to get Prime\n\n10:39    5   Controls paid back and then have Prime Controls finish\n\n10:39    6   the rest of the work on the site.\n\n10:39    7                        So that is a huge issue of fact, whether\n\n10:39    8   or not Rhodium is going to reactivate or activate this\n\n10:39    9   Prime Controls when this litigation is over.\n\n10:39   10                        Also, so -- also, how much work they have\n\n10:39   11   left to do is also a huge issue of fact as it goes to\n\n10:39   12   Prime Controls.\n\n10:39   13                        As far as any waiver, we've waved\n\n10:39   14   nothing.     We attached the entire report of\n\n10:40   15   Dr. Pokharna, where he goes not only through literal\n\n10:40   16   infringement, he goes through doctrine of equivalents\n\n10:40   17   infringement on all of these issues.\n\n10:40   18                        As far as the Kelvion systems at Temple,\n\n10:40   19   that really reduces down to the same arguments we were\n\n10:40   20   just talking about with Prime Controls.                 That is, the\n\n10:40   21   temperature sensors are there.             The computers are in\n\n10:40   22   place.     It's basically all set to go, they just have to\n\n10:40   23   finish wiring it up and then they're going to be able\n\n10:40   24   to control the Kelvion coolers based upon the\n\n10:40   25   temperature of the coolant.\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                        U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187   Filed 04/11/24   Page 45 of 56\n                                                                                      45\n\n10:40    1                        At Guntner, which is at the Rockdale\n\n10:40    2   facility, that we do know is in operation.                  They\n\n10:40    3   actually have the Guntner coolers that sense the\n\n10:40    4   temperature of the fluid as it's exiting the Guntner\n\n10:40    5   coolers.     And based upon that temperature, they adjust\n\n10:40    6   the fan speed.         This is in the Guntner motor managing\n\n10:40    7   manual.\n\n10:40    8                        They adjust the speed of the fans to keep\n\n10:40    9   that outlook temperature the same.               That outlook\n\n10:40   10   temperature fluid is the temperature of the fluid as\n\n10:41   11   it's going into the tank.\n\n10:41   12                        Finally, we get to the Restful API, which\n\n10:41   13   is this idea that we're checking the temperature of the\n\n10:41   14   fluid in the tank by using functionality built into the\n\n10:41   15   miners.     These miners, which are just very\n\n10:41   16   sophisticated computers, actually have a couple\n\n10:41   17   different sets of temperature gauges, sensors inside of\n\n10:41   18   the miners.      One of those is to measure the temperature\n\n10:41   19   of the PCB board, the printed circuit board.                   And the\n\n10:41   20   printed circuit board is what's setting up against the\n\n10:41   21   fluid.     So that is measuring the temperature of the\n\n10:41   22   fluid.\n\n10:41   23                        And based upon that, the system\n\n10:41   24   automatically puts more power on to the miner, if it\n\n10:41   25   can handle warming the fluid similar.                 If the fluid is\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                        U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 46 of 56\n                                                                                    46\n\n10:41    1   too warm, then it actually powers down the miner; it\n\n10:41    2   has the miner generate less power.                That way it adjusts\n\n10:41    3   the amount of heat that is injected into the system,\n\n10:41    4   which is controlling the circulation of both the\n\n10:42    5   primary and the secondary circulation facilities.\n\n10:42    6                        So here we just have a lot of issues of\n\n10:42    7   fact as to whether or not Prime Controls is going to be\n\n10:42    8   actually finished.         We've got questions of fact as to\n\n10:42    9   how the Guntner is actually managing the fan speed to\n\n10:42   10   control the temperature of the tank; and really, all\n\n10:42   11   gets down to their assertion that the temperature probe\n\n10:42   12   has to be in the tank, which is just not the plain\n\n10:42   13   meaning of this claim.\n\n10:42   14                        So with that, I'll turn it back.\n\n10:42   15                        MS. BRANNEN:      May I respond?\n\n10:42   16                        THE COURT:      Rebuttal?\n\n10:42   17                        Please.\n\n10:42   18                        MS. BRANNEN:      Thank you.\n\n10:42   19                        So I'll try to make five or fewer points.\n\n10:42   20   First, I want to talk about what we did not hear.\n\n10:42   21   Normally, to oppose summary judgment where we would --\n\n10:42   22   you would hear the plaintiff saying, This is what I\n\n10:42   23   think the plain meaning of this limitation is, and this\n\n10:43   24   is the evidence I'm pointing you to, Judge, where a\n\n10:43   25   reasonable jury could find that the temperature of the\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187   Filed 04/11/24   Page 47 of 56\n                                                                                         47\n\n10:43    1   fluid in the tank is part of the -- is adapted to\n\n10:43    2   control both of these variables.\n\n10:43    3                        We've never heard that.\n\n10:43    4                        We've heard them saying that I'm asking\n\n10:43    5   you to give an overly narrow claim construction.                      I'm\n\n10:43    6   not.    But they need to be doing something.                If they're\n\n10:43    7   not measuring it with a sensor in the tank, they need\n\n10:43    8   to be explaining what evidence there is that we do\n\n10:43    9   anything like using that temperature of the fluid in\n\n10:43   10   the tank to coordinate the operation -- to be adapted\n\n10:43   11   to coordinate the operation of two different control\n\n10:43   12   facilities.\n\n10:43   13                        And I didn't hear counsel give an\n\n10:43   14   explanation of what that limitation means or what\n\n10:43   15   evidence satisfies it.\n\n10:43   16                        With respect to Prime Controls -- and\n\n10:43   17   this applies to Prime Controls and the Kelvion coolers\n\n10:43   18   where they were going to install sensors but never did.\n\n10:43   19   The most -- this is where we heard counsel try to point\n\n10:43   20   to evidence, but he points to some unidentified\n\n10:44   21   deposition testimony that I'm not sure was even in the\n\n10:44   22   opposition brief, and is from several years ago, I\n\n10:44   23   believe, saying that at one point Rhodium planned to\n\n10:44   24   have Prime Controls finish its work.\n\n10:44   25                        That is of no moment now.\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187   Filed 04/11/24   Page 48 of 56\n                                                                                         48\n\n10:44    1                        If we're going to have a trial now, we\n\n10:44    2   can't have an advisory opinion about a system that\n\n10:44    3   isn't in place.         And that would -- even if we could,\n\n10:44    4   that would be an enormous waste of resources.                     We need\n\n10:44    5   to have a trial over the system as it exists now.                     And\n\n10:44    6   Mr. Kolegraff is not pointing to any evidence that all\n\n10:44    7   Rhodium needs to do is turn on the switch.                  The\n\n10:44    8   evidence is to the contrary.\n\n10:44    9                        Their own evidence that they cite to this\n\n10:44   10   Court is that none of the sensors is wired in.                     Their\n\n10:44   11   expert concedes that the system is incapable of\n\n10:44   12   measuring temperature.          We really ought not to have a\n\n10:44   13   trial over Prime Controls and Kelvion, which may never\n\n10:44   14   be finished, may be changed.            It's not the province of\n\n10:45   15   federal courts to have a trial over something that\n\n10:45   16   might happen with a system in the future.\n\n10:45   17                        There also is no evidence of how these\n\n10:45   18   sensors, which are nowhere near the tank containing the\n\n10:45   19   bitcoin miners, if they were operational, would be used\n\n10:45   20   to coordinate the operation of both the fans and the\n\n10:45   21   coolers.     That's what they say they would do, but how\n\n10:45   22   would that be adapted to coordinate the operation of\n\n10:45   23   what they say counts as the primary circulation\n\n10:45   24   facility, the pumps and the pipes?\n\n10:45   25                        We didn't hear that.        We won't hear that,\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                        U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187   Filed 04/11/24   Page 49 of 56\n                                                                                        49\n\n10:45    1   from them or their expert, because they have no\n\n10:45    2   evidence of that.         And they haven't tried to point Your\n\n10:45    3   Honor to that evidence now.\n\n10:45    4                        The third point I'd like to make is about\n\n10:45    5   Guntner.     Mr. Kolegraff misstated the record.                I will\n\n10:45    6   show -- this is their opposition brief, Docket 164.\n\n10:46    7   Near the end, I think we're at Page 21.                 Yeah.\n\n10:46    8   Page 21.\n\n10:46    9                        The Guntner coolers -- which he\n\n10:46   10   acknowledges are outside the building -- the\n\n10:46   11   temperature sensors there sense the temperature -- I'm\n\n10:46   12   quoting from their brief -- sense the temperature of\n\n10:46   13   the dielectric fluid flowing out of the evaporative\n\n10:46   14   cooler.\n\n10:46   15                        The job of that cooler is to cool.               So\n\n10:46   16   it's obviously not the same as the temperature of the\n\n10:46   17   liquid when it's in the tank with the miners.                   And\n\n10:46   18   their expert concedes as much, and they have completely\n\n10:46   19   abandoned any effort to explain how it's\n\n10:46   20   insubstantially different or how, under the doctrine of\n\n10:46   21   equivalents, this theory could survive.\n\n10:46   22                        And the second thing about Guntner, all\n\n10:46   23   they say at that page of their brief is that the sensor\n\n10:46   24   there in that Guntner cooler is adapted to adjust the\n\n10:46   25   cooler's fan speed.         Okay.    So they have evidence to\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                        U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187   Filed 04/11/24   Page 50 of 56\n                                                                                   50\n\n10:47    1   get to the jury on one of the two circulation\n\n10:47    2   facilities that they need.\n\n10:47    3                        But we didn't even hear Mr. Kolegraff\n\n10:47    4   point to any evidence about coordination of the primary\n\n10:47    5   facility, the pumps and the pipes, because Guntner,\n\n10:47    6   there is no evidence from which a reasonable juror\n\n10:47    7   could conclude that this claim limitation is satisfied.\n\n10:47    8                        And finally, on Restful API, I will say,\n\n10:47    9   we heard attorney argument, but all they're really\n\n10:47   10   saying is that Rhodium can monitor the temperature of\n\n10:47   11   the chips.     They're not pointing to any evidence that\n\n10:47   12   the chip temperature or the PCB board temperature is\n\n10:47   13   actually adapted to coordinate the operation of\n\n10:47   14   anything that they've pointed to as the primary or\n\n10:47   15   secondary circulation facilities.\n\n10:47   16                        And to -- just to conclude, at minimum,\n\n10:47   17   Your Honor, I hope we have at least made the case\n\n10:47   18   narrower on doctrine of equivalents, because they did\n\n10:47   19   not -- they can't save that by just saying, Oh, but we\n\n10:47   20   attached our expert report.\n\n10:48   21                        Well, our brief went through the expert\n\n10:48   22   report and explained why what the expert said couldn't\n\n10:48   23   count -- wasn't enough to get to a jury on doctrine of\n\n10:48   24   equivalents.         And they made no attempt to defend that,\n\n10:48   25   and they shouldn't get to revive it now.\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 51 of 56\n                                                                                          51\n\n10:48    1                        MR. KOLEGRAFF:      Your Honor?\n\n10:48    2                        THE COURT:      Yes, sir.\n\n10:48    3                        MR. KOLEGRAFF:      May I address those\n\n10:48    4   points or...\n\n10:48    5                        Yes.   So you asked if we ever described\n\n10:48    6   where we get our plain meaning that the temperature\n\n10:48    7   probe does not have to be in the tank.                  I don't want to\n\n10:48    8   repeat myself, but yes.           We did have evidence that\n\n10:48    9   we've shown the Court today.\n\n10:48   10                        For example, Figure 4 and Figure 12 of\n\n10:48   11   the patent shows that the sensors don't have to be in\n\n10:48   12   the tank.     Figure 13 actually shows that you could have\n\n10:48   13   the sensors on the fluid lines and the reservoir.                      You\n\n10:48   14   could have it on the -- on the coolant lines.                    You\n\n10:48   15   could have it in the primary.              You could have it in the\n\n        16   secondary.\n\n10:48   17                        You can put that -- those temperature\n\n10:48   18   probes wherever you want them and still control the\n\n10:48   19   primary and secondary circulation of those.\n\n10:48   20                        Something we have to understand when we\n\n10:49   21   look at the Rhodium system, because we're talking about\n\n10:49   22   primary versus secondary, here the primary is the\n\n10:49   23   portion of the system that takes the fluid and flows it\n\n10:49   24   through the tank, which extracts heat from the miner.\n\n10:49   25   The secondary's what happens out at the coolers, where\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 52 of 56\n                                                                                        52\n\n10:49    1   you take that fluid and cool it through the evaporative\n\n10:49    2   cooler.\n\n10:49    3                        So where do we have to measure?             This is\n\n10:49    4   our Point No. 2.\n\n10:49    5                        So she's saying we haven't talked about\n\n10:49    6   where we actually take the measurements.                   Well, if\n\n10:49    7   you're talking about Prime Controls, they take the\n\n10:49    8   measurements all over the place.\n\n10:49    9                        Their system has no noninfringing\n\n10:49   10   functionality.         It is adapted to take the temperatures\n\n10:49   11   and control the fans.\n\n10:49   12                        True.   At this exact moment in time the\n\n10:49   13   wires haven't been hooked up, but we have evidence, we\n\n10:49   14   have the e-mail that says they are planning to hook\n\n10:49   15   these things up when they get the chance.\n\n10:49   16                        So they are going to use this system at\n\n10:49   17   some point.      It's just not believable that you're going\n\n10:49   18   to have millions of dollars worth of control equipment\n\n10:49   19   sitting there, all of these computers, a room full of\n\n10:49   20   computers meant to control this facility, and you're\n\n10:50   21   not going to turn it on.\n\n10:50   22                        So again, the same thing with the Prime\n\n10:50   23   Control and the Kelvion.             Even though it can't measure\n\n10:50   24   today, it certainly is adapted to.\n\n10:50   25                        Now, again, Ms. Brannen said that I\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187   Filed 04/11/24   Page 53 of 56\n                                                                                   53\n\n10:50    1   misquoted how the Guntner works.              I thought I got that\n\n10:50    2   right, because I do understand that what's flowing --\n\n10:50    3   what we are measuring is the output of the Guntner\n\n10:50    4   cooler.     That is true.\n\n10:50    5                        And that -- and I think I pointed out\n\n10:50    6   that the output of the Guntner cooler is actually the\n\n10:50    7   input to the tank.\n\n10:50    8                        So we are measuring the fluid temperature\n\n10:50    9   of the temperature in the tank.              It's just we're\n\n10:50   10   measuring that at the input line rather than the output\n\n10:50   11   line.\n\n10:50   12                        So she asked:     How is that coordinating\n\n10:50   13   primary and secondary?\n\n10:50   14                        Well, you have the fans on the Guntner\n\n10:50   15   cooler, which are adjusting to keep that output at a\n\n10:50   16   certain temperature or temperature range to make sure\n\n10:50   17   the miners are being cooled.            That is affecting the\n\n10:51   18   temperature of the fluid as it flows through the\n\n10:51   19   primary system and through the secondary system.\n\n10:51   20                        We are coordinating the control of the\n\n10:51   21   facilities by using the output temperature from that\n\n10:51   22   Guntner cooler.\n\n10:51   23                        As far as the Restful API, I think we've\n\n10:51   24   shown pretty strongly in the expert report that we are\n\n10:51   25   measuring at a temperature of the fluid using the PCB\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 54 of 56\n                                                                                        54\n\n10:51    1   inside the miner itself, and then that is used to reset\n\n10:51    2   the miner to either increase power if it can be run\n\n10:51    3   warmer or decrease power if you need it to run cooler.\n\n10:51    4                        So I think we've shown this in all of it.\n\n10:51    5   Again, there's a -- plenty of genuine issues of fact\n\n10:51    6   here for denying this motion.\n\n10:51    7                        THE COURT:      I'll be back in a few\n\n10:51    8   seconds.\n\n10:51    9                        (Pause in proceedings.)\n\n10:54   10                        THE COURT:      The Court is going to grant\n\n10:55   11   the motion for summary judgment of noninfringement.                    I\n\n10:55   12   think that fully takes care of the case for the time\n\n10:55   13   being.\n\n10:55   14                        I'm not going to take up the motions in\n\n10:55   15   limine given my ruling on that motion, which I think\n\n10:55   16   obviates the need for a trial at this time.\n\n10:55   17                        Is there anything else we need to take up\n\n10:55   18   today?\n\n10:55   19                        MR. KOLEGRAFF:      Your Honor, would we be\n\n10:55   20   able to readdress this -- after we get Pokharna's\n\n10:55   21   report redone, would we be able to readdress this issue\n\n10:55   22   on the motion for summary judgment?\n\n10:55   23                        THE COURT:      Well, you know, you have --\n\n10:55   24   you've had your chance, but obviously, it's a fairly\n\n10:55   25   severe ruling.         Let me talk to my clerks and see if\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                        U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187    Filed 04/11/24   Page 55 of 56\n                                                                                       55\n\n10:55    1   they think anything additional that an expert would say\n\n10:56    2   might benefit us.         And if it is, we'll let you know.\n\n10:56    3   As of right now, I don't think it would.\n\n10:56    4                        So anything besides that?\n\n10:56    5                        MR. SMITH:      Your Honor, if I could ask\n\n10:56    6   one more question about the Court's ruling.\n\n10:56    7                        There's been a fair amount of argument\n\n10:56    8   today about how the systems are today versus after how\n\n10:56    9   the systems are turned on or wired or whatever.\n\n10:56   10                        So I think we'd want to confirm the scope\n\n10:56   11   of the Court's ruling so we would know whether a claim\n\n10:56   12   against the facilities, once they're put into\n\n10:56   13   operation, would be affected by the Court's ruling\n\n10:56   14   today, or would that be a different set of facts?\n\n10:56   15                        THE COURT:      That would be a different set\n\n10:56   16   of facts.     I don't know --\n\n10:56   17                        MR. SMITH:      Thank you, Your Honor.\n\n10:56   18                        THE COURT:      Yeah.   I don't know that it\n\n10:56   19   would change the ruling ultimately, but, you know, that\n\n10:56   20   clearly is an issue in this case.\n\n10:56   21                        MR. SMITH:      Okay.   Thank you, Your Honor.\n\n10:56   22                        THE COURT:      Okay.   Have a good day.          Take\n\n10:56   23   care.\n\n10:56   24                        (Hearing adjourned.)\n\n        25\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 187   Filed 04/11/24   Page 56 of 56\n                                                                                   56\n\n         1   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT )\n\n         2   WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS              )\n\n         3\n\n         4\n\n         5                        I, Kristie M. Davis, Official Court\n\n         6   Reporter for the United States District Court, Western\n\n         7   District of Texas, do certify that the foregoing is a\n\n         8   correct transcript from the record of proceedings in\n\n         9   the above-entitled matter.\n\n        10                        I certify that the transcript fees and\n\n        11   format comply with those prescribed by the Court and\n\n        12   Judicial Conference of the United States.\n\n        13                        Certified to by me this 11th day of April\n\n        14   2024.\n\n        15\n                                             /s/ Kristie M. Davis\n        16                                   KRISTIE M. DAVIS\n                                             Official Court Reporter\n        17                                   800 Franklin Avenue\n                                             Waco, Texas 76701\n        18                                   (254) 340-6114\n10:56                                        kmdaviscsr@yahoo.com\n        19\n\n        20\n\n        21\n\n        22\n\n        23\n\n        24\n\n        25\n\n\n\n                         KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n                       U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T11:00:01.621303-08:00","document_number":"187","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181031975050","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript Filed","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-04-11T14:48:41.138720-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:03.829580-08:00","date_filed":"2024-04-11","time_filed":"16:36:45","entry_number":187,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-04-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":849,"description":"Transcript filed of Proceedings held on 4-9-24, Proceedings Transcribed: Pretrial Conference. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kristie Davis (kmdaviscsr@yahoo.com), Telephone number: 12546660904. Parties are notified of their duty to review the transcript to ensure compliance with the FRCP 5.2(a)/FRCrP 49.1(a). A copy may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. If redaction is necessary, a Notice of Redaction Request must be filed within 21 days. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made available via PACER without redaction after 90 calendar days. The clerk will mail a copy of this notice to parties not electronically noticed Redaction Request due 5/2/2024, Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/13/2024, Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/10/2024, (kd) (Entered: 04/11/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/384320283/","id":384320283,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/392520310/","id":392520310,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/186/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-04-11T08:31:41.576339-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:03.797890-08:00","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":"186","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181031970282","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Pretrial Conference","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-04-11T08:31:41.557803-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:03.752384-08:00","date_filed":"2024-04-09","time_filed":null,"entry_number":186,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-04-09.003","pacer_sequence_number":847,"description":"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alan D Albright: ZOOM FINAL Pretrial Conference held on 4/9/2024. PARTIES ANNOUNCE READY. STATEMENTS AND ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL HEARD. WRITTEN ORDER FORTHCOMING. (Minute entry documents are not available electronically.). (Court Reporter Kristie Davis.)(cav) (Entered: 04/11/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/384032861/","id":384032861,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/392182704/","id":392182704,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/185/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-04-09T11:11:36.718380-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:03.699121-08:00","sha1":"006b8a40f70ada4ff20b19e116c99579ad3e6d94","page_count":2,"file_size":153655,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.185.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.185.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"  AO 435            Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                           Document 185            Filed 04/09/24       Page 1 of 2\n(Rev. 04/18)\n                                                ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS                 FOR COURT USE ONLY\n\n                                                                                                                  DUE DATE:\n                                                             TRANSCRIPT ORDER\nPlease Read Instructions:\n1. NAME                                                                          2. PHONE NUMBER                  3. DATE\nJoseph E. Thomas                                                                 (949) 679-6400                   4/9/2024\n4. DELIVERY ADDRESS OR EMAIL                  jthomas@twtlaw.com                 5. CITY                          6. STATE         7. ZIP CODE\n18101 Von Karman Ave., Ste. 230                                                  Irvine                           CA                92612\n8. CASE NUMBER                               9. JUDGE                      DATES OF PROCEEDINGS\n6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Hon. Alan D. Albright        10. FROM 4/9/2024             11. TO 4/9/2024\n12. CASE NAME                                                             LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC v. Rhodium Enterprises, Inc.,\n                                                         13.et al Waco\n                                                             CITY                      14. STATE Texas\n15. ORDER FOR\n\u2019 APPEAL                    \u2019 CRIMINAL                   \u2019 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT         \u2019 BANKRUPTCY\n\u2019 NON-APPEAL                                 \u2019 CIVIL                             \u2019 IN FORMA PAUPERIS                  \u2019 OTHER (Specify)\n16. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested)\n\n                 PORTIONS                                    DATE(S)                         PORTION(S)                         DATE(S)\n\u2019 VOIR DIRE                                                                      \u2019 TESTIMONY (Specify Witness)\n\u2019 OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)\n\u2019 OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)\n\u2019 CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff)                                                   \u2019 PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING (Spcy)    4/9/2024\n\u2019 CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)\n\u2019 OPINION OF COURT\n\u2019 JURY INSTRUCTIONS                                                              \u2019 OTHER (Specify)\n\u2019 SENTENCING\n\u2019 BAIL HEARING\n                                                                            17. ORDER\n                            ORIGINAL                             ADDITIONAL\n CATEGORY           (Includes Certified Copy to     FIRST COPY                          NO. OF PAGES ESTIMATE                    COSTS\n                  Clerk for Records of the Court)\n                                                                   COPIES\n                                                                 NO. OF COPIES\n  ORDINARY                      \u2019                       \u2019\n                                                                 NO. OF COPIES\n    14-Day                      \u2019                       \u2019\n                                                                 NO. OF COPIES\n  EXPEDITED                     \u2019                       \u2019\n                                                                 NO. OF COPIES\n     3-Day                      \u2019                       \u2019              1\n                                                                 NO. OF COPIES\n    DAILY                       \u2019                       \u2019\n                                                                 NO. OF COPIES\n   HOURLY                       \u2019                       \u2019\n  REALTIME                      \u2019                       \u2019\n                     CERTIFICATION (18. & 19.)\n           By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges                         ESTIMATE TOTAL\n                        (deposit plus additional).                                                                $              0.00 0.00\n18. SIGNATURE                                                                    PROCESSED BY\n/s/ Joseph E. Thomas\n19. DATE                                                                         PHONE NUMBER\n4/9/2024\nTRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY                                                     COURT ADDRESS\n\n\n\n\n                                                      DATE             BY\nORDER RECEIVED\n\nDEPOSIT PAID                                                                     DEPOSIT PAID\n\nTRANSCRIPT ORDERED                                                               TOTAL CHARGES                    $              0.00 0.00\n\nTRANSCRIPT RECEIVED                                                              LESS DEPOSIT                     $              0.00 0.00\nORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED\nTO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT                                                            TOTAL REFUNDED\n\nPARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT                                                        TOTAL DUE                        $              0.00 0.00\n             DISTRIBUTION:            COURT COPY         TRANSCRIPTION COPY      ORDER RECEIPT       ORDER COPY\n\f                Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                Document 185           Filed 04/09/24        Page 2 of 2\n  AO 435\n(Rev. 04/18)                                           INSTRUCTIONS\n\n\n                                                           GENERAL\n\nUse. Use this form to order the transcription of proceedings. Complete a separate order form for each case number for which\ntranscripts are ordered.\n\nCompletion. Complete Items 1-19. Do not complete shaded areas which are reserved for the court\u2019s use.\n\nOrder Copy. Keep a copy for your records.\n\nSubmitting to the Court. Submit the form in the format required by the court.\n\nDeposit Fee. The court will notify you of the amount of the required deposit fee which may be mailed or delivered to the court.\nUpon receipt of the deposit, the court will process the order.\n\nDelivery Time. Delivery time is computed from the date of receipt of the deposit fee or for transcripts ordered by the federal\ngovernment from the date of receipt of the signed order form.\n\nCompletion of Order. The court will notify you when the transcript is completed.\n\nBalance Due. If the deposit fee was insufficient to cover all charges, the court will notify you of the balance due which must be\npaid prior to receiving the completed order.\n\n                                                           SPECIFIC\n\nItems 1-19.    These items should always be completed.\nItem 8.        Only one case number may be listed per order.\nItem 15.       Place an \u201cX\u201d in each box that applies.\nItem 16.       Place an \u201cX\u201d in the box for each portion requested. List specific date(s) of the proceedings for which transcript is\n               requested. Be sure that the description is clearly written to facilitate processing. Orders may be placed for as few\n               pages of transcript as are needed.\nItem 17.       Categories. There are six (6) categories of transcripts which may be ordered. These are:\n                       Ordinary. A transcript to be delivered within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of an order. (Order\n                       is considered received upon receipt of the deposit.)\n                       14-Day. A transcript to be delivered within fourteen (14) calendar days after receipt of an order.\n                       Expedited. A transcript to be delivered within seven (7) calendar days after receipt of an order.\n                       3-Day. A transcript to be delivered within three (3) calendar days after receipt of an order.\n                       Daily. A transcript to be delivered following adjournment and prior to the normal opening hour of the\n                       court on the following morning whether or not it actually is a court day.\n                       Hourly. A transcript of proceedings ordered under unusual circumstances to be delivered within two (2)\n                       hours.\n                       Realtime. A draft unedited transcript produced by a certified realtime reporter as a byproduct of realtime\n                       to be delivered electronically during proceedings or immediately following adjournment.\n\nNOTE: Full price may be charged only if the transcript is delivered within the required time frame. For example, if an order for\nexpedited transcript is not completed and delivered within seven (7) calendar days, payment would be at the 14-day delivery rate,\nand if not completed and delivered within 14 calendar days, payment would be at the ordinary delivery rate.\n\n               Ordering. Place an \u201cX\u201d in each box that applies. Indicate the number of additional copies ordered.\n                      Original. Original typing of the transcript. An original must be ordered and prepared prior to the\n                      availability of copies. The original fee is charged only once. The fee for the original includes the copy\n                      for the records of the court.\n                      First Copy. First copy of the transcript after the original has been prepared. All parties ordering copies\n                      must pay this rate for the first copy ordered.\n                      Additional Copies. All other copies of the transcript ordered by the same party.\nItem 18.              Sign in this space to certify that you will pay all charges. (This includes the deposit plus any additional\n                      charges.)\nItem 19.              Enter the date of signing.\n\nShaded Area. Reserved for the court\u2019s use.\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T11:00:29.810471-08:00","document_number":"185","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181031954076","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript Request (Miscellaneous)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-04-09T11:11:36.696246-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:03.654792-08:00","date_filed":"2024-04-09","time_filed":"12:29:24","entry_number":185,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-04-09.002","pacer_sequence_number":845,"description":"TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Midas Green Technologies, LLC for proceedings held on 4/9/2024. Proceedings Transcribed: Pre-trial Conference. Court Reporter: Kristie Davis. (Thomas, Joseph) (Entered: 04/09/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/384021539/","id":384021539,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/392170486/","id":392170486,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/184/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-04-09T10:09:19.439946-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:03.607449-08:00","sha1":"7b885de5caba4d0f5a15cc97583870bc11884be3","page_count":1,"file_size":161855,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.184.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.184.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"  AO 435            Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                           Document 184            Filed 04/09/24       Page 1 of 1\n(Rev. 04/18)\n                                                ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS                 FOR COURT USE ONLY\n\n                                                                                                                  DUE DATE:\n                                                             TRANSCRIPT ORDER\nPlease Read Instructions:\n1. NAME                                                                          2. PHONE NUMBER                  3. DATE\nMelissa R. Smith                                                                 (903) 934-8450                   4/9/2024\n4. '(/,9(5< ADDRESS\u000325\u0003(0$,/                                                     5. CITY                          6. STATE         7. ZIP CODE\n303 South Washington Avenue                                                      Marshall                         Texas             75670\n8. CASE NUMBER                               9. JUDGE                      DATES OF PROCEEDINGS\n6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Alan D Albright              10. FROM 4/9/2024             11. TO 4/9/2024\n12. CASE NAME                                                             LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC v. Rhodium Enterprises, In 13. CITY Waco                 14. STATE Tx\n15. ORDER FOR\nu APPEAL                    u CRIMINAL                   u CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT         u BANKRUPTCY\nu NON-APPEAL                                 u CIVIL                             u IN FORMA PAUPERIS                  u OTHER (Specify)\n16. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested)\n\n                 PORTIONS                                    DATE(S)                         PORTION(S)                         DATE(S)\nu VOIR DIRE                                                                      u TESTIMONY (Specify Witness)\nu OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)\nu OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)\nu CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff)                                                   u PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING (Spcy)    4/9/2024\nu CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)\nu OPINION OF COURT\nu JURY INSTRUCTIONS                                                              u OTHER (Specify)\nu SENTENCING\nu BAIL HEARING\n                                                                            17. ORDER\n                            ORIGINAL                             ADDITIONAL\n CATEGORY           (Includes Certified Copy to     FIRST COPY                          NO. OF PAGES ESTIMATE                    COSTS\n                  Clerk for Records of the Court)\n                                                                   COPIES\n                                                                 NO. OF COPIES\n  ORDINARY                      u                       u\n                                                                 NO. OF COPIES\n    14-Day                      u                       u\n                                                                 NO. OF COPIES\n EXPEDITED                      u                       u\n                                                                 NO. OF COPIES\n     3-Day                      u                       u              1\n                                                                 NO. OF COPIES\n    DAILY                       u                       u\n                                                                 NO. OF COPIES\n   HOURLY                       u                       u\n  REALTIME                      u                       u\n                     CERTIFICATION (18. & 19.)\n           By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges                         ESTIMATE TOTAL\n                        (deposit plus additional).                                                                $              0.00 0.00\n18. SIGNATURE                                                                    PROCESSED BY\n/s/ Melissa R. Smith\n19. DATE                                                                         PHONE NUMBER\n4/9/2024\nTRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY                                                     COURT ADDRESS\n\n\n\n\n                                                      DATE             BY\nORDER RECEIVED\n\nDEPOSIT PAID                                                                     DEPOSIT PAID\n\nTRANSCRIPT ORDERED                                                               TOTAL CHARGES                    $              0.00 0.00\n\nTRANSCRIPT RECEIVED                                                              LESS DEPOSIT                     $              0.00 0.00\nORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED\nTO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT                                                            TOTAL REFUNDED\n\nPARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT                                                        TOTAL DUE                        $              0.00 0.00\n             DISTRIBUTION:            COURT COPY         TRANSCRIPTION COPY      ORDER RECEIPT       ORDER COPY\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T11:00:43.117603-08:00","document_number":"184","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181031953846","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript Request (Miscellaneous)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-04-09T10:09:19.413845-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:03.553799-08:00","date_filed":"2024-04-09","time_filed":"11:53:26","entry_number":184,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-04-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":843,"description":"TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Rhodium 10mw LLC, Rhodium 2.0 LLC, Rhodium 30mw LLC, Rhodium Encore LLC, Rhodium Enterprises, Inc., Rhodium Ready Ventures LLC, Rhodium Renewables LLC, Rhodium Renewables Sub LLC, Rhodium Technologies, LLC for proceedings held on April 9, 2024. Proceedings Transcribed: Pretrial Conference. Court Reporter: Kristie Davis. (Smith, Melissa) (Entered: 04/09/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/383902874/","id":383902874,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/392045438/","id":392045438,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/183/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-04-08T09:45:53.307724-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:03.451360-08:00","sha1":"72b85074ca9fdc242aa2ca55b3d6abad3750f149","page_count":1,"file_size":101033,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.183.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.183.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"       Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA      Document 183     Filed 04/08/24    Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                     WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                           WACO DIVISION\nMIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC              \u00a7\n                                           \u00a7\nvs.                                        \u00a7     NO: WA:22-CV-00050-ADA\n                                           \u00a7\nRHODIUM ENTERPRISES, INC.,                 \u00a7\nRHODIUM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,\nRHODIUM 10MW LLC, RHODIUM 2.0\nLLC, RHODIUM 30MW LLC, RHODIUM\nENCORE LLC, RHODIUM INDUSTRIES\nLLC, RHODIUM JV LLC, RHODIUM\nRENEWABLES LLC, RHODIUM SHARED\nSERVICES LLC, RHODIUM SHARED\nSERVICES PR INC., CHASE BLACKMON,\nCAMERON BLACKMON, NATHAN\nNICHOLS\n\n      ORDER RESETTING ZOOM FINAL PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE\n       IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is reset for\nZOOM FINAL PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE by Zoom on April 09, 2024 at 09:30 AM .\n\n\n             IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of April, 2024.\n\n\n\n                                               ______________________________\n                                               ALAN D ALBRIGHT\n                                               UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T11:00:59.097075-08:00","document_number":"183","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181031948174","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-04-08T09:45:53.289347-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:02.996211-08:00","date_filed":"2024-04-08","time_filed":"11:25:06","entry_number":183,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-04-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":840,"description":"ORDER RESETTING ZOOM FINAL PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE. Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/9/2024 09:30 AM before Judge Alan D Albright. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (cav) (Entered: 04/08/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/383087300/","id":383087300,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/390947448/","id":390947448,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/182/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-04-03T22:20:02.959576-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:02.921105-08:00","sha1":"357a918a3ecd2c3898eac325c76647ece3546d2b","page_count":19,"file_size":269544,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.0_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"            Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA       Document 182   Filed 04/03/24   Page 1 of 19\n\n\n\n\n                               IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                                FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                          WACO DIVISION\n\n\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC,                    CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:22-CV-00050-ADA\n\n             Plaintiff,\n                                                           Jury Trial Demanded\n                     - vs. -\n\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc.;\nRhodium Technologies LLC;\nRhodium 10mw LLC;\nRhodium 2.0 LLC;\nRhodium 30mw LLC;\nRhodium Encore LLC;\nRhodium Renewables LLC;\n\n             Defendants.\n\n\n\n\n                                     JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER\n\n\n\n\nB   P   P\n\f            Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                      Document 182                  Filed 04/03/24                Page 2 of 19\n\n\n\n\n                                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n             I.       APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL ............................................................................. 1\n\n                      A.         Attorneys for Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies LLC ............................ 1\n\n                      B.         Attorneys for Defendant Rhodium.............................................................. 1\n\n             II.      JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE................................................................... 2\n\n             III.     CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES .................................................................... 3\n\n                      A.         Midas\u2019 Contentions ..................................................................................... 3\n\n                      B.         Rhodium\u2019s Contentions .............................................................................. 3\n\n             IV.      STIPULATED FACTS ........................................................................................... 4\n\n             V.       DISPUTED ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW .......................................................... 5\n\n             VI.      EXHIBITS .............................................................................................................. 6\n\n             VII.     \u201cATTORNEYS EYES ONLY\u201d DESIGNATIONS ................................................ 7\n\n             VIII.    WITNESSES........................................................................................................... 7\n\n             IX.      DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS ........................................................................... 7\n\n             X.       PROCEDURAL STIPULATIONS AND TRIAL DISCLOSURES ...................... 8\n\n                      A.         Motions ....................................................................................................... 8\n\n                      B.         Exhibits ....................................................................................................... 8\n\n                      C.         Witnesses .................................................................................................. 10\n\n                      D.         Deposition Testimony ............................................................................... 11\n\n                      E.         Demonstrative Exhibits ............................................................................. 13\n\n                      F.         Closing Exhibits and Demonstratives ....................................................... 14\n\n             XI.      PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS ................................................................. 14\n\n             XII.     LIST OF PENDING MOTIONS .......................................................................... 15\n\n             XIII.    VOIR DIRE .......................................................................................................... 15\n\n             XIV. VERDICT FORM ................................................................................................. 15\n\n\nB   P   P\n                                                                        i\n\f            Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                  Document 182             Filed 04/03/24           Page 3 of 19\n\n\n\n\n             XV.      DISPUTED MOTIONS IN LIMINE .................................................................... 15\n\n             XVI. LENGTH OF TRIAL ............................................................................................ 16\n\n\n\n\nB   P   P\n                                                                 ii\n\f                 Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA       Document 182      Filed 04/03/24    Page 4 of 19\n\n\n\n\n                  Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies LLC (\"Midas\") and Defendants Rhodium Enterprises,\n\nInc.; Rhodium Technologies LLC; Rhodium 10mw LLC; Rhodium 2.0 LLC; Rhodium 30mw\n\nLLC; Rhodium Encore LLC; Rhodium Renewables LLC; collectively (\u201cRhodium\u201d), submit the\n\nfollowing proposed Joint Pre-Trial Order pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order (ECF No.139),\n\nthe Court's Standing Order on Pre-Trial Procedures and Requirements in Civil Cases, the Federal\n\nRules of Civil Procedures, and the Local Rules of this Court. The parties have stipulated to various\n\nmatters identified herein and have identified exhibits, witnesses, factual contentions and triable\n\nissues:\n\nI.                APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL\n\n                  A.     Attorneys for Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies LLC\n\n                         Joseph E. Thomas\n                         William J. Kolegraff\n                         Grant J. Thomas\n                         THOMAS WHITELAW & KOLEGRAFF LLP\n                         18101 Von Karman Ave., Suite 230\n                         Irvine, California 92612\n                         Telephone: (949) 679-6400\n                         Fax: (949) 679-6405\n                         jthomas@twtlaw.com\n                         bkolegraff@twtlaw.com\n                         gthomas@twtlaw.com\n\n\n                         Michael C. Smith\n                         Texas Bar No. 18650410\n                         michael.smith@solidcounsel.com\n                         Scheef & Stone, LLP\n                         113 E. Austin Street\n                         Marshall, TX 75670\n                         (903) 938-8900\n\n\n                  B.     Attorneys for Defendant Rhodium\n\n                         Elizabeth Rogers Brannen\n                         Kenneth J. Halpern\n\n\n\n     B   P   P\n                                                       1\n\f              Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA        Document 182          Filed 04/03/24   Page 5 of 19\n\n\n\n\n                      Peter J. Brody\n                      Sarah Rahimi\n                      Stris & Maher LLP\n                      777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3850\n                      Los Angeles, CA 90017\n                      Telephone: (213) 995-6809\n                      Fax: (213) 261-0299\n                      Email: ebrannen@stris.com\n                      khalpern@stris.com\n                      pbrody@stris.com\n                      srahimi@stris.com\n\n                      Melissa Richards Smith\n                      Gillam & Smith, LLP\n                      303 South Washington Avenue\n                      Marshall, TX 75670\n                      Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n                      Fax: (903) 934-9257\n                      Email: melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com\n\n                      James Travis Underwood\n                      Gillam & Smith, LLP\n                      102 N. College, Suite 800\n                      Tyler, TX 75702\n                      Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n                      Fax: (903) 934-9257\n                      Email: travis@gillamsmithlaw.com\n\nII.            JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE\n\n               This is an action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,457, (\"the '457 Patent\").\n\nSubject matter jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1331 and 1338(a) and\n\nnone of subject matter or personal jurisdiction or venue under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1391(c) and 1400(b)\n\nare here disputed. Below is the Joint Statement of the Case.\n\n                                    Joint Statement of the Case\n\n               This is a patent infringement case filed by the Plaintiff, Midas Green Technologies\n\n(\u201cMidas\u201d), against Defendants Rhodium Enterprises, Inc., Rhodium Technologies LLC; Rhodium\n\n10MW LLC; Rhodium 2.0 LLC; Rhodium 30MW LLC; Rhodium Encore LLC; and Rhodium\n\n\n\n\n B    P   P\n                                                      2\n\f             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA        Document 182       Filed 04/03/24    Page 6 of 19\n\n\n\n\nRenewables LLC (each a \u201cRhodium Entity\u201d and collectively \u201cRhodium\u201d). Midas contends that\n\nRhodium has infringed two asserted claims (independent claim 1 and dependent claim 5) of its\n\nU.S. Patent number 10,405,457, which the parties sometimes refer to as the \u2018457 Patent, and further\n\ncontends that Rhodium\u2019s infringement was willful. Rhodium denies that it infringed any asserted\n\nclaim of the \u2018457 patent, willfully or otherwise. Rhodium also contends that the \u2018457 patent is\n\ninvalid that that Midas engaged in inequitable conduct before the United States Patent and\n\nTrademark Office (\u201cUSPTO\u201d).\n\nIII.          CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES\n\n              A.     Midas\u2019 Contentions\n\n              Midas contends that Rhodium infringes independent claim 1 and dependent claim 5 of the\n\n \u2018457 Patent, both literally and by the doctrine of equivalents, and that its infringement is willful,\n\n and that it has suffered damages as a result. Specifically, Midas contends that it has not waived\n\n any assertion of infringement by the doctrine of equivalents.\n\n              Midas further contends that independent claim 1 and/or dependent claim 5 of the \u2018457\n\n Patent are valid and denies that Rhodium\u2019s counterclaims are meritorious. Midas also contends\n\n that Rhodium\u2019s asserted defenses of inventorship, obviousness and written description and\n\n enablement requirements have been waived and/or barred by the this court\u2019s exclusive\n\n jurisdiction under USC Section 256 and Midas\u2019 pending submissions to the PTO and as set forth\n\n in the briefing on its motions in limine.\n\n              B.     Rhodium\u2019s Contentions\n\n              Rhodium provides the following statement of contentions without waiver of any claim,\n\nresponse given during discovery, pending motion (including any motions in limine, motions for\n\n\n\n\n B   P   P\n                                                    3\n\f             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182        Filed 04/03/24      Page 7 of 19\n\n\n\n\nsummary judgment, Daubert motions, and motions to strike), or any opinion expressed by Midas\u2019s\n\nexperts:\n\n              Rhodium contends that it does not infringe the \u2018457 Patent, willfully or otherwise, and that\n\nMidas has not and cannot prove infringement. Specifically, Rhodium contends that it does not\n\nliterally infringe either asserted claim, and that Midas has waived any assertion of infringement by\n\nequivalents (but, for the avoidance of doubt, Rhodium contends that it does not infringe under the\n\ndoctrine of equivalents either). Rhodium further contends that, to the extent it is found to infringe\n\nMidas\u2019s patent, that infringement was not willful. Rhodium further contends that each asserted\n\nclaim of Midas\u2019s \u2018457 Patent is invalid. In particular, Rhodium contends that the \u2018457 Patent\n\nasserted claims are invalid as anticipated, obvious, for failure to meet the written description and\n\nenablement requirements, and for improper inventorship. Rhodium also disputes the amount of\n\ndamages Midas seeks and contends that Midas is not entitled to any damages. Rhodium contends\n\nthat if any damages are available, they may only take the form of a reasonable royalty and may not\n\nbe awarded for hypothetical infringement beyond the time of trial. Rhodium further contends that\n\nthe issue of pre-judgment interest is inappropriate to put to a jury. Finally, Rhodium contends, as\n\nan equitable matter for the Court to decide, that Midas\u2019s claims are barred by Midas\u2019s inequitable\n\nconduct.\n\nIV.           STIPULATED FACTS\n\n              1.     This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and all claims and defenses in this\n\naction.\n\n              2.     The '457 Patent is the Patent-in-Suit.\n\n              3.     The \u2018457 Patent is entitled \u201cAppliance Immersion Cooling System.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n B   P   P\n                                                       4\n\f             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182        Filed 04/03/24      Page 8 of 19\n\n\n\n\n              4.     The \u2019457 Patent lists as named inventors: Christopher L. Boyd, James P. Koen,\n\nDavid Christopher Laguna, Thomas R. Turner, Kenneth D. Swinden, Mario Conti Garcia, and\n\nJohn Charles Tribou.\n\n              5.     On March 21, 2023, Midas filed an application with the United States Patent &\n\nTrademark Office (\u201cUSPTO\u201d) to correct inventorship on the \u2018457 patent to show Christopher L.\n\nBoyd as the sole inventor, and this application remains pending before the PTO.\n\n              6.     On March 1, 2024, Midas filed a motion under U.S.C. 35 256 (Dkt. 149 ) to have\n\nthis court order the USPTO to correct inventorship to show Christopher L. Boyd as the sole\n\ninventor in the event that USPTO does not act on this application before trial commences.\n\nV.            DISPUTED ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW\n\n              The parties identify their pending motions identified below in Section XII as reflecting the\n\ncurrent and outstanding issues of law that need to be decided. The parties reserve the right to\n\nidentify additional factual and legal issues that may arise, including issues raised by the Court's\n\nrulings or any pending motion, or rulings made at the pretrial conference in this action. By\n\nproviding this statement, the parties do not concede that all these issues are appropriate for trial.\n\nThe parties also do not waive any of their pending motions.\n\n              1.     Whether Midas has proven infringement by any Rhodium defendant by a\n\npreponderance of the evidence of independent claim 1 and/or dependent claim 5 of the '457 Patent.\n\n              2.     Whether Midas\u2019s patent is invalid and/or unenforceable for incorrect inventorship.\n\n              3.     Whether Rhodium has proven by clear and convincing evidence that independent\n\nclaim 1 and/or dependent claim 5 of the \u2018457 Patent are invalid as anticipated, obvious or for failure\n\nto satisfy the written description and/or enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 112.\n\n\n\n\n B   P   P\n                                                       5\n\f             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182         Filed 04/03/24     Page 9 of 19\n\n\n\n\n              4.     For the Court: Whether Rhodium has proven by clear and convincing evidence that\n\nMidas has engaged in inequitable conduct.\n\n              5.     Whether Midas has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that damages should\n\nbe awarded to Midas to compensate for any Rhodium Entity\u2019s infringement though trial.\n\n                       a.     If damages are awarded, whether those damages take the form of a lost\n\n                              profit or reasonable royalty.\n\n                       b.     If lost profit damages are awarded, whether those damages should include\n\n                              any amounts for \u201cconvoyed sales.\u201d\n\n                       c.     If damages are awarded, the amount of those damages.\n\n              6.     Whether any damages should be awarded to Midas to compensate for hypothetical\n\nadditional or new infringement after trial, and if so, the amount of those damages.\n\n              7.     If infringement is found, whether Midas has proven by a preponderance of the\n\nevidence that Rhodium\u2019s infringement was willful.\n\n              8.     Whether the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 285 and warrants an award of\n\nattorneys\u2019 fees and costs in favor of Midas or Rhodium.\n\nVI.           EXHIBITS\n\n              The Parties' Joint Exhibit list is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Midas's Exhibit List and\n\nRhodium's objections thereto are attached as Exhibit B. Rhodium's Exhibit List and Midas's\n\nobjections thereto are attached as Exhibit C.\n\n              The parties will continue to meet and confer regarding their respective objections to resolve\n\nas many disputes as possible prior to presenting them to the Court.\n\n\n\n\n B   P   P\n                                                       6\n\f             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 182        Filed 04/03/24      Page 10 of 19\n\n\n\n\nVII.          \u201cATTORNEYS EYES ONLY\u201d DESIGNATIONS\n\n              During the discovery phase of this case, the parties have designated many documents and\n\ndeposition transcripts as \"Confidential \u2013 Attorneys\u2019 Eyes Only.\" The parties agree that it is\n\nappropriate to endeavor to eliminate any Attorneys\u2019 Eyes Only designations that are not strictly\n\nnecessary, to avoid interruptions to the trial. Accordingly, the parties agree that, during the pre-\n\ntrial process, they will re-review their exhibits and designated deposition testimony and, where\n\nappropriate, reduce or remove any applicable confidentiality designation. Further, the parties agree\n\nthat after the pre-testimony disclosure of exhibits to be used with each witness, see X.A infra, and\n\nbefore that witness\u2019s testimony, the parties will undertake another review of any exhibits\n\ndesignated Attorneys\u2019 Eyes Only to determine the necessity of that designation. The parties will\n\nprovide all confirmed down designations for trial to each other no later than April 8, 2024, so that\n\nthis issue can also be addressed with the court at the Pre-Trial Conference, if necessary.\n\nVIII. WITNESSES\n\n              Midas's witness list is attached as Exhibit D. Rhodium's witness list is attached as Exhibit\n\nE. Any objections to the parties' witness lists will be filed one week from the date of filing of this\n\nJoint Pretrial Order, pursuant to the Court's October 9, 2023 Amended Standing Order on Pretrial\n\nProcedures and Requirements in Civil Cases.\n\n              The parties will continue to meet and confer regarding their respective objections to try\n\nand resolve remaining issues and objections prior to presenting them to the Court.\n\nIX.           DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS\n\n              Midas's deposition designations with Rhodium's objections and counter-designations are\n\nattached as Exhibit F. Rhodium's deposition designations with Midas's objections and counter-\n\ndesignations are attached as Exhibit G.\n\n\n\n\n B   P   P\n                                                       7\n\f               Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182        Filed 04/03/24       Page 11 of 19\n\n\n\n\n                The parties will continue to meet and confer regarding their respective objections to resolve\n\nas many remaining issues and objections as possible prior to presenting them to the Court.\n\nX.              PROCEDURAL STIPULATIONS AND TRIAL DISCLOSURES\n\n                The following stipulations were agreed upon by the parties, as discussed below, and are\n\nmade a part of this Pretrial Order and unless the Court orders otherwise, the parties agree to the\n\nfollowing procedures, which will govern the disclosure of exhibits, witnesses, deposition\n\ntestimony, and demonstratives to use at trial and the process to identify any objections remaining\n\nbetween the parties regarding these disclosures:\n\n                A.     Motions\n\n         All motions for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) may be brought\n\nto the Court orally or in writing, at any time before the jury begins deliberations. Unless the Court\n\nsets alternative deadlines, all opposition to motions filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) must be\n\nfiled within 28 days of service of the motion. All replies in support of the motions must be filed\n\nwithin 21 days of service of any oppositions. The parties reserve their right to seek a reasonable\n\nextension of these deadlines subject to the Court's approval.\n\n                B.     Exhibits\n\n                The Exhibit Lists set forth the parties\u2019 exhibits, including all exhibits they intend to offer\n\ninto evidence, except impeachment exhibits, which may or may not be introduced into evidence.\n\nThe parties reserve the right to use or offer exhibits for purposes of impeachment that are not\n\nincluded in the Exhibit Lists. Each party reserves the right to add additional exhibits to its Exhibit\n\nList, for good cause shown, by agreement of the parties, or as ordered by the Court.\n\n\n\n\n B   P     P\n                                                          8\n\f                Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182         Filed 04/03/24      Page 12 of 19\n\n\n\n\n                 The parties will provide to each other's counsel of record via email a written list of any\n\nexhibits, by exhibit number, and a copy of each demonstrative, for each witness that it intends to\n\ncall by way of direct examination in advance of their introduction. .\n\n                 The parties agree that these disclosures will occur no later than 7:00 p.m. 1 on the day before\n\ntheir introduction (e.g., the immediately preceding Sunday for a witness to be called on a Monday).\n\nPhysical exhibits must be made available for inspection by the same time. Any objections to the\n\nidentified exhibits or demonstratives shall be provided no later than 8:00 p.m. on the calendar day\n\nbefore the exhibits are proposed to be introduced. At that time, any party that maintains an\n\nAttorneys Eyes Only designation as to any disclosed exhibit shall notify the opposing party. The\n\nparties shall meet and confer telephonically or in person to try and resolve any objections to the\n\nexhibits and/or issues regarding confidentiality before 8:30 p.m. the day the objections are\n\nprovided. The parties will continue in good faith to meet and confer regarding exhibits and, if\n\nobjections remain unresolved, the parties will raise any outstanding disputes with the Court in the\n\nmorning of the trial day when the exhibits will be introduced.\n\n                 The parties may use each other's exhibits listed on the parties' respective Exhibit Lists\n\nattached hereto to the same effect as though it were on its own Exhibit List, subject to all\n\nevidentiary objections. However, another party's exhibit is not admissible by virtue of being on an\n\nExhibit List or over an objection; a party seeking to introduce another party's exhibit must still\n\nhave a proper basis to offer the exhibit into evidence, subject to any objections. The listing of an\n\nexhibit by a party on its Exhibit List does not waive any evidentiary or other objections to that\n\nexhibit should the opposing party attempt to offer it into evidence. Any exhibit, once admitted,\n\nmay be used equally by each party.\n\n\n\n1\n    All times noted herein are Central Time.\n\n\n    B   P   P\n                                                           9\n\f             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182        Filed 04/03/24       Page 13 of 19\n\n\n\n\n              The parties agree that any description of a document on an Exhibit List is provided for\n\nconvenience only and shall not be used as an admission or otherwise as evidence regarding the\n\nlisted document or any other listed document.\n\n              The parties agree that any date listed on the Exhibit List is not evidence of nor an admission\n\nof the date of the document, and that failing to list a date is neither evidence of nor an admission\n\nof whether the document is dated.\n\n              Legible copies of United States and foreign patents, the file prosecution histories of United\n\nStates patents, published foreign patent applications, certified translations thereof (if in English or\n\ntranslated into English), and USPTO assignment records may be offered and received in evidence\n\nin lieu of certified copies thereof, subject to all other objections which might be made to the\n\nadmissibility of certified copies.\n\n              C.     Witnesses\n\n              The parties agree to disclose the witnesses in the order that they expect them to be called.\n\nNo later than 7:00 p.m. two calendar days before the day that a party expects a witness to be called\n\n(e.g., by 7:00 pm on the immediately preceding Tuesday for witnesses anticipated to appear on\n\nThursday), counsel shall provide to opposing counsel the names and order of witnesses to be called\n\n(both live, videotape and/or by deposition). The parties will raise and will cooperate in seeking to\n\nhave the Court resolve any objections to the identity of witnesses prior to the conclusion of the\n\nPre-Trial Conference. Witnesses who are not on either parties' witness list at the time of the Pre-\n\nTrial Conference will not testify absent good cause shown.\n\n              Beginning at the conclusion of opening statements, fact witnesses are not to be allowed\n\ninto the courtroom before they testify on the stand, except that a single party representative will be\n\nallowed to be present in the courtroom regardless of their status as a fact witness. Expert witnesses\n\n\n\n\n B   P   P\n                                                       10\n\f                Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182            Filed 04/03/24   Page 14 of 19\n\n\n\n\ncan observe any testimony. Expert witnesses who are being called both in a party's case-in-chief\n\nand in rebuttal cases (for example, a witness who will testify both as to infringement and validity)\n\nare considered to be off the witness stand in between their case-in-chief and rebuttal testimony and\n\nmay work with counsel during that time.\n\n                  Any deposition testimony not specifically identified on a party's deposition designation\n\nlist may still be used at trial for the purposes of impeachment, if otherwise competent for that\n\npurpose. When a party uses deposition testimony for impeachment, the party may elect to either\n\nplay the deposition testimony by video or to read the deposition testimony live, unless the Court\n\norders otherwise.\n\n                 D.      Deposition Testimony2\n\n                 Rhodium contends that Midas may not present any witness other than Peter Poulin by\n\ndeposition. Midas did not serve affirmative deposition designations for any witness other than Mr.\n\nPoulin. Midas may not introduce any designations for other witnesses, which it provided solely as\n\nrebuttal, as part of its affirmative case; those depositions may be played only as rebuttal testimony,\n\nif appropriate.\n\n                 Subject to the foregoing, the parties jointly state:\n\n                 For any witnesses whose testimony a party intends to present by deposition, the parties\n\nshall identify a list of deposition designations to be played or read to the jury by 7:00 p.m. two\n\ncalendar days before the designations are to be played or read to the jury. In other words, if\n\ndeposition testimony is intended to be played on Wednesday, the corresponding deposition\n\ndesignations must be provided by 7:00 p.m. on Monday. Any objections and counter-designations\n\n\n\n2\n To the extent permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence and rulings from the Court, the parties\nagree that depositions may be used at trial whether or not the transcripts of such depositions have\nbeen signed and filed as set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b).\n\n\n    B   P   P\n                                                           11\n\f                Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 182        Filed 04/03/24      Page 15 of 19\n\n\n\n\nshall be provided no later than 7:00 p.m. the day before the designations are to be played or read\n\nto the jury. Any objections to counter-designations, including objections that the counter-\n\ndesignations are not responsive to the designated testimony, shall be provided no later than 8:00\n\np.m. the day the counter-designations are provided. The party introducing the deposition testimony\n\nshall be responsible for editing the deposition video to include the testimony and any counter-\n\ndesignation testimony and remove any attorney objections/colloquy and provide a final version of\n\nthe deposition testimony excerpts (testimony clip report) to the other party by 9:00 p.m. the day\n\nbefore it is to be shown to the jury.\n\n                 If the party intends to read the deposition testimony into the record instead of playing the\n\nvideo, the party shall state that in writing by 7:00 p.m. the day before the testimony is to be\n\nintroduced.\n\n                 The parties shall meet and confer on or before 8:30 p.m. the day before the deposition\n\ntestimony is to be shown to the jury in an attempt to resolve any objections to the deposition. The\n\nparties will continue in good faith to meet and confer regarding the proposed deposition testimony\n\nand if objections remain unresolved, the parties will cooperate in seeking to have the Court resolve\n\nany disputes prior to presenting the proposed testimony. 3\n\n                 If a party designates deposition testimony, and the other party counter-designates, then the\n\ndesignations and counter-designations will be read or played together in chronological order. A\n\nparty may designate as counter-designation testimony that the other party designated during the\n\npre-trial designation process. Subject to the Court\u2019s ruling on objections, all designated deposition\n\ntestimony may be played by video or may be read live in Court.\n\n\n\n\n3\n  This procedure does not apply to any previously admitted witness deposition testimony the\nparties intend to present during the closing statements.\n\n\n    B   P   P\n                                                         12\n\f             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182         Filed 04/03/24      Page 16 of 19\n\n\n\n\n              Any deposition testimony not specifically identified on a party's deposition designation list\n\nmay still be used at trial for the purposes of impeachment, if otherwise competent for that purpose.\n\nIn order to reduce the number of duplicative exhibits, where a deposition excerpt refers to a\n\ndocument by exhibit number and that identical document was also marked with a trial exhibit\n\nnumber, a party may substitute the trial exhibit for the deposition exhibit.\n\n              To the extent that the trial is subject to specific time limitations, the length of any party's\n\ndesignated testimony read or played shall count against the time available for that party's trial\n\npresentation. Similarly, counter-designations will count against the counter-designating party's\n\ntrial time. The designations and counter-designations must be presented in the order they appear\n\nin the transcript.\n\n              E.     Demonstrative Exhibits\n\n              Demonstrative exhibits that the parties intend to use at trial need not be included on the\n\nparties' respective exhibit lists. Demonstratives exchanged per the procedure below will not be\n\nused by an opposing party prior to being used by the disclosing party.\n\n              Demonstratives are exhibits specifically created for the purpose of the trial and do not\n\ninclude (1) exhibits created in the courtroom during testimony or opening at trial or (2) the\n\nenlargement, highlighting, ballooning, etc. of trial exhibits or transcripts of testimony, or to\n\ncomposites of admitted exhibits and/or testimony, so long as the enlargement or composite does\n\nnot include any characterization or description of the underlying exhibit or testimony apart from\n\nthe name of the exhibit or witness.\n\n              The parties shall exchange copies of all documentary, graphic, slide, animation, video, and\n\nany other form of demonstratives, such as prototypes, that they plan to use at trial during opening\n\nstatements and direct examination, but not for cross-examinations, by 7:00 p.m. one calendar day\n\n\n\n\n B   P   P\n                                                        13\n\f             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 182        Filed 04/03/24     Page 17 of 19\n\n\n\n\nbefore their anticipated use. Any objections to the demonstrative exhibits shall be provided by 8:00\n\np.m. the day before their anticipated use. The parties shall meet and confer telephonically in an\n\nattempt to resolve any objections to the demonstratives at or before 8:30 p.m. the day the objections\n\nare provided. The parties will continue in good faith to meet and confer regarding the proposed\n\ndemonstratives and if objections remain unresolved, the parties will cooperate in seeking to have\n\nthe Court resolve any disputes prior to presenting the proposed testimony.\n\n              F.     Closing Exhibits and Demonstratives\n\n              Any exhibit that was used during the trial and received in evidence, trial transcripts,\n\ndeposition designations played at trial, or demonstratives previously used or disclosed and not\n\nsubject to outstanding objection during the trial may be shown to the jury during closing statements\n\nwithout any additional disclosure. Any demonstratives that will first be shown to the jury during\n\nthe closing statements must be disclosed by 7:00 p.m. the day before their anticipated use. Any\n\nobjections to closing demonstratives shall be provided by 8:00 p.m. the day before their anticipated\n\nuse. The parties shall meet and confer telephonically in an attempt to resolve any objections to the\n\nclosing demonstratives at or before 8:30 p.m. the day the objections are provided. The parties will\n\ncontinue in good faith to meet and confer regarding the proposed closing demonstratives and if\n\nobjections remain unresolved, the parties will cooperate in seeking to have the Court resolve any\n\ndisputes prior to presenting the proposed testimony.\n\nXI.           PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS\n\n              The parties' joint and disputed proposed jury instructions are attached as Exhibit H.\n\n              The parties will continue to meet and confer regarding their respective proposed jury\n\ninstructions in an effort to try and agree on some or all proposed instructions. The parties have\n\n\n\n\n B   P   P\n                                                      14\n\f             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA       Document 182       Filed 04/03/24     Page 18 of 19\n\n\n\n\nunderlying disputes within the instructions. Midas's position is in red text, while Rhodium's\n\nposition is in blue text.\n\nXII.          LIST OF PENDING MOTIONS\n\n              The following motions filed by Midas on March 1, 2024 remain pending:\n\n              \u2022      Motion to Correct Inventorship under 35 U.S.C. 256 (ECF No. 149).\n\n              \u2022      Motion to Exclude Noninfringement Rebuttal Expert Witness Report of Dr.\n\nAlphonso Ortega (ECF 151).\n\n              The following motions filed by Rhodium on March 1, 2024 remain pending:\n\n              \u2022      Motion to Strike Dr. Himanshu Pokharna (ECF No. 152).\n\n              \u2022      Motion to Strike Dr. James Lee (ECF No. 153).\n\n              \u2022      Motion to Strike J. Duross O\u2019Bryan (ECF No. 154).\n\n              \u2022      Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement (ECF No. 155).\n\nXIII. VOIR DIRE\n\n              Midas's and Rhodium's proposed voir dire questions are attached as Exhibits I and J,\n\nrespectively. The parties' jointly proposed juror questionnaire is attached as Exhibit K.\n\nXIV. VERDICT FORM\n\n              Midas's proposed verdict forms are attached as Exhibits L. Rhodium's proposed verdict\n\nform is attached as Exhibit M.\n\nXV.           DISPUTED MOTIONS IN LIMINE\n\n              Midas's Motions in Limine, identifying 5 issues to be resolved (ECF No.\u2019s 173-177), are\n\nattached as Exhibit N. Rhodium's Motion in Limine, identifying 1 issue to be resolved (ECF No.\n\n172), is attached as Exhibit O. The parties filed their oppositions to these motions on April 3,\n\n2024.\n\n\n\n\n B   P   P\n                                                    15\n\f             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 182        Filed 04/03/24     Page 19 of 19\n\n\n\n\nXVI. LENGTH OF TRIAL\n\n              The trial is scheduled to begin after Jury Selection on April 22, 2024. Midas expects trial\n\nwill conclude on April 29, 2024. Rhodium expects trial will conclude on April 26, 2022.\n\n\n\nDated: April 3, 2024                                    Respectfully submitted,\n\nBy: /s/ Joseph E. Thomas             By: /s/ Elizabeth R. Brannen\n    Joseph E. Thomas *                   Elizabeth Rogers Brannen\n    William J. Kolegraff *               Kenneth J. Halpern\n    Grant J. Thomas *                    Peter J. Brody\n    THOMAS WHITELAW & KOLEGRAFF          Sarah Rahimi\n    LLP                                  Stris & Maher LLP\n    18101 Von Karman Ave., Suite 230     777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3850\n    Irvine, California 92612             Los Angeles, CA 90017\n    Telephone: (949) 679-6400            Telephone: (213) 995-6809\n    Fax: (949) 679-6405                  Fax: (213) 261-0299\n    jthomas@twtlaw.com                   Email: ebrannen@stris.com\n    bkolegraff@twtlaw.com                        khalpern@stris.com\n    gthomas@twtlaw.com                           pbrody@stris.com\n                                                 srahimi@stris.com\n\n         Michael C. Smith\n         Texas Bar No. 18650410                             Melissa Richards Smith\n         michael.smith@solidcounsel.com                     Gillam and Smith, LLP\n         Scheef & Stone, LLP                                303 South Washington Avenue\n         113 E. Austin Street                               Marshall, TX 75670\n         Marshall, TX 75670                                 Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n         (903) 938-8900                                     Fax: (903) 934-9257\n                                                            Email: melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com\n\n                                                            James Travis Underwood\n                                                            Gillam & Smith, LLP\n*Admitted pro hac vice                                      102 N. College, Suite 800\nAttorneys for Plaintiff Midas Green                         Tyler, TX 75702\nTechnologies LLC                                            Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n                                                            Fax: (903) 934-9257\n                                                            Email: travis@gillamsmithlaw.com\n\n                                                            Attorneys for Defendants\n                                                            Rhodium\n\n\n\n\n B   P   P\n                                                      16\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T11:49:38.268266-08:00","document_number":"182","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181031929081","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Pretrial Memorandum","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/427868680/","id":427868680,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/182/1/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2025-01-22T10:50:32.255470-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-23T02:51:26.451078-08:00","sha1":"2a7dd901f968d25a19217894e557912de876d74a","page_count":2,"file_size":126762,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-1   Filed 04/03/24   Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n                     EXHIBIT A\n                 JOINT EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA        Document 182-1         Filed 04/03/24         Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\nJX Number   Beginning Bates Number   Description\n\nJX0001      MIDAS0397066             U.S. Patent No. 10,405,457\n                                     U.S. Patent Application No. 61/737,200 (\"2012\nJX0002      MIDAS0000001             Provisional\")\n                                     U.S. Patent Application No. 61/832,211 (\"2013\nJX0003      MIDAS0000052             Provisional\")\nJX0004      MIDAS0000078             457 Patent PCT Application\nJX0005      MIDAS0003334             457 Patent File History\n\n\n                                     Midas Green Technologies, LLC Profit & Loss, January\nJX0006                               through December 2013 (Sickmiller Ex. 2)\nJX0007      MIDAS0042235             MGT Balance Sheet - 2015\nJX0008      MIDAS0042223             MGT Balance Sheet - 2017\nJX0009      MIDAS0042225             MGT Balance Sheet - 2019\nJX0010      MIDAS0042227             MGT Balance Sheet - 2018\nJX0011      MIDAS0042229             MGT Balance Sheet - 2020\n                                     Midas Green Technologies Balance Sheet as of\nJX0012      MIDAS0343164             12/31/2021\n                                     Midas Green Technologies Balance Sheet as of\nJX0013      MIDAS0409123             06/30/2023\n\n\n                                     Rhodium Enterprises Condensed Consoildated Financial\nJX0014      RHOD0337308              Statements - 3/31/22\n\nJX0015      RHOD0337345              Rhodium Enterprises Financial Statements - 12/31/21\nJX0016      RHOD0337392              Rhodium Enterprises Balance Sheet - 9/30/22\n                                     Rhodium Enterprises Consolidated Statements of Cash\nJX0017      RHOD0337393              Flow - Q2 2022\nJX0018      RHOD0337394              Rhodium Enterprises Balance Sheet - 6/30/21\nJX0019      RHOD0337395              Rhodium Enterprises Balance Sheet - 9/30/21\nJX0020      RHOD0337396              Rhodium Enterprises Balance Sheet - 12/31/21\n                                     Rhodium Enterprises Condensed Consolidated Financial\nJX0021      RHOD0337397              Statements - 6/30/21\n                                     Rhodium Eterprises Condensed Consolidated Financial\nJX0022      RHOD0337415              Statements - 9/30/21\nJX0023      RHOD0337449              Jordan HPC P&L Statement - 5/31/22\nJX0024      RHOD0337453              Rhodium Enterprises Balance Sheet - 9/30/23\nJX0025      RHOD0337461              Rhodium 10MW P&L Statement - 5/31/22\n                                     Rhodium Enterprises Consolidated Financial Statement -\nJX0026      RHOD0337498              Q4 2022\n                                     Rhodium Enterprises Inc. Consolidated Financial\nJX0027      RHOD0337534              Statements, Dec. 31, 2021 and 2021\nJX0028      RHOD0337565              Rhodium Enterprises Balance Sheet - 3/31/23\nJX0029      RHOD0337570              Rhodium Enterprises Balance Sheet - 6/30/23\n\nJX0030      RHOD0337579              Rhodium Renewables Income Statement - 10/6/23\nJX0031      RHOD0337580              Rhodium Encore P&L Statement - 5/31/22\nJX0032      RHOD0337583              Rhodium 2.0 P&L Statement - 5/31/22\nJX0033      RHOD0337584              Rhodium 30MW P&L Statement - 5/31/22\n                                     Rhodium Enterprises Consolidated Statements of Cash\nJX0034      RHOD0337600              Flow - Q1 2021\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T11:49:38.746626-08:00","document_number":"182","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"181031929082","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/427868682/","id":427868682,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/182/2/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2025-01-22T10:50:32.287185-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-23T02:49:52.472422-08:00","sha1":"f36ac418109bac2b2031b9a634b12a849c035a6a","page_count":35,"file_size":1504119,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-2   Filed 04/03/24   Page 1 of 35\n\n\n\n\n                   EXHIBIT B\n             PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA      Document 182-2      Filed 04/03/24    Page 2 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                         DESCRIPTION                                        RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP1.     GRC0002-0024         2010-01-12, Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. CarnotJet System\n\nP2.     RHOD0001100-104      2010-08-10, Green Revolution Cooling and Midas Networks Sales Contract\n                             Executed\nP3.     MIDAS0065321         2011-01-00, Green Revolution Cooling, The Clear Solution for Data Center\n                             Cooling\nP4.     MIDAS0302662         2011-02-00, Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. Company Intro                            H\n\nP5.     MIDAS0302705         2011-03-07, Email to J. Koen from C. Boyd RE sales agreement outline                H\n\nP6.     MIDAS0274667         2011-03-07, Texas Office of the Secretary of State Certificate of Filing of Midas   H, F\n                             Green Technologies, LLC\nP7.     MIDAS0302708         2011-03-11, Email to J. Koen from C. Best RE Marketing w/attachment(s)              H\n\n\nP8.     MIDAS0303011         2011-03-31, Email to C. Best from D. Gibbs RE GR Cooling/VFA Call\nP9.     MIDAS0306615         2011-10-15, Email to F. Conti, From J. Koen RE Thursday Meeting                     H\nP10.    MIDAS0040993         2012-03-12, Inventor Notebook\n\nP11.    MIDAS0037700         2012-03-14, Handwritten Document-Improved Sled Package Invented by C. Boyd          H\n                             Witnessed by J. Koen\nP12.    MIDAS0317792         2012-04-19, Email to J. Koen from K. Tooke RE good info w/attachment(s)             H\n\nP13.    MIDAS0046362         2012-04-20, Inquiry re Power Consumption                                            H\nP14.    MIDAS0046355         2012-04-24, Tank Design Drawing                                                     H, F, IC\n\nP15.    MIDAS0069355         2012-04-27, \u2013 Lids are too flimsy                                                   H, IR\nP16.    MIDAS0069351         2012-04-27, \u2013 Meeting with Deaton at Midas\u2019 new location 6th Street                 H, IR\nP17.    MIDAS0319275         2012-06-02 \u2013 Research re liquid cooled computers                                    H\nP18.    MIDAS0319330         2012-06-13, Email String to J. Koen from C. Laguna RE Attn: Chris Luna              H\n\n                                                               1\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA     Document 182-2      Filed 04/03/24   Page 3 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                        DESCRIPTION                                     RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP19.    MIDAS0319269         2012-06-18, \u2013 PCD visits Midas                                                  H, F, IC\n\nP20.    MIDAS0046368         2012-06-24, \u2013 Business Model                                                    H\nP21.    MIDAS0046378         2012-08-13, \u2013 Marketing/design considerations for PCD                           H\nP22.    MIDAS0046382         2012-09-21, Email String to J. Tribou from T. Presley RE design consideration   H\n                             from a marketing/sales perspective w/attachment(s)\nP23.    MIDAS0324631         2012-09-24, Email String to T. Presley from C. Boyd RE design considerations    H\n                             from a marketing/sales perspective w/attachment(s)\nP24.    MIDAS0324645         2012-09-25, Email to J. Koen from F. Conti RE meeting                           H\nP25.    MIDAS0006908         2012-10-03, Email to J. Koen from J. Tribou RE random thoughts on forward       H\n                             direction\nP26.    MIDAS0046421         2012-10-12,- Midas reaches out to investors                                     H\nP27.    MIDAS0324869         2012-10-16, \u2013 Midas meets with Deaton Engineering                               H\nP28.    MIDAS0324757         2012-10-17, Email String to J. Tribou from K. Tooke RE alternate slide          H\n                             w/attachment(s)\nP29.    MIDAS0324914         2012-10-18, Email String to J. Miller from K. Tooke RE Support                  H\nP30.    MIDAS0046427         2012-10-22, Email String to C. Boyd from J. Tribou RE question re interaction   H\n                             with C Best during development work at Midas\nP31.    MIDAS0324956         2012-10-23, Email String to J. Koen from C. Best RE Support                     H\nP32.    MIDAS0189043         2012-10-24, Email String to clb@midasgreentech.com from J. Tribou RE            H\n                             welcome back\nP33.    MIDAS0006935         2012-10-25, Email to J. Koen from J. Tribou RE latest rev of biz plan copy      H\nP34.    MIDAS0189055         2012-10-25, Email to J. Koen from J. Tribou RE latest rev of biz plan copy      H\n                             w/attachment(s)\nP35.    Deaton003274         2012-10-31, Marketing/Design Spec Sheet from Deaton                             H, F, AUTH\n\nP36.    MIDAS0325053         2012-10-30, Email String to J. Tribou from C. Boyd RE VF drive pump (and bonus H\n                             question/request)\nP37.    MIDAS0006968-71      2012-10-31 Tank Design                                                         H\nP38.    MIDAS0008188-91      2012-11-06 \u2013 Deaton provides budget for tank manufacture                       H\n\n                                                              2\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA     Document 182-2      Filed 04/03/24   Page 4 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                       DESCRIPTION                                    RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP39.    MIDAS0046430;        2012-11-16 \u2013 Sent JVM tank design                                             H, F. The\n        MGT0034884                                                                                         document bearing\n                                                                                                           the bates number\n                                                                                                           MGT0034884 is\n                                                                                                           not present on\n                                                                                                           Rhodium\u2019s\n                                                                                                           database. To the\n                                                                                                           extent it is not a\n                                                                                                           duplicate of\n                                                                                                           MIDAS0046430,\n                                                                                                           please provide it.\n\nP40.    MIDAS0189926;        2012-11-26, \u2013 Midas board meeting re business growth plan and current state   H, IC. No\n        MIDAS046398-99                                                                                     document bearing\n                                                                                                           the Bates number\n                                                                                                           MIDAS046398\n                                                                                                           appears in\n                                                                                                           Rhodium\u2019s\n                                                                                                           database. Please\n                                                                                                           confirm that this is\n                                                                                                           the correct Bates\n                                                                                                           number.\n\nP41.    MIDAS0328582         2013-10-04,- Deaton provides documents for patent application                 H\nP42.    MIDAS0325204         2012-12-03, \u2013 Business plan and valuation for Midas                           H, IR\nP43.    MIDAS0008389         2012-12-06 \u2013 Confirmed engagement with Deaton\nP44.    MIDAS0065183         2012-12-06, Email to C. Boyd from J. Tribou RE Power Blip and Cooling Tanks   H\n\nP45.    MIDAS0008463         2013-01-10, DfR Solutions Improved Efficiency & Reliability for Data Center   H\n                             Servers Using Immersion Oil Cooling\n\n\n                                                              3\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                           Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA     Document 182-2     Filed 04/03/24   Page 5 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                         DESCRIPTION                                    RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP46.    Deaton 010523-536      2013-01-25, Email to T. Turner from E. Deaton RE Midas SOW and Proposal       H\n                               w/attachment(s) AEO\nP47.    MIDAS0008749           2013-02-01 - Control System Design Spec.                                      H, F\nP48.    Deaton 010546          2013-02-04, Email to T. Turner from D. Swinden RE Midas AEO                   H\n\nP49.    Deaton010597           2013-02-07, Oil Cooling system Concept discussion                             H\nP50.    Deaton 010565-93       2013-02-07, Email String to T. Turner from M. Conti RE Current Part           H\n                               Specifications w/attachment(s) AEO\nP51.    MIDAS0065221           2013-02-08, Email String to C. Boyd from K. Tooke RE GRC system issue         H\n\nP52.    Deaton010648;          2013-02-11, Control system interface structure change                         H, F, IC\n        Deaton010650\nP53.    Deaton010700           2013-02-20, Controls interface discussion                                     H\nP54.    Deaton010776           2013-03-12, Sends $25k to Deaton to manufacture and build tank                H, F, AUTH.\n                                                                                                             Document\n                                                                                                             description does\n                                                                                                             not accurately\n                                                                                                             reflect document\n                                                                                                             contents.\nP55.    Deaton 010778          2013-03-18, Email to C. Boyd from T. Turner RE Current Scope of Work AEO      H\n\nP56.    Deaton 010815          2013-03-27, Email String to D. Swinden from T. Turner RE Project Status for   H\n                               Midas AEO\nP57.    Deaton 010885-87       2013-04-03, Email String to T. Turner from M. Conti RE Concept Idea           H\n                               w/attachment(s) AEO\nP58.    Deaton 010982-998      2013-04-17, Email to J. Koen from T. Turner RE Updated Design Requirements    H\n                               w/attachment(s) AEO\nP59.    Deaton 011094-         2013-05-02, Email to Chris Boyd from T. Turner RE Design Requirements         H\n        011110                 Document w/attachment(s) AEO\n\n\n                                                               4\n\n#420867v1\n                               PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA     Document 182-2      Filed 04/03/24    Page 6 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                         DESCRIPTION                                      RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP60.    Deaton011464         2013-07-01, Midas sends $20k to Deaton for initial design and fabrication         H\n\nP61.    MIDAS0068970         2013-07-02, Email String to M. Conti, From C. Boyd RE Possible tubing system?     H\n                             AEO\nP62.    MIDAS0328256         2013-07-17, Email String to C. Boyd from C. Laguna RE Control boxes               H\n                             w/attachment(s)\nP63.    Deaton 011508-509    2013-07-17, Email String to C. Boyd from D. Swinden RE Control boxes AEO          H\n\nP64.    Deaton011617         2013-08-08 \u201cConstruction phase\u2019                                                   H\n\nP65.    MIDAS0019151         2013-10-04, Midas Quote #41 to customer 78712                                     H, IR\n\nP66.    MIDAS0019435         2013-10-15, Email String to J. Koen from M. Conti RE Patent Filing Confidential   H\n\nP67.    MIDAS0329218         2013-11-12, Email to S. Rosendahl from C. Laguna RE Cooling Technology            H\nP68.    MIDAS0100986         2013-11-13, Email to S. Rosendahl from J. Koen RE Green Host IT                   H\nP69.    MIDAS0334924         2013-11-22, \u2013 Signed Lease for 6th Street Location                                H, IR\nP70.    MIDAS0329644         2013-12-11, Email to J. Koen from C. Laguna RE Grc patent                         H\n\nP71.    Deaton 012451-456    2013-12-16, Email String to J. Koen from G. Dawson RE Assignment                  H, F\n                             w/attachment(s) AEO\nP72.    Deaton 012457-470    2013-12-16, Email String to J. Koen from G. Dawson RE PCT Paperwork               H, F\n                             w/attachment(s) AEO\nP73.    MIDAS0329965         2014-01-23, \u2013 Current set of drawings                                             H\n\n\nP74.    MIDAS0330146         2014-01-30, \u2013 Estimate to Complete MGT Immersion cooling system                   H, F, IR\n\n\n\n\n                                                               5\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA      Document 182-2      Filed 04/03/24   Page 7 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                        DESCRIPTION                                       RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP75.    MIDAS0100988         2014-02-12 - Working to pour concrete at 6th Street location for cooling towers   H, IR\n\n\nP76.    MIDAS0330971-72      2014-05-06, Email String to J. Koen from C. Laguna RE ECR for Lid Redesign        H\n\n\nP77.    MIDAS0020581         2014-07-25, \u2013 Demo of tank                                                        H, IR\n\n\nP78.    Best Ex. 4           2014-07-31, US Patent Application Publication Pub. No.: US 2014/0211412 A1\n\nP79.    MIDAS0020672         2014-08-00, About Midas Green Technologies                                        H\n\nP80.    Deaton012874         2014-09-07, \u2013 Open House \u2013 CH3 Data center and Midas Green Tech                   H, IR\n\nP81.    MIDAS0041697         2015-03-01, Asset Purchase Agreement CH3 Data_MGT                                 H, F, IR\nP82.    MIDAS0025378         2016-01-02, Email to F. Conti, From J. Koen RE Recap of Members Meeting           H\n\nP83.    MIDAS0341945         2016-12-15, Email String to M. Conti, From J. Koen RE Clear Communications        H\n                             w/attachment(s)\nP84.    MIDAS0261598         2017-08-25, Email String to J. Koen from M. Hunter RE Follow Up                   H\nP85.    Long Ex. 60          2017-11-06, Email String to Cameron Blackmon from M. Long RE data center          H\n                             video\nP86.    Long Ex. 61          2017-11-07, Email String to Cameron Blackmon from M. Long RE data center          H, INC\n                             video\nP87.    Long Ex. 62          2017-11-09, Text Message to Cameron Blackmon from M. Long RE 3000 brand           H, INC\n                             new s9s with PSU\nP88.    MIDAS0262504         2017-11-10, Email String to G. Testa from J. Koen RE GRC Deploys Immersed         H\n                             HPC Cluster at JPCU w/attachment(s) AEO\n\n\n                                                               6\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                          Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA      Document 182-2      Filed 04/03/24   Page 8 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                         DESCRIPTION                                         RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP89.    MIDAS0343197         2018 to 2021 plus 2022 Prelim., Midas Green Technologies General Ledgers             H, 403\n                             Spreadsheets\nP90.     Long Ex. 63 pages   2018-03-12 to 03-14, Text Messages Marshall/Cameron/Chase RE \"accountant             H, INC\n        from IS0037666 (1-7) sent us 3 months\u2019 worth of bills\"\nP91.    RHOD0333065-69       2018-04-00, SMC sierra monitor SMC Cloud RESTful API Start-up Guide                  H\n                             Applicability & Effectivity\nP92.     Long Ex. 64         2018-06-15 to 07-07, Text Messages Marshall/Cameron/Chase RE \"a new dog\"             H, INC\n        pages from\n        IS0037666 (51-62)\nP93.    IS0022149            2018-07-16, Discount Steel, Inc. Invoice Order No.: 4351081                          H, F\nP94.    RHOD0092381-85       2018-08-03, Email String to Chase Blackmon from B. McElrath RE Mining                H, F\n                             Partnership - Update\nP95.     Long Ex. 66 pages   2018-08-22 to 08-31, Text Messages Marshall/Cameron/Chase RE \"remaining 80           H, INC\n        from IS0037667 (25- miners up and running.\"\n        30)\nP96.    RHOD0055456-457      2018-08-31, Certificate of Formation Limited Liability Company-Filed in the Office\n                             of the Secretary of State of Texas\nP97.     Best Ex. 12         2018-11-06, US Patent No.: US 10,123,463 B2\nP98.    RHOD0278179-181      2018-11-14, Certificate of Amendment The State of Texas; The name of the filing\n                             entity is: Immersion Systems LLC, Executed\nP99.    IS0023499-554        2019-03-29, Immersion Systems \"The Definitive Guide for Immersion Cooling\"           H\n\nP100.   MIDAS0004181           2019-03-29, Immersion Systems, LLC Frequently Asked Questions                      H, F, IR\nP101.   MIDAS0097139           2019-04-10, Email to J. Koen from M. Conti RE Partnership Outline                  H\nP102.   MIDAS0102041           2019-05-01, Summary Company agreement Alcatex_MGT                                  H\nP103.   RHOD0058312-314        2019-05-14, Email to Chase Blackmon from J. Mathews RE Updated Quote               H\n                               w/attachment(s)\nP104.   IS0000829-834          2019-05-22, Discount Steel, Inc. Blueprint Drawings M20s - 40 Unit Tank            F\nP105.   RHOD0010072            2019-06-06, Email Between Jonathan Brosseau[jonathan.brosseau@gmail.com];\n                               David Brassard[dbrassard@novacap.ca] Ce: Blackmon,\n                               William[wgblackmon@bmsmanagement.com]\n                                                                 7\n\n#420867v1\n                               PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 182-2    Filed 04/03/24   Page 9 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                     DESCRIPTION                                   RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP106.   IS0007226-228        2019-08-06, Email to Cameron Blackmon from Google Forms RE Immersion       H\n                             Systems Discovery Questions\nP107.   IS0007469-471        2019-08-09, Email to Chase Blackmon from C. Jacobs RE thoughts             H\n                             w/attachment(s)\nP108.   IS0007469            2019-08-09, Email to Chase Blackmon from C. Jacobs RE thoughts             H\n\nP109.   RHOD0060007          2019-08-09, Email to Chase Blackmon from C. Jacobs RE thoughts             H\n\n\nP110.   RHOD0132232          2019-08-15, Email to Jarad [jaradhoggan@gmail.com] from N. Nichols RE      H, OR\n                             Immersion Systems\nP111.   ISO0001513           2019-08-19, Immersion System Purchase and Firmware Installation Services   H, F, IR, 403.\n                             Agreement, Immersion Systems LLC & Melon Technologies LLC Fully Executed   Rhodium notes\n                                                                                                        that the correct\n                                                                                                        Bates number for\n                                                                                                        this document\n                                                                                                        appears to be\n                                                                                                        IS0001513. To the\n                                                                                                        extent Midas\n                                                                                                        refers to a different\n                                                                                                        document, please\n                                                                                                        identify it, and all\n                                                                                                        objections are\n                                                                                                        preserved.\n\nP112.   IS0015136            2019-08-22, Email to D. Lippe from Chase Blackmon RE RTM - Immersion       H\n                             Systems\nP113.   RHOD0055944-946;     2019-08-27, Email String to C. Jacobs from A. Thomas RE Quote Request      H\n        RHOD0055949;         w/attachment(s)\n        RHOD0055946;\n        RHOD0055950-958;\n        RHOD0055947\n                                                            8\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 182-2     Filed 04/03/24   Page 10 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                      DESCRIPTION                                       RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP114.   RHOD0092853-73       2019-10-06, Executive Employment Agreement, Executed                            H, IR\nP115.   RHOD0054021-025      2019-10-15, Email String to Cameron Blackmon from Chase Blackmon RE JPM         H\n                             Private Business Advisory Conference Call w/attachment\nP116.   ISO0022794           2019-11-19, Immersion System Purchase and Firmware Installation Services        H, F, IR, 403.\n                             Agreement w/Greenidge Generation, LLC, not Executed/exhibits                    Rhodium notes\n                                                                                                             that the correct\n                                                                                                             Bates number for\n                                                                                                             this document\n                                                                                                             appears to be\n                                                                                                             IS0022794. To the\n                                                                                                             extent Midas\n                                                                                                             refers to a different\n                                                                                                             document, please\n                                                                                                             identify it, and all\n                                                                                                             objections are\n                                                                                                             preserved.\n\nP117.   MIDAS0031368         2019-12-02, MGT Budgetary Quote #12021C (Midas XCI Crypto Waterless             H, F\n                             System Complete Cooling Solution)\nP118.   RHOD0199324-375      2020-00-00, Draft, Agreement of Limited Partnership of Permian BTC JVCO, LP     H, IR\nP119.   RHOD0185735          2020-01-08, Acromag BusWorks XT Series Brochure Ethernet Analog and             H\n                             Discrete I/0 Modules\nP120.   MIDAS0041742         2020-01-24, Letter to Edge Data Solutions, Inc. from Midas Green Technologies   H\n                             RE ongoing discussions between our two companies.\"\nP121.   IS0032666-723;       2020-02-04, Email to sales@immersionsystems.io from on behalf of A.             H, IR\n        MGT000581            Pennington RE [log received] [sales] United States Patent No., 10, 405, 457\nP122.   RHOD0130153-56       2020-02-06, Email to N. Cerasuolo from N. Nichols RE Binding LOI Whinstone -    H, OR\n                             Invitation to edit\nP123.   RHOD0130465-78       2020-02-17, IS Project Rhodium Business Model                                   H, OR\nP124.   IS0002033            2020-02-12, Email to J. Parker from N. Nichols RE [sales] Quote                 H, OR\nP125.   Cerasuolo Ex. 3      2020-02-17, element Investor Presentation                                       H, IR\n\n                                                             9\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 182-2     Filed 04/03/24   Page 11 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                      DESCRIPTION                                       RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP126.   RHOD0130465-66       2020-02-17, Email to M. Kelley from N. Nichols RE Rhodium pitch deck--          H, IR\n                             comments for consideration w/attachment(s)\nP127.   MGT0000849;          2020-03-04, Letter to Immersion Systems LLC, Cameron Blackmon from A.           H, IR, 403\n        MIDAS0031663-664     Pennington, Hunt Pennington PLLC RE United States Patent No.: 10,405,457 -\n                             Appliance Immersion Cooling System - 2nd Notice\nP128.   RHOD0104090-128      2020-03-06, Email String to Cameron Blackmon from N. Cerasuolo RE Edited JV     H, OR\n                             Agreement w/attachment(s)\nP129.   RHOD0103950-988      2020-03-09, Email to legal@imperiumpartners.io from legal@imperiumpartners.io   H, OR\n                             RE Document Rhodium JV LLC -operating agreement Mar 6 2020 CLEAN -\n                             FINAL v1 w/attachment(s)\nP130.   RHOD0007112          2020-03-27, Email to L. Theriot from Chase Blackmon RE Rhodium Tanks with       H\n                             attachments\nP131.   MIDAS0098759         2020-03-30, Email to J. Koen from M. Conti RE Proposal                          H\nP132.   RHOD0007119-120      2020-03-31, Email to D. Michael from Chase Blackmon RE Newest CAD File for      H\n                             24 Whatsminer M30s\nP133.   RHOD0004071          2020-04-01 Inception to 12-31-2020, Rhodium Enterprises LLC and Rhodium JV      H\n                             LLC Consolidated and Combined Financial Statements\n\nP134.   RHOD0067308-408      2020-04-08, Confidential Private Placement Memorandum for Rhodium 30mw          H,\n                             LLC\nP135.   Cameron Ex. 123      2020-04-08, Texas Secretary of State Business Organizations Inquiry - Rhodium\n                             JV LLC\nP136.   IS0009566-67         2020-04-22, Email String to M. Long from N. Nichols RE Miner Repair/Warranty    H\n                             issues\nP137.   RHOD0102025-27       2020-04-24, Email String to N. Cerasuolo from A. Sullivan RE Immersion          H, IR\n                             Systems // XMS - Intro\nP138.   RHOD0129601-603      2020-04-24, Email to louis@mimesiscapital.com from N. Nichols RE Louis -        H\n                             Rhodium (Mbre Info)\nP139.   RHOD0130229          2020-05-12, Email to D. Johnston from N. Nichols RE Intro to Pal Capital        H, IR\n                             w/attachment(s)\nP140.   RHOD0067409          2020-05-18, Rhodium Draft Returns Analysis                                      H\n                                                            10\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 182-2     Filed 04/03/24   Page 12 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                      DESCRIPTION                                        RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP141.   RHOD0067050-53       2020-05-18, Email String to W. Vaughan from N. Nichols RE Intro                  H, IR\nP142.   RHOD0067305-07       2020-05-18, Email to D. Boirun from N. Cerasuolo RE Rhodium PPM + Model for      H, IR\n                             Realio Fund w/attachment(s)\nP143.   RHOD0067601-11       2020-05-21, Email String to R. Barbash from N. Cerasuolo RE Ross Barbash         H, IR\n                             Imperium Team -- follow up call w/attachment(s)\nP144.                        2020-05-29, Original Complaint for Patent Infringement Against Immersion         H, NP, IR\n                             Systems LLC\nP145.   RHOD0070493-98       2020-06-02, Email String to T. Zacker from N. Nichols RE Rhodium 30MW            H\n                             Investment Thesis\nP146.   RHOD0010839-42       2020-06-04, Email to Cameron Blackmon from Chase Blackmon RE                     H\n                             Manufacturing Services Agreement w/attachment(s)\nP147.   RHOD0062471-72       2020-06-04, Email to Chase Blackmon from N. Nichols RE Manufacturing             H\n                             Services Agreement\nP148.   RHOD0062493-94       2020-06-05, Email to Owners of Rhodium Mining from Cameron Blackmon RE           H\n                             Document Rhodium 30MW Manufacturing Agmt\nP149.   MIDAS0044418         2020-06-18, Immersion Edge Lincoln Rackhouse Immersion Cooling\n                             Facility_AEO\nP150.   RHOD0131665-66       2020-06-11, Email String to R. Barbash from N. Nichols RE SPV Docs, New          H, OR\n                             Model and Stash\nP151.   RHOD0127353-54       2020-06-15, Email to N. Nichols from M. Al-Mashita RE GDA and Proof Capital      H, IR\n                             launch $2 Million Dollar Fund\nP152.   Poulin Ex. 11        2020-06-22, Diamond Quad Views-Based upon the file: diamond quad - for lenert    INC, IC\n                             Drawings\nP153.   MIDAS0032263         2020-06-24, Reseller Agreement EDSI_MGT                                          H\nP154.   MIDAS0044458         2020-07-02, EVS Metal Quote #16044\nP155.   RHOD00318421-531     2020-07-07, UPDATED Confidential Private Placement Memorandum for                H, IR\n                             Rhodium 30mw LLC\nP156.   MIDAS0294252         2020-07-11, Group Text Messages Number of Participants 8 J. Koen, M. Conti, F.   H\n                             Conti, D. Branscum, S. Sickmiller, B. Frantz and D. Burgess\nP157.   RHOD0000002-23       2020-07-13, Thermosystems Job Name: Georgetown Project, Submitted by: Mike       H\n                             Murray, Job # 39497\n\n                                                            11\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 182-2     Filed 04/03/24   Page 13 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                       DESCRIPTION                                        RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP158.   RHOD0007935          2020-07-17, Email String to orders@drycoolers.com from Chase Blackmon RE J-       H\n                             7465--Drawing Approval Required--PO P-28665B w/ attachment(s)\nP159.   MIDAS0294414         2020-07-22, Automation Direct Quotation #6370084WDQF\nP160.   MIDAS0294407         2020-07-22, MGT PO #XCIC-0001 to Ion Design                                       H\n\nP161.   RHOD0132927-30       2020-07-27, Email String to R. Barbash from N. Cerasuolo RE Rhodium               H\n                             Opportunity and Requests\nP162.   RHOD0132906-910      2020-07-28, Email String to N. Cerasuolo from R. Barbash RE Rhodium               H\n                             Opportunity and Requests\nP163.   RHOD0091022-29       2020-08-15, Email String to N. Nichols from E. Samuel RE Rhodium PPM +            H\n                             Model for Realio Fund\nP164.   MIDAS0242974         2020-09-10, Email to D. Wannemacher from J. Koen RE EDSI and Midas                H\n                             Updates\nP165.   GRC0469-472          2020-09-29, GRC GEN 10 42U DUO ASSEMBLY Schematic\nP166.   GRC0484-487          2020-09-29, GRC GEN 10 42U QUAD ASSEMBLY Schematic\nP167.   MIDAS0041824         2020-10-01, License Agreement EDSI_MGT                                            H\n\nP168.   RHOD0206930-943      2020-10-07, Draft, Intellectual Property License Agreement between Imperium       H, IR\n                             Investment Holdings LLC and Permian BTC JVCO, LP\nP169.   MIDAS0295671         2020-10-08, Midas PO #MC12U-009                                                   H\n\nP170.   MIDAS0295457         2020-10-12, Number of participants RE JCI Reseller Agreement 10-11-20             IR\n                             MC.docx\nP171.   RHOD0017948-949      2020-10-14, Email String to B. Whitnell from N. Nichols RE IP License Agreement   H, IR\n                             with Permian BTC JVCO LP\nP172.   MIDAS0296277         2020-11-23, MGT Budgetary Quote #112320-1 (Edge Data Center Solutions             H\n                             Stage 1 Proposal)\nP173.   MIDAS0296275         2020-11-23, MGT Budgetary Quote #112320-1 (Edge Data Center Solutions             H\n                             Stage 2 Proposal)\nP174.   MIDAS0041840         2020-12-04, Amended and Restated License Agreement EDSI_MGT                       H\n\n                                                             12\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 182-2      Filed 04/03/24   Page 14 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                       DESCRIPTION                                     RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP175.   RHOD0180949-953      2020-12-31, Rhodium Legal Entity Structure                                     H\nP176.   MIDAS0244453         Midas XCI System User Manual\n\nP177.   RHOD0148834-35       2021-01/24, Email to N. Nichols from D. Stadlin RE Rhodium Pitch - Updated     H\n\nP178.   RHOD0049269-272      2021-01-25, Email to Chase Blackmon from C. Gossett RE Fwd: w/attachment(s)    H\n\nP179.   RHOD0148126-138      2021-02-00, Rhodium 2.0 Catalogue                                              H, IR, MIL\nP180.   RHOD0003957          2021-02-01, Confidentiality, Proprietary Rights, and Protective Covenants      H\n                             Agreement, Cameron Blackmon Fully Executed Outside AEO\nP181.   RHOD0003946          2021-02-01, Confidentiality, Proprietary Rights, and Protective Covenants      H, IR\n                             Agreement, Chase Blackmon Fully Executed Outside AEO\nP182.   RHOD0003624          2021-02-01, Confidentiality, Proprietary Rights, and Protective Covenants      H\n                             Agreement, Nathan B. Nichols Fully Executed Outside AEO\nP183.   MIDAS0041894         2021-02-01, Reseller Agreement Alcatex_EDSI                                    H\nP184.   MIDAS0250534         2021-02-11, Email String to J. Fitch from M. Conti RE Proposal - Add a \"Why    H\n                             Midas\" table with our compelling advantages to the web site w/attachment(s)\nP185.   RHOD0046281-289      2021-03-02, Email String to Chase Blackmon from J. Curbo Re Rhodium Mining -   H\n                             Final Designs w/attachment(s)\nP186.   MIDAS0250953         2021-03-04, Email to S. Howell from M. Conti RE Midas-Whinstone proposal       H\n                             w/attachment(s)\nP187.   GRC0516-518          2021-03-09, REVISION TABLE-ICEraQ-10Q ELECTRICAL SCHEMATIC\nP188.   MIDAS0251012         2021-03-11, Email String to F. Conti from L. Theriot RE Midas-Whinstone        H\n                             proposal\nP189.   MIDAS0301168         2021-03-15, EDSI PO No. 1006                                                   H, IR\n\nP190.   MIDAS0343294         2021-03-15, Midas Green Technologies Purchase Order No.: 1006 to HDI           H, F, IC\n                             Investors, LLC (w/additional PO and CO)_Outside AEO\nP191.   RHOD0147165-66       2021-03-16, Email to S. Gilbert from A. Ausiello RE ops forecast template @    H\n                             $30K BTC w/attachment(s)\n\n                                                             13\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 182-2      Filed 04/03/24   Page 15 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                       DESCRIPTION                                        RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP192.   MIDAS0002966         2021-03-17, Plaintiff Midas' Response to Immersion's First Set of Rogs and Rfps   H, F, IR, 403\n\nP193.   MIDAS0041929         2021-03-24, Reseller Agreement Exuvi8_MGT                                         H\n\nP194.   RHOD0004740          2021-03-26, Ameritex Invoice Number 86497 to Rhodium Mining                       H\nP195.   RHOD0328078          2021-04-12, Email to C. VanZoeren from A. Hammett RE VFD                          H\nP196.   RHOD0196056-58       2021-04-14, Email to J. Moore from N. Cerasuolo RE Anticipated Roll-Up, IPO,      H, IR\n                             and Our Future Together\nP197.   RHOD0185744-45       2021-04-21, Memo to M. Long from F. Yost w/Relevant Solutions RE Remote IO        H\n                             for temperature and pressure monitoring\nP198.   RHOD0004741          2021-04-23, Ameritex Invoice Number 86833 to Rhodium Enterprises LLC              H\nP199.   MIDAS0251686         2021-04-23, Email String to J. Esquier from J. Koen RE Immersion mutual           H\n                             Cooperation Agreement\nP200.   RHOD0004742          2021-04-27, Ameritex Invoice Number 86858 to Rhodium Enterprises LLC              H\nP201.   RHOD0004743          2021-04-28, Ameritex Invoice Number 86873 to Rhodium Enterprises LLC              H\n\nP202.   RHOD0004737          2021-05-14, Kelvion URV-MF102L2X-091E800-XKH016S1 Final Assembly\n                             Blueprint\nP203.   MIDAS0002664         2021-05-18, Plaintiff Midas' First Amended Response to Immersion's First set of   H, F, IR, 403\n                             Rogs and RFPs\nP204.   RHOD0039850-51       2021-05-26, Email String to D. Sundin from N. Nichols RE EF Rhodium Mining -      H\n                             Fluid Deployment and Contracting Work Stream\nP205.   MIDAS0343325         2021-05-26, Whinstone US Inc. Purchase Order No.: WCO-2107 to Midas Green         H, F, IC\n                             Technologies Outside AEO\nP206.   MIDAS0409100         2021-06 to 2023-06, Midas Immersion Cooling Pricing Analysis Table Outside        H, F, AUTH\n                             AEO\nP207.   MIDAS0409964-        2021-06-00, Midas Green Tech Marketing Strategy                                   H\n        0410048\nP208.   RHOD0036481-482      2021-06-03, Email String to C. VanZoeren from B. Peterson RE Blanks made          H\n                             w/attachment(s)\n\n                                                             14\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA     Document 182-2     Filed 04/03/24   Page 16 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                       DESCRIPTION                                         RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP209.   RHOD0121340-52       2021-06-06, Email to D. Wall from J. Melillo RE Rhodium - Perot Family Office -    H\n                             bitcoin mining (list of attendees) - question w/attachment(s)\nP210.   RHOD0004218          2021-06-07, Rhodium Enterprises Presentation                                       H\nP211.   MIDAS0343222         2021-06-11, Whinstone US Inc. Purchase Order No.: WEL-2117 to Midas Green          H, F, IC, AUTH\n                             Technologies (w/additional PO)_Outside AEO\nP212.   MIDAS0343175         2021-06-11, Whinstone US Inc. Purchase Order No.: WELL-2117 to Midas Green         H\n                             Technologies\nP213.   MIDAS0253197         2021-06-15, Envirosep PO #PO-w200-001-01                                           H\nP214.   MIDAS0409962         2021-06-30, Email to S. Howell from M. Conti RE slide deck draft w/attachment(s)   H\n\nP215.   RHOD0119635-36       2021-06-30, Letter to Lt. Governor Patrick from N. Nichols RE Christian Business   H, IR\n                             Culture and Bitcoin w/Nathan Nichols CV attachment(s)\nP216.   RHOD0083342-344      2021-07-01, Rhodium Enterprises, Inc. Unanimous Written Consent of Sole            H\n                             Director to Action Taken w/out a Meeting, Executed\nP217.   RHOD0185342          2021-07-14, Email String to M. Kulesza from G. Tang RE *EXTERNAL Acromag           H\n                             Software\nP218.   MIDA0042235-236      2021-07-14, Midas Green Technologies, LLC Balance Sheet as of December 31,         H\n                             2015\nP219.   MIDAS0301167         2021-07-15, EDSI PO No. 1019                                                       H, IR\nP220.   MIDAS0042282         2021-07-15, '457 and '446 Claim Charts of MGT Commercial Embodiment - 12U          H, F, IC, 403,\n                             Tank                                                                               1006. Rhodium\n                                                                                                                further objects that\n                                                                                                                testimony about\n                                                                                                                the subject matter\n                                                                                                                of this claim chart\n                                                                                                                is inadmissible\n                                                                                                                pursuant to\n                                                                                                                Rhodium\u2019s motion\n                                                                                                                to exclude the\n                                                                                                                testimony of Dr.\n                                                                                                                James Lee.\n\n                                                              15\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 182-2      Filed 04/03/24   Page 17 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                       DESCRIPTION                                      RHODIUM OBJ.\n\n\nP221.   MIDAS0042237         2021-07-20, '457 and '446 Claim Charts of MGT Commercial Embodiment - 50U       H, F, IC, 403,\n                             Tank                                                                            1006. Rhodium\n                                                                                                             further objects that\n                                                                                                             testimony about\n                                                                                                             the subject matter\n                                                                                                             of this claim chart\n                                                                                                             is inadmissible\n                                                                                                             pursuant to\n                                                                                                             Rhodium\u2019s motion\n                                                                                                             to exclude the\n                                                                                                             testimony of Dr.\n                                                                                                             James Lee.\n\nP222.   RHOD0004256          2021-08-00, Rhodium Presentation                                                H\n\nP223.   RHOD0185381          2021-08-02, Email to J. Melillo from C. Blackmon RE box v1 - Project Rocket -   H\n                             Business Section w_attachment Project Rocket\nP224.   RHOD0185369          2021-08-02, Email to M. Long from J. Melillo RE box v1                          H\nP225.   RHOD0144563;         2021-08-02, Email to N. Nichols from A. Ausiello RE Power Agreements            H\n        RHOD0145752          w/attachment(s)\nP226.   MIDAS0301170         2021-08-12, EDSI PO No. 1024                                                    H, IR\n\nP227.   MIDAS0343291         2021-08-12, Midas Green Technologies Purchase Order No.: 1024 to Mini Kix,      H, F, IC\n                             Inc. (w/additional PO)_Outside AEO\nP228.   MIDAS0343308         2021-08-12, Midas Green Technologies Purchase Order No.: 1027 to Mini Kix,      H, F, IC\n                             Inc. (w/additional PO and CO)_Outside AEO\nP229.   MIDAS0343363         2021-08-12, Midas Green Technologies, LLC Purchase Order No.: PO-W200-          H, F, IC\n                             001-C02 to Envirosep, Inc. Outside AEO (w/additional PO)\nP230.   MIDAS0343371         2021-08-12, Module and Tank Tracking Spreadsheet (3 active sheets)              H, F, AUTH\n\n                                                             16\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 182-2    Filed 04/03/24   Page 18 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                      DESCRIPTION                                   RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP231.   RHOD0003470          2021-08-13, USSCE Registration Statement Rhodium Enterprises, Inc.          H, IR, 403\n\nP232.   RHOD0082241-264      2021-08-14, Email to Cameron Blackmon from C. Topping RE NDA Links          H\n                             w/attachment(s)\nP233.   MIDAS0301200         2021-08-21, EDSI PO No. 1027                                                H, IR\n\nP234.   RHOD0158079-124      2021-09-15, Imperium Investments Holdings LLC                               H, IR, MIL\n\nP235.   MIDAS0301169         2021-09-23, EDSI PO No. 1029                                                H, IR\n\nP236.   RHOD0027917-19       2021-09-23, Email Chain Between Caleb VanZoeren, Will Broadman, Chase\n                             Blackmon, Jonathan K Grice, Calaway M McQueen, Jorge Calderon\nP237.   MIDAS0343315         2021-09-23, Midas Green Technologies Purchase Order No.: 1029 to BitCat     H, F, IC\n                             (w/additional PO)_Outside AEO\nP238.   RHOD0004660          2021-09-24, Grundfos Quotation System 21.3.1 Pump Performance Datasheet\n\nP239.   MIDAS0343195         2021-09-28, Midas Green Technologies Estimate No.: 2 to Whinstone           H\n\nP240.   MIDAS0100522         2021-09-30, Email String to D. Branscum from M. Conti RE Midas paragraph    H\n\nP241.   RHOD0162456-490      2021-09-30, Project Rocket Rhodium Investor Presentation Confidential-AEO   H\n\nP242.   RHOD0157876-         2021-10-06, AltaView Advisors Imperium Investments Holdings LLC, Company H, IR, MIL\n        0158078              Catalogue\nP243.   RHOD0004748          2021-10-06, Ameritex Invoice Number 50088 DWN PMT to Rhodium Renewables H\n\nP244.   MIDAS0400211         2021-10-15, Complete Submittal 200 MW Installation Whinstone Rev D\n\nP245.   RHOD0004738          2021-10-20, Ameritex Invoice Number 50192 DWN PMT to Rhodium 70MW           H\n                             7546_Outside AEO\n                                                            17\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 182-2     Filed 04/03/24   Page 19 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                       DESCRIPTION                                       RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP246.   MIDAS0343259         2021-10-23, 360mining.com - New Deal Quote Reference No.: 20211023-              H, F, IC\n                             114137332 (w/additional PO and CO)_Outside AEO\nP247.   RHOD0012767          2021-10-24, Email String to J. Melillo from C. Blackmon RE edits w_attachment    H\n                             Roadshow Script\nP248.   RHOD0012768          2021-10-24, Roadshow Script V3.5 Chase updated Section                           H\n\nP249.   RHOD0003138          2021-10-28, USSCE Registration Statement Rhodium Enterprises, Inc.               H, IR, 403\n\nP250.   MIDAS0100601         2021-10-30, Email to S. Howell from M. Conti RE Midas Strategy w/attachment(s)   H\n\nP251.   MIDAS0104944         2021-11-03, Email to A. Boen from J. Koen RE Immersion Edge Dissolution          H\n                             w/attachment(s)\nP252.   RHOD0022989          2021-11-04, Industrial Builders Rhodium Fan Tower and Munters Unit Electrical    H\n                             Blueprint_Outside AEO\nP253.   RHOD0004189          2021-11-11, Rhodium Presentation                                                 H\n\nP254.   RHOD0155723          2021-11-12, Email to A. Peloubet from D. Elliot RE NetZero w/attachment(s)       H, IR\n\nP255.   B_Riley-000979-86    2021-11-15, Email String to J. Nardini from N. Cerasuolo RE Rhodium -            H, IR\n                             Additional Disclosure\nP256.   RHOD0002854          2021-11-16, USSCE Registration Statement Rhodium Enterprises, Inc.               H, IR, 403\nP257.   RHOD0004657          2021-11-17, Ebara Pump Performance Datasheet Quotation System\n                             21.4.0_Outside AEO\nP258.   RHOD0004272          2021-11-20, Rhodium Enterprises Deck                                             H\nP259.   RHOD0023696-         2021-11-22, Email to N. Cerasuolo from A. Peloubet RE CONFIDENTIAL - 2021-       H, IR\n        23720                Q3 financials for Fairbairns w/attachment(s)\nP260.   RHOD0023659          2021-11-22, Email to N. Nicholos from R. Binner RE Pre_IPO dry-run Q&A prep      H, IR\nP261.   B_Riley-002489-98    2021-11-30, Email String to A. Peetz from J. Melillo RE Rhodium - Valuation      F, H, IR\n                             Submission\n\n\n                                                             18\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 182-2       Filed 04/03/24   Page 20 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                       DESCRIPTION                                       RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP262.   RHOD0270891-942      2021-11-30, Letter to M. Crispino from N. Nichols RE Rhodium Enterprises, Inc.   H, IR\n                             Registration Statement on Form S1 File No. 333-206575\nP263.   MIDAS0343199         2021-12-01, Midas Green Technologies Purchase Order No.: 101038 to be            H\n                             provided (w/additional PO and CO)_Outside AEO\nP264.   RHOD0002549          2021-12-01, USSCE Registration Statement Rhodium Enterprises, Inc.               H, IR, 403\nP265.   RHOD0022688          2021-12-02, Email String to Chase Blackmon from A. Ausiello RE Comps             H, IR\n                             w/attachment(s)\nP266.   B_Riley-004682-86    2021-12-02, Email String to J. Bueno from N. Nichols RE Comps                    H, IR\n\nP267.   INDUSTRIAL000459     2021-12-10, Control Panel Drawings Email\n\nP268.   RHOD0002337          2021-12-10, USSCE Registration Statement Rhodium Enterprises, Inc.               H, IR, 403\nP269.   RHOD0002130          2021-12-14, USSCE Registration Statement Rhodium Enterprises, Inc.               H, IR ,403\nP270.   MIDAS0046081         2021-12-20, Invoice for Grid #3821                                               H, IR\nP271.   RHOD0004757          2021-12-23, Ameritex Invoice Number 89007 to Rhodium Mining                      H\nP272.   MIDAS0343298         2021-12-29, Midas Green Technologies Purchase Order No.: 101043 to Mini Kix,     H, F, IC\n                             Inc. (w/additional PO)_Outside AEO\nP273.   RHOD0004090          2021-12-31, Rhodium Enterprises Inc. Consolidated Financial Statements           H\nP274.   MIDAS0045986         2022-00-00, Midas Immersion Cooling-Immersion Cooling Overview Deck              H\nP275.   RHOD0332497          2022-00-00, MMU Mining Earnings Summary and 2nd tab Electrum History             H, F, 403\n                             Spreadsheet (2 active sheets)\nP276.   RHOD0004229          2022-01-00, Rhodium Roadshow Presentation Building Bitcoin with innovation,      H\n                             sustainability and integrity\nP277.   RHOD0171501-509      2022-01-02, Email String to J C [calvin.jim@gmail.com] from N. Cerasuolo         H, IR, MIL\n                             Rhodium comps and valuation comparison w/attachment(s)\nP278.   RHOD0171283-285      2022-01-05, Email String to A. Ausiello from N. Cerasuolo RE Corporate Model     H, IR, MIL\n                             Update w/attachment(s)\nP279.   B_Riley-009461-91    2022-01-12, Email String to J. Melillo from A. Peetz RE Rhodium Roadshow Deck    F, H, IR\n                             w/attachment(s)\nP280.   RHOD0018592-         2022-01-12, Email To: Zach Scheich[zachscheich@rhodiummining.io\n        RHODO0018601\n                                                             19\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                           Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-2     Filed 04/03/24   Page 21 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                       DESCRIPTION                                      RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP281.   Cerasuolo Ex. 12       2022-01-13, Original Complaint for Patent Infringement                        H\nP282.   RHOD0001910            2022-01-13, USSCE Registration Statement Rhodium Enterprises, Inc.            H, IR, 403\nP283.   RHOD0001702            2022-01-18, USSCE Registration Statement Rhodium Enterprises, Inc.            H, IR, 403\nP284.   Cerasuolo Ex. 13       2022-01-18, USSEC Amendment No. 6 to Form S-1 Registration Statement          H, NP, IR\n                               Rhodium Enterprises, Inc. Webpage from sec.gov/Archives 07/07/23\nP285.   INDUSTRIAL000815       2022-01-18, Agreement Between Rhodium Renewal Services and Industrial\n        -                      Builders\n        INDUSTRIAL000851\nP286.   RHOD0004747            2022-01-19, Ameritex Invoice Number 50535 DWN PMT to Rhodium Mining           H\nP287.   B_Riley-012712-13      2022-01-19, Email to M. Bradshaw from N. Cerasuolo RE Rhodium - Demand        F, H\n                               Letter\nP288.   INDUSTRIAL000814       2022-01-26, Email From: Chase Blackmon\nP289.   MIDAS0343305           2022-01-26, Midas Green Technologies Purchase Order No.: PO101053 to          H, F, IC\n                               Cleanspark, Inc. (w/additional PO)\nP290.   MIDAS0343356           2022-01-28, Midas Green Technologies, LLC Purchase Order No.: PO-ED18-        H, F, IC\n                               006-R to MCA_Outside AEO (w/additional PO)\nP291.   RHOD0004744            2022-02-28, Ameritex Invoice Number 02282022 to Rhodium Mining                H\nP292.   MIDAS0343275           2022-03-01, Compute North Purchase Order Quote No.: PO00017 (w/additional     H, F, IC\n                               PO)\nP293.   MIDAS0343335           2022-03-08, Maystell Quote No.: 2000550 to Midas Green Technologies Outside   H, F, IC\n                               AEO (w/additional PO)\nP294.   MIDAS0343280           2022-03-16, Midas Green Technologies Purchase Order No.: 501060 to Eagle      H, F, IC\n                               Energy Resources (w/additional PO and CO)_Outside AEO\nP295.   MIDAS0343330           2022-03-22, Midas Immersion Cooling Purchase Request PO No.: 153503310        H, F, IC\n                               (executed quote) to Envirosep, Inc.\nP296.   MIDAS0343320           2022-03-22, Midas Immersion Purchase Order No.: 000001 to Galaxy Qualified\n                               Opportunity Zone Business (w/additional PO)_Outside AEO\nP297.   RHOD0332460-           \"2022-03-25, Shunt Trip Cause & Effect Table; 2022-05-26, Rhodium Temple IO   H, F, IC\n        332496                 List REVA, RIO-DHP01-01 Table-For Review\nP298.   INDUSTRIAL001546       2022-03-29, email to Rick Spivey\n        -\n        INDUSTRIAL001551\n                                                              20\n\n#420867v1\n                               PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA     Document 182-2      Filed 04/03/24   Page 22 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                        DESCRIPTION                                        RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP299.   RHOD0004745          2022-03-31, Ameritex Invoice Number 03312022 to Rhodium Mining                     H\nP300.   RHOD0004113          2022-03-31, Rhodium Enterprises Inc. Condensed Consolidated Financial              H\n                             Statements (Unaudited)_Outside AEO\nP301.   B_Riley-012870       2022-04-04, Email to J. Baker from M. Cerasuolo RE B Riley RHDM -- reconnect       F, H, IR\nP302.   RHOD0004758          2022-04-07, Ameritex Invoice Number 89530 to Rhodium Mining                        H\nP303.   RHOD0004746          2022-04-29, Ameritex Invoice Number 04292022 to Rhodium Mining                     H\nP304.   Poulin Ex. 9         2022-05-12, US Patent Application Publication Pub. No.: US 2022/0151097 A1\nP305.   RHOD0332504          2022-05-16, Prime Controls Rhodium Temple 0477-0001-CN01 rev. 0 Immersion          H, IR\n                             Mining Critical Infrastructure Controls Narrative\nP306.   MIDAS0343270         2022-05-17, Compute North Purchase Order Quote No.: PO000308 Rev 0                 H, F, IC\n                             (w/additional PO)_Outside AEO\nP307.   RHOD0332756-61       2022-05-26, Rhodium Enterprises, Inc. Temple Plant Drawings by Prime Controls      H, IR\nP308.   RHOD0332753          2022-05-26, Rhodium Enterprises, Inc. Temple Plant, Typical Cooler Block P&ID      H, IR\n                             Drawings by Prime Controls\nP309.   RHOD0332498-         2022-05-26, Shunt Trip Cause & Effect\n        332891\nP310.   RHOD0004750          2022-05-31, Ameritex Invoice Number 89795 to Rhodium Mining                        H\nP311.   RHOD0332501          2022-06-02, DH1 Block 1&2 C&E, Normal Start/Stop Sequences Table(s)                H, F, AUTH, IC\nP312.   INDUSTRIAL002005     2022-06-23, email From: Jamie Estes\n        -\n        INDUSTRIAL002008\nP313.   RHOD0004751          2022-06-30, Ameritex Invoice Number 89896 to Rhodium Mining                        H\nP314.   RHOD0004752          2022-06-30, Ameritex Invoice Number 89963 to Rhodium Mining                        H\n\nP315.   RHOD0004052          2022-06-30, Rhodium Enterprises Inc. Condensed Consolidated Financial              H\n                             Statements (Unaudited)_Outside AEO\nP316.   Dkt. 50              2022-07-11, Joint Stipulation on Claim Construction\nP317.   RHOD0004337          2022-07-11, Rhodium Enterprises Building Bitcoin with innovation, sustainability   H\n                             and integrity\n\n\n                                                              21\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                          Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA     Document 182-2      Filed 04/03/24   Page 23 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                         DESCRIPTION                                     RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP318.   RHOD0004753           2022-07-31, Ameritex Invoice Number 89989 to Rhodium Mining                     H\n\nP319.   RHOD0004754           2022-07-31, Ameritex Invoice Number 90065 to Rhodium Mining                     H\n\nP320.   RHOD0004755           2022-08-31, Ameritex Invoice Number 90131 to Rhodium Mining                     H\n\nP321.   RHOD0004756           2022-08-31, Ameritex Invoice Number 90180 to Rhodium Mining                     H\n\nP322.   Ortega Ex. 139        2022-08-31, Plaintiff's Responses and Objections to Defendants' First Set of    H\n                              Requests for Admission to Plaintiff\nP323.   RHOD0003657           2022-08-31, SCE Confidential Private Placement Memorandum Rhodium               H, IR, 403\n                              Enterprises, Inc. Rhodium Enterprises PPM - Foreign Investor Outside AEO\nP324.   RHOD0001166           2022-08-31, SCE Confidential Private Placement Memorandum Rhodium               H, IR, 403\n                              Enterprises, Inc. Rhodium Enterprises PPM - US Outside AEO\nP325.   RHOD0004312           2022-09-00, Rhodium Enterprises Deck                                            H\n\nP326.   RHOD0004178-188       2022-09-00, Rhodium Presentation                                                H\nP327.   RHOD0004354           2022-09-07, Summary of Proposed Terms between collectively Rhodium and          H, IR\n                              SilverSun Technologies, Inc., Fully Executed\nP328.   B_Riley-012973-       2022-09-26, Email to J. Bueno from J. Melillo RE Aesop docs w/attachment(s)     F, H, IR\n        013102\nP329.   RHOD0004361           2022-09-29, Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among Silversun                 H\n                              Technologies, Inc., Rhodium Enterprises Acquistion Corp., Rhodium Enterprises\n                              Acquistion LLC and Rhodum Enterprises, Inc.\nP330.   RHOD0004131           2022-09-30, Rhodium Enterprises Inc. Condensed Consolidated Financial           H\n                              Statements\nP331.   RHOD0004325           2022-10-00, Rhodium Presentation                                                H\nP332.   INDUSTRIAL002825      2022-10-12, Industrial Builders Certification and Application for Payment\n        -\n        INDUSTRIAL002858\n\n                                                               22\n\n#420867v1\n                              PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                            Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 182-2     Filed 04/03/24   Page 24 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                         DESCRIPTION                                       RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP333.   RHOD0333749             2022-10-14, Consent of Nathan Nichols to be Named as a Director Upon the        H, IR\n                                Completion of the Merger, Exhibit 99.2\nP334.   RHOD0004646             2022-10-20, Amendment to Merger Agreement by and among Silversun                H, IR\n                                Technologies, Inc., Rhodium Enterprises Acquistion Corp., Rhodium Enterprises\n                                Acquistion LLC and Rhodum Enterprises, Inc., Fully Executed\nP335.   RHOD0004346             2022-12-00, Rhodium Presentation                                                H\n\nP336.   RHOD0004652             2022-12-21, Second Amendment to Merger Agreement by and among Silversun         H, IR\n                                Technologies, Inc., Rhodium Enterprises Acquistion Corp., Rhodium Enterprises\n                                Acquistion LLC and Rhodum Enterprises, Inc.,\nP337.   Poulin Ex. 4            2023-00-00, GRC eBook The Definitive Guide to Immersion Cooling                 H, F, NP\n\nP338.   Poulin Ex. 5            2023-00-00, GRC HashRaQ MAX \"Take Your Blockchain Performance to the            H, F, NP\n                                MAX\" Brochure\nP339.   Poulin Ex. 6            2023-00-00, GRC Take Your Crypto Mining Peformance to the MAX-Introducing       H, F, NP\n                                the new HashRaQ MAX\nP340.   RHOD0332970-71          2023-01-05, Email String to J. Kenney from C. VanZoeren RE Prime Controls -     H\n                                RHDM - Term Sheet\nP341.   Sickmiller Ex. 26       2023-02-06, Riot Investor Relations Press Releases-Riot Announces January       H, NP\n                                2023 Production and Operations Updates webpage(s)\nP342.   Chase Ex. 16            2023-02-17, Defendants' Further Supplemental Responses and Objections to        H\n                                Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1, 3-6, 10, 13, 15\nP343.   MIDAS0343373            2023-03-13, Copy of HubSpot-crm-exports-all-deals Spreadsheet                   H, F, AUTH, IR,\n                                                                                                                403\nP344.   RHOD0337285;            2023-06-09, System View Testing Logs Real Time                                  H, INC\n        RHOD0337289-90;\n        RHOD0337296;\n        RHOD0337305-307;\n        RHOD0332968\nP345.   MIDAS0409102            2023-07-07, Purchase Order (No. 1) by and between Midas Immersion Cooling       H, INC\n                                and Project Lefty, Fully Executed\n                                                                23\n\n#420867v1\n                                PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                           Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 182-2    Filed 04/03/24   Page 25 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                        DESCRIPTION                                 RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP346.   Conti Ex. 26           2023-07-19, Midas Immersion Cooling Supply 200 MW of Leading-Edge          H, NP\n                               Immersion Cooling Equipment Solutions to Riot Platforms, Inc. webpage(s)\nP347.                          2023-07-31, Defendants' Third Supplemental Responses and Objections to     H\n                               Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories\nP348.   Sickmiller Ex. 9       2023-08-08, Midas Green Technologies, LLC Balance Sheet as of June 30,     H\n                               2023; Profit & Loss January 2021 through June 2023\nP349.   Chase Ex. 111          2023-08-15, Rhodium Presentation                                           H\n\nP350.   MIDAS0411916           2023-08-31, Rockdale Site Inspection Photos\n        MIDAS0411888\n        MIDAS0411918\n        MIDAS0412027\n        MIDAS0411914\n        MIDAS0412019\n        MIDAS0412018\n        MIDAS0412021\n        MIDAS0412030\n        MIDAS0412025\n        MIDAS0411922\n        MIDAS0411915\nP351.   MIDAS0410829           2023-08-31, Temple Site Inspection Photos\n        MIDAS0410663\n        MIDAS0410950\n        MIDAS0410803\n        MIDAS0410821\n        MIDAS0410829\n        MIDAS0410769\n        MIDAS0410919\n        MIDAS0410666\n        MIDAS0410799\n        MIDAS0410670\n        MIDAS0410814\n                                                              24\n\n#420867v1\n                               PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                           Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-2     Filed 04/03/24   Page 26 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                       DESCRIPTION                                    RHODIUM OBJ.\n\n        MIDAS0410792\n        MIDAS0410652\n        MIDAS0410807\n        MIDAS0410878\n        MIDAS0410917\n        MIDAS0410879\n        MIDAS0410819\n        MIDAS0410789\n        MIDAS0410818\n        MIDAS0410854\n        MIDAS0410823\nP352.   MIDAS0411739-          2023-08-31, Site Inspection Photos taken by Himanshu Pokharna\n        0411758\nP353.                          2023-08-31 Temple Site Inspection Video\nP354.                          2023-08-31, Rockdale Site Inspection Video\nP355.   Cerasuolo Ex. 27       2023-10-17, Letter to SEC from SilverSun Technologies, Mark Meller CEO RE   H, IR\n                               Application for Withdrawal on Form RW\nP356.                          2023-12-22, J. Duross O\u2019Bryan Expert Witness Report w/exhibits              H, F. Rhodium\n                                                                                                           further objects that\n                                                                                                           the subject matter\n                                                                                                           of this report is\n                                                                                                           inadmissible\n                                                                                                           pursuant to\n                                                                                                           Rhodium\u2019s motion\n                                                                                                           to exclude the\n                                                                                                           testimony of J.\n                                                                                                           Duross O\u2019Bryan.\n\nP357.                          2023-12-22, Dr. Himanshu Pokharna Expert Witness Report w/exhibits          H, F. Rhodium\n                                                                                                           further objects that\n                                                                                                           the subject matter\n                                                                                                           of this report is\n                                                              25\n\n#420867v1\n                               PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA     Document 182-2      Filed 04/03/24   Page 27 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                        DESCRIPTION                                 RHODIUM OBJ.\n\n                                                                                                         inadmissible\n                                                                                                         pursuant to\n                                                                                                         Rhodium\u2019s motion\n                                                                                                         to exclude the\n                                                                                                         testimony of Dr.\n                                                                                                         Himanshu\n                                                                                                         Pokharna.\n\nP358.                        2024-01-26, Dr. James Lee Expert Witness Rebuttal Report w/exhibits         H, F. Rhodium\n                                                                                                         further objects that\n                                                                                                         parts of the subject\n                                                                                                         matter of this\n                                                                                                         report are\n                                                                                                         inadmissible\n                                                                                                         pursuant to\n                                                                                                         Rhodium\u2019s motion\n                                                                                                         to exclude the\n                                                                                                         testimony of Dr.\n                                                                                                         James Lee.\n\nP359.   Lee Ex. 15           Additions or Corrections to Expert Report of Lee                            NP, H, F. Rhodium\n                                                                                                         further objects that\n                                                                                                         the subject matter\n                                                                                                         of this document is\n                                                                                                         inadmissible\n                                                                                                         pursuant to\n                                                                                                         Rhodium\u2019s motion\n                                                                                                         to exclude the\n                                                                                                         testimony of Dr.\n                                                                                                         James Lee.\n\n\n\n                                                              26\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA     Document 182-2   Filed 04/03/24   Page 28 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                        DESCRIPTION                              RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP360.   INDUSTRIAL000456     22137-Rhodium Panel-P0.pdf\n        -\n        INDUSTRIAL000458\nP361.   INDUSTRIAL000464     22137-Rhodium Panel-P1.pdf\n        -\n        INDUSTRIAL000466\nP362.   INDUSTRIAL000460     22137-Rhodium_Panel-P0.pdf\n        -\n        INDUSTRIAL000462\nP363.   MIDAS0343372         50U Master BOM Spreadsheet - Midas XCI CH3 Data Buildout Budget          H, F, AUTH, IR\nP364.   MIDAS0046078         All Invoices Issued to 360 Mining                                        H, F, AUTH, IC\n\nP365.   MIDAS0046075         All Invoices Issued to EDSI 22                                           H, F, AUTH, IC\n\nP366.   MIDAS0046052         All Invoices Issued to Whinstone                                         H, F, AUTH, IC\nP367.   MIDAS0386330         BOM MGT XCI LITE Spreadsheet                                             H, F, AUTH\n\nP368.   MIDAS0381360         BOM MGT XCI V3 Current Spreadsheet                                       H, F, AUTH\n\nP369.   MIDAS0381826         BOM MGT XCI V4 120815 Spreadsheet                                        H, F, AUTH\n\nP370.   MIDAS0382716         BOM MGT XCI V5 Spreadsheet                                               H, F, AUTH\n\nP371.   MIDAS0385689         BOM MGT XCI V6 010818 Spreadsheet                                        H, F, AUTH\n\nP372.   MIDAS0382721         BOM MGT XCI v6 current Spreadsheet                                       H, F, AUTH\n\nP373.   MIDAS0396143         BOM Simple Crypto v3 for Compute North Spreadsheet                       H, F, AUTH\n\nP374.   MIDAS0337771         BOM with Pricing Tool Spreadsheet                                        H, F, AUTH\n\n                                                              27\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA     Document 182-2       Filed 04/03/24   Page 29 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                        DESCRIPTION                                   RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP375.    RHOD0332452;        Computer Screen Print-System View                                             H, IC\n        RHOD0332454;         Computer Screen Print-Cooler\n        RHOD0332455;         Computer Screen Print-Alarms\n        RHOD0332456-         Computer Screen Print-Vibrology, 2 pages\n        RHOD0332457\nP376.   INDUSTRIAL001040     Control Techniques REV 1.1 For Manufacturing.pdf\n        -\n        INDUSTRIAL001068\nP377.   INDUSTRIAL001492     Control Techniques REV A.1 For Approval.pdf\n        -\n        INDUSTRIAL001521\nP378.    Poulin Ex. 8        GRC Webinar: Introducing the DCW Award-Winning ICEraQ Series 10 Leaflet       H, F, NP\n\nP379.   GRC0233              GRC0233_rack - assembly - right hand - Rev D                                   INC\nP380.   TACC00000065         Green Revolution Cooing carnotJet System PPT                                   H\nP381.   GRC0170-0212         Green Revolution Cooling \"Fluid-Submersion: The Future of Data Center Cooling\" H\n\nP382.   TACC00000111-121     Green Revolution Cooling (GRC) NSF STCI Draft\n\nP383.   INDUSTRIAL000882     I.O._MAPPING_Based_on_22137_RHODIUM_PANEL_-_P0.xlsx\n\nP384.   Long Ex. 58          Immersion Systems \"An excellent documentary co-produced by Marshall Long\"     IR, H, NP, INC\n                             Tweet\nP385.   INDUSTRIAL003023     Industrial Builders control panel Diagram\n        -\n        INDUSTRIAL003025\n\nP386.   INDUSTRIAL003026     Industrial Builders control panel Diagram\n        -\n        INDUSTRIAL003028\n\n\n                                                              28\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA     Document 182-2         Filed 04/03/24   Page 30 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                         DESCRIPTION                                   RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP387.   INDUSTRIAL000463     Industrial Builders Elec Prelim Single Line\n\nP388.   INDUSTRIAL000153     Industrial Builders Electrical Prelim Single Line Schematic\n\nP389.   INDUSTRIAL000176     Industrial Builders Kelvion Cooler Diagram\n        - INDUSTRIAL00019\n        6\nP390.   INDUSTRIAL002076     Industrial Builders Purchase Order\n        -\n        INDUSTRIAL002077\nP391.   RHOD0332929           Industrial Builders Recreation of Rhodium Doc\n\nP392.   INDUSTRIAL000002     Instruction Manual Liquitron DC 4000\n        -\n        INDUSTRIAL000041\nP393.                        James Boyd LinkedIn Profile, webpage(s)                                        IR\n\nP394.   RHOD0038846-         Kelvion Adiabatic I&M v2020\n        RHOD0038896\n\n\nP395.   RHOD0027920          Kelvion Data Sheet attachment to previous email\n\nP396.   MIDAS0046104         MGT Crypto Chart                                                               H, F, IC, 403,\n                                                                                                            1006. Rhodium\n                                                                                                            further objects that\n                                                                                                            testimony about\n                                                                                                            the subject matter\n                                                                                                            of this claim chart\n                                                                                                            is inadmissible\n                                                                                                            pursuant to\n                                                               29\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 182-2     Filed 04/03/24   Page 31 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                        DESCRIPTION                               RHODIUM OBJ.\n\n                                                                                                       Rhodium\u2019s motion\n                                                                                                       to exclude the\n                                                                                                       testimony of Dr.\n                                                                                                       James Lee.\n\nP397.   MIDAS0045769         Midas Balance Sheet - 2021                                                H\n\nP398.   MIDAS0343198         Midas Checklist w/notes Spreadsheet                                       H, F, AUTH\nP399.   MIDAS0331871-875     Midas Green Tech Company Background                                       H\nP400.   MIDAS0343196         Midas Green Technologies Chart of Accounts Report Spreadsheet             H, 403\n\nP401.   GRC0033-0068         Midas Green Technologies Immersion cooling\u2026 Midas XCI Generation-Next     H\n                             Data Center\nP402.   MIDAS0008672         Midas Green Technologies, LLC Technical Proposal                          H, IR\n\nP403.   MIDAS0045773         Midas Profit & Loss 2021                                                  H, F, AUTH\n\nP404.   MIDAS0252943         Midas_Riot Rockdale Delivery Proposal Spreadsheet                         H, F, AUTH\n\nP405.   RHOD0332972          Nonbinding; Rhodium Confidential and Proprietary Information _Notes       H\n\nP406.   RHOD0332920          Photograph of Rhodium Facility\n\nP407.   Ortega Ex. 132       Photos/Pictures of Gen 1                                                  AUTH, F, NP\n\nP408.   PrimeControls00078   Prime Controls Control Narrative Rhodium Enterprises 7/8/2022\n        1-\n        PrimeControls00079\n        4\n\n\n                                                              30\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA     Document 182-2       Filed 04/03/24    Page 32 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                         DESCRIPTION                                 RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP409.   PrimeControls00039   Prime Controls Invoice 2254006-05.pdf\n        4-\n        PrimeControls00040\n        8\nP410.   PrimeControls00125   Prime Controls Invoice 2254006-07.pdf\n        7-\n        PrimeControls00127\n        5\nP411.   PrimeControls00068   Prime Controls Mining Critical Infrastructure Control Narrative\n        3-\n        PrimeControls00070\n        1\nP412.   PrimeControls00068   Prime Controls Mining Critical Infrastructure Control Narrative\n        3-\n        PrimeControls00070\n        1\nP413.   PrimeControls00051   Prime Controls Rhodium Enterprises, Inc. Temple Plant Drawing Index\n        5-\n        PrimeControls00052\n        4\nP414.   PrimeControls00105   Prime Controls Rhodium Enterprises, Inc. Temple Plant Remote IO Panel\n        9-\n        PrimeControls00108\n        7\nP415.   RHOD0001134-         Prime Controls Rhodium Temple                                                 H\n        0001151\nP416.   PrimeControls00079   Prime Controls System Trips (Trip/ Equipment Shutdowns)\n        7-\n        PrimeControls00079\n        9\n\n\n\n                                                               31\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA    Document 182-2      Filed 04/03/24   Page 33 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                       DESCRIPTION                                  RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP417.   PrimeControls00050   Prime Controls System Trips (Trip/ Equipment Shutdowns) DH1 Block 1&2 C&E\n        6-\n        PrimeControls00050\n        7\nP418.   PrimeControls00080   Prime Controls System Trips (Trip/ Equipment Shutdowns) DH1 Block C&E\n        0-\n        PrimeControls00080\n        1\nP419.   RHOD0337602;         R30 Tank v2.step and screenshot                                             1006, IC\n        Cameron Ex. 126\nP420.   RHOD0337601;         R70 Tank v2.step                                                            1006, IC\n        Cameron Ex. 125\nP421.   RHOD0332918-         Rhodium Facility Photographs                                                IC\n        332966\nP422.   RHOD0332968-         Rhodium Facility Photographs                                                IC\n        332975\nP423.   INDUSTRIAL001530     Rhodium - Ethernet IO.xlsx\n\nP424.   RHOD0337294;         Rhodium DH1 Cooler 1 Overview Schematics computer print-out pages           H\n        RHOD0337297;\n        RHOD0337299-302\nP425.   Chase Ex. 108        Rhodium Enterprises, Inc.-Beginning Structure-Diagram                       H\n\nP426.   INDUSTRIAL001587     Rhodium Industries Cooling Tower Installation\n        -\n        INDUSTRIAL001605\n\nP427.   INDUSTRIAL002119     Rhodium Industries Cooling Tower Installation\n\nP428.   INDUSTRIAL002409     Rhodium Industries Cooling Tower Installation\n\n                                                             32\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA     Document 182-2     Filed 04/03/24   Page 34 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                       DESCRIPTION                                    RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP429.   INDUSTRIAL002981     Rhodium Industries Cooling Tower Installation\n        -\n        INDUSTRIAL002986\n\nP430.   RHOD0332452;         Rhodium Production 12                                                         H, IC\n        RHOD0332454;\n        RHOD0332455;\n        RHOD0332456-\n        RHOD0332457\nP431.   MIDAS0409120         Pricing Analysis.xls                                                          H, F, AUTH\n\nP432.   MIDAS0031184         Spreadsheet of Gross Profit                                                   H, F, AUTH, IR\nP433.   MIDAS0409122         Table: Quantity, Cost, Sales, Margin Spreadsheet Outside AEO                  H, F, AUTH\n\nP434.   MIDAS0409121         Tank System Sales Sheet (7 active sheets)_Outside AEO                         H, F, ATUH\n\nP435.   RHOD0007113-14       Tanks | AntminerS17 Tank.dwg , M20s - 40 Unit Tank, Drawings 2D View and 3D   INC, IC\n                             View\nP436.   MIDAS0411781-790     GRC Trade Show Photographs                                                    H, F\nP437.   INDUSTRIAL001125     Unidrive_M700-M701_and_M702_Control_UG_Issue_2_(0478-0353-\n        -                    02)_Approved.pdf\n        INDUSTRIAL001410\nP438.   INDUSTRIAL000078     WORM_Datasheet_Moore_Industries.pdf\n        -\n        INDUSTRIAL000083\nP439.    MIDAS0402150        1001-1301 SC3TV4 Tank Weldment R4.1\nP440.    MIDAS0401028        1001-1300 SC3TV4 Manufacturing R4\nP441.   MIDAS0401026         1001-1300 SC3TV4 Plenum V3E R4\nP442.   MIDAS0401006         1001\u20141302 SC3TVT Base Assembly R4\nP443.   MIDAS0401001         1001-1307 SC3TV4 PDU Mount R4\nP444.   MIDAS0255419         1001-1300A SC3TV4 Layout and Dimensions R1\n                                                          33\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f                         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-2   Filed 04/03/24   Page 35 of 35\n\n\n            IDENTIFIER                                    DESCRIPTION                               RHODIUM OBJ.\n\nP445.   MGT0000699           Tank Assembly Drawings\nP446.   MIDAS0244576         1001-1201 SC2TV4 Tank Weldment\nP447.   MIDAS0044546         1001-1201 SC2TV4 Tank Weldment\nP448.   MIDAS0284284         1001-1201 SC2TV4 Tank Weldment R1\nP449.   MIDAS0402434         1001-1201 SC2TV4 Tank Weldment R2\nP450.   MIDAS0402458         1001-1200 SC2TV4 System Manufacturing R2\nP451.   MIDAS0258890         1001-1200 SC2TV4 System Manufacturing R1\nP452.   MIDAS0253488         1001-1301 SC3TV4 Tank Weldment\nP453.   MIDAS0259275         1001-1301 SC3TV4 Tank Weldment R4\nP454.   MIDAS0044662         1001-1301 SC3TV4 Tank Weldment R3\n\n\n\n\n                                                          34\n\n#420867v1\n                             PLAINTIFF MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T11:49:39.290739-08:00","document_number":"182","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"181031929083","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit B","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/427868683/","id":427868683,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/182/3/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2025-01-22T10:50:32.295436-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-23T02:51:28.978402-08:00","sha1":"d6c904735aa1882e50baeca55cfd063d7cd40820","page_count":28,"file_size":366035,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-3   Filed 04/03/24   Page 1 of 28\n\n\n\n\n                    EXHIBIT C\n              DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT LIST\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 182-3         Filed 04/03/24      Page 2 of 28\n\n\n\n\n                        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                         FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                   WACO DIVISION\n\n\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC,         )\n                                       )\n                           Plaintiff,  )\n                                       )\n      v.                               ) Civil Action No. 6:22-CV-00050-ADA\n                                       )\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc.;             )\nRhodium Technologies LLC;              )\nRhodium 10MW LLC;                      ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\nRhodium 2.0 LLC;                       )\nRhodium 30MW LLC;                      )\nRhodium Encore LLC;                    )\nRhodium Renewables LLC;                )\nRhodium Renewables Sub LLC; and        )\nRhodium Ready Ventures LLC.            )\n                                       )\n                           Defendants. )\n_______________________________________)\n\n\n\n                        DEFENDANTS\u2019 EXHIBIT LIST (April 3, 2024)\n\n       Defendants Rhodium Enterprises, Inc., Rhodium Technologies LLC, Rhodium 10MW\n\nLLC, Rhodium 2.0 LLC, Rhodium 30MW LLC, Rhodium Encore LLC, Rhodium Renewables\n\nLLC, Rhodium Renewables Sub LLC, and Rhodium Ready Ventures LLC (\u201cRhodium\u201d) discloses\n\nthe following proposed exhibit list. Rhodium reserves all rights, including but not limited to the\n\nrights to (i) supplement or modify this list, including to account for unintentional omissions or to\n\nrespond to issues raised by the Court\u2019s pretrial or trial rulings or issues raised after the submission\n\nof this exhibit list; (ii) to introduce any member of the document family of any document listed on\n\nRhodium\u2019s exhibit list, whether or not that document is separately identified on this exhibit list, or\n\nto supplement this list to identify those family members specifically; (iii) to introduce as evidence\n\nany document or other item included on Plaintiff\u2019s exhibit list; (iv) to modify or re-order this\n\n\n                                                  1\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 182-3        Filed 04/03/24     Page 3 of 28\n\n\n\n\nexhibit list for the convenience of the parties and the court; and (v) to introduce any document,\n\nwhether or not listed below, for purposes of impeachment and/or rebuttal.\n\n\n\n\n                                               2\n\f                            Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                 Document 182-3             Filed 04/03/24       Page 4 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                            Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                                    Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number       Description                                                        801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\nDX0001                         Excerpts of 457 Patent File History\nDX0002                         Rhodium Patent Publication(s) (Forthcoming)\n\nDX0003      RHOD0338265          Midas Green Request to PTO for Correction of Inventorship\nDX0004                           Requests for Correction of Inventorship\n                                 Statements Agreeing to Change of Inventorship of '457\n                                 Patent (M. Conti Dep. Ex. 13; J. Koen Dep. Ex. 18; Tribou Dep.\nDX0005                           Ex. 8)\n                                 Plaintiff's Final Infringement Contentions (including all\nDX0006                           attachments)\nDX0007      MIDAS0000145         457 Patent File History\n                                 2012/10/03 Email from J. Tribou to J. Koen, C. Boyd, and J.\nDX0008      MIDAS0006908         Miller re random thoughts on forward direction\nDX0009      MIDAS0006935         2012/10/25 \u2010 Business Plan (Cover Email)\nDX0010      MIDAS0006936         2012/10/25 \u2010 Business Plan\n                                 2012/10/15 Email from M. Conti to J. Koen and C. Boyd re\nDX0011      MIDAS0019435         Re: patent filing\nDX0012      MIDAS0027440         2016/09/27 \u2010 Boyd Resignation Email\nDX0013      MIDAS0028555         U.S. Patent No. 9,992,914\nDX0014      MIDAS0032263         EDSI Reseller Agreement\nDX0015      MIDAS0034052         August 2014 Patent Assignment\nDX0016      MIDAS0037700         Boyd Inventors Notebook\nDX0017      MIDAS0037991         Declaration of Inventorship (Signed)\nDX0018      MIDAS0041030         Declaration of Inventorship (Signed)\nDX0019      MIDAS0041742         EDSI License/Reseller Offer\nDX0020      MIDAS0041929         Exuvi8 Consulting Reseller Agreement\n                                 Midas Green Technologies / PCDworks Mutual\nDX0021      MIDAS0042170         Confidentiality Agreement\nDX0022      MIDAS0045986         MGT Immersion Cooling Overview\n                                 2012/09/21 Email Exchange re RE: design considerations\nDX0023      MIDAS0046382         from a marketing/sales perspective\nDX0024      MIDAS0046427         2012/10/22 \u2010 Tribou Email re Best\nDX0025      MIDAS0097139         2019/04/10 \u2010 Email re Proposal to Alcatex\nDX0026      MIDAS0100601         2021/10/30 \u2010 Cover Email re Midas Strategy\nDX0027      MIDAS0101669         2018/09/19 Email re Inventorship Delcaration\nDX0028      MIDAS0189055         2012/10/25 \u2010 Cover Email re Business Plan\n\n\n                                                                              Page 1\n\f                            Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                Document 182-3                Filed 04/03/24       Page 5 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                             Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                                     Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number         Description                                                       801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\nDX0029      MIDAS0242974         2020/09/10 \u2010 Email re Negotiations with EDSI\nDX0030      MIDAS0250534         2021/03/11 \u2010 Email re Competitor Comparison\nDX0031      MIDAS0250536         Spreadsheet re Midas Competitors\nDX0032      MIDAS0250953         2021/03/04 \u2010 MGT Email re Proposal to Whinstone\n\nDX0033      MIDAS0274667         Certificate of Formation \u2010 Midas Green Technologies, LLC\nDX0034      MIDAS0295417         2020/10/07 Message from J. Koen to M. Conti\nDX0035      MIDAS0295458         Draft Reseller Agreement to Johnson Controls\nDX0036      MIDAS0302662         GRC Company Intro Presentation (2011)\nDX0037      MIDAS0302708         2011/03/11 \u2010 Cover Email re GRC CarnotJet Present.\nDX0038      MIDAS0306615         2011/10/15 \u2010 Koen Email to Conti re GRC\nDX0039      MIDAS0317792         2012/04/19 \u2010 Cover Email re GRC Presentation\n                                 2012/06/20 Email from T. Presley to J. Koen re notes \u2010 midas\nDX0040      MIDAS0319405         green meeting \u2010 6.18.12\n\nDX0041      MIDAS0319406         Notes of 6/18/12 Meeting Between PCDworks and Midas\nDX0042      MIDAS0319469         2012/06/20 \u2010 Email re PCDWorks Meeting\n                                 2012/09/18 Email from C. Boyd to J. Tribou and J. Koen re\nDX0043      MIDAS0324621         Fwd: lunch this week?\nDX0044      MIDAS0324645         2012/09/25 \u2010 Email re PCDWorks Meeting\n                                 2013/07/17 Email from C. Laguna to C. Boyd re Re: Control\nDX0045      MIDAS0328256         Boxes\n\nDX0046      MIDAS0329644         2013/12/11 Email from C. Laguna to J. Koen re Grc patent\nDX0047      MIDAS0331871         MGT Company Background\nDX0048      MIDAS0343195         Riot Purchase Order (2021)\n                                 Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. Company Intro (February\nDX0049      MIDAS0374287         2011)\nDX0050      MIDAS0390709         U.S. Patent No. 10,123,463\n                                 2022/06/30 Email from M. Conti to S. Howell re RE: slide\nDX0051      MIDAS0409962         deck draft\nDX0052      MIDAS0409964         June 2021 MGT Strategy Deck\nDX0053      RHOD0001096          Best Declaration\n                                 2020/05/18 Email from N. Cerasuolo to D. Boirun re\nDX0054      RHOD0067305          Rhoidum PPM + Model for Realio Fund\nDX0055      RHOD0067409          Rhodium Financial Projections \u2010 March 2020                        X             X             X\n\n\n                                                                             Page 2\n\f                             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA               Document 182-3            Filed 04/03/24       Page 6 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                          Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                                  Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number       Description                                                      801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\nDX0056      TACC0000111        Green Revolution Cooling (GRC) NSF STCI Draft                    X            X              X\nDX0057                         Riot Press Release (Feb. 6, 2023)                                X            X              X\nDX0058                         Riot Press Release (July 19, 2023)                               X            X              X\nDX0059                         Screenshot of Midas Green Website (Best Ex. 8)                   X            X              X\nDX0060                         Screenshot of Midas Green Website (Best Ex. 9)                   X            X              X\nDX0061                         Declaration of Mike Rainone                                      X            X              X\n                               U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/574,601 (\"Best\nDX0062                         Provisional\") (Best Ex. 11)\n                               2013/01/25 Email from E. Deaton to T. Turner and D.\nDX0063      Deaton 010523      Swinden re Midas SOW and Proposal\n\nDX0064      Deaton 010524         Marketing Inputs and Design Requirements \u2010 Midas Green\n                                  2013/03/18 Email from T. Turner to C. Boyd re Current Scope\nDX0065      Deaton 010778         of Work\n                                  2013/03/27 Email from T. Turner to D. Swinden re RE:\nDX0066      Deaton 010815         Project Status for Midas\n                                  2013/04/17 Email from T. Turner to J. Koen and C. Boyd re\nDX0067      Deaton 010982         Updated Design Requirements\n                                  2013/05/02 Email from T. Turner to C. Boyd re Design\nDX0068      Deaton 011094         Requirements Document\n                                  Midas Green Immersion Cooling Design Requirements\nDX0069      Deaton 011095         Specification\n                                  Midas Green Tech \u2010 Generation\u2010Next Data Center\nDX0070      GRC0033               Presentation\n                                  Green Revolution Cooling \u2010 Fluid Submersion: The Future of\nDX0071      GRC0170               Data Center Cooling\nDX0072      GRC0105               GRC Publication \u2010 CarnotJet Four\u2010Rack Installation            X            X              X\nDX0073      MIDAS0036419          U.S. Patent No. 5,448,108 (\u201cQuon \u2018108\u201d)\n                                  U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0017355\nDX0074      MIDAS0036466          (\u201cAttlesey Publication\u201d)\nDX0075      MIDAS0039384          U.S. Patent No. 7,403,392 (\u201cAttlesey \u2018392\u201d)\nDX0076      MIDAS0040433          U.S. Patent No. 8,009,419 (\u201cAttlesey \u2018419\u201d)\nDX0077      RHOD0000127           U.S. Patent No. 10,123,463 (\u201cBest \u2018463\u201d)\nDX0078      RHOD0000162           U.S. Patent No. 4,590,538 (\u201cCray \u2018538\u201d)\n                                  U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0126292\nDX0079      RHOD0000178           (\u201cPfahnl Publication\u201d)\n\n\n                                                                             Page 3\n\f                             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA               Document 182-3              Filed 04/03/24       Page 7 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                           Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                                   Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number       Description                                                       801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\nDX0080      RHOD0000187        U.S. Patent No. 3,406,244 (\u201cOktay \u2018244\u201d)\n\nDX0081      RHOD0000191          Russian Federation Patent No. 2,500,013 (\u201cGryzhin \u2018013\u201d)\nDX0082      RHOD0000209          U.S. Patent No. 6,555,298 (\u201cRolfson \u2018298\u201d)\nDX0083      RHOD0000216          U.S. Patent No. 5,167,511 (\u201cKrajewski \u2018511\u201d)\nDX0084      RHOD0000249          Japanese Patent No. JPH04116758 (\u201cJP \u2018758\u201d)\n                                 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0211412\nDX0085      RHOD0000262          (\"Best Publication\")\nDX0086      RHOD0000787          GRC Website \u2010 CarnotJet                                         X             X             X\nDX0087      RHOD0000790          GRC Website \u2010 How it works                                      X             X             X\n                                 GRC Video \u2010 See Our ICEraQ Micro\u2010Modular, Rack Based\nDX0088      RHOD0000796          Immersion Cooling System in Action                              X             X             X\nDX0089      RHOD0000801          MGT Video \u2010 Liquid Servers and Green Data Center                X             X             X\n\nDX0090      RHOD0000803          MGT Video \u2010 How Do Green Data Center Servers Work?              X             X             X\nDX0091      RHOD0000805          GRC Video \u2010 ICEraQ Cooling System                               X             X             X\nDX0092      RHOD0000806          GRC Video \u2010 CarnotJet System Overview                           X             X             X\nDX0093      RHOD0000813          MGT Video \u2010 Liquid Servers and Green Data Center                X             X             X\nDX0094      RHOD0000819          MGT Video \u2010 What is a Green Data Center?                        X             X             X\n                                 DataCenter Knowledge, Green Revolution's Immersion\nDX0095      RHOD0000880          Cooling in Action                                               X             X             X\n                                 GRC Video \u2010 See Our ICEraQ Micro\u2010Modular, Rack Based\nDX0096      RHOD0000885          Immersion\u2010Cooling System in Action                              X             X             X\nDX0097      RHOD0000899          GRC Website \u2010 Design                                            X             X             X\nDX0098      RHOD0000907          GRC Website \u2010 Gallery                                           X             X             X\nDX0099      RHOD0001042          Midas Green Tech \u2010 Nuts & Bolts                                 X             X             X\nDX0100      RHOD0001056          TACC Press Release re IT Awards Competition                     X             X             X\nDX0101      RHOD0001059          Intel does math on oil dunk test for cooler servers             X             X             X\n                                 DataCenter Knowledge, Submerged Servers: Green\nDX0102      RHOD0001067          Revolution Cooling                                              X             X             X\nDX0103      RHOD0001086          GRC Video \u2010 Four Rack CarnotJet Installation                    X             X             X\n                                 GRC Video \u2010 Green Revolution Cooling's Four Rack CarnotJet\nDX0104      RHOD0001087          Installation                                                    X             X             X\n                                 P.E. Tuma, The merits of open bath immersion cooling of\nDX0105                           datacom equipment                                               X             X             X\n\n\n\n                                                                            Page 4\n\f                              Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                Document 182-3                Filed 04/03/24       Page 8 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                               Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                                       Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number       Description                                                           801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\n                               Nitin Minocha & Jyeshtharaj B. Joshi, 3D CFD simulation of\n                               turbulent flow distribution and pressure drop in a dividing\nDX0106      RHOD0338245        manifold system using openfoam                                        X             X             X\n\n                                  Bernie Siegal & Mark Berg, An Effective Alternative for\nDX0107      RHOD0338418           Marginal Thermal Improvements of Semiconductor Devices             X             X             X\n                                  Bernie Siegal, An Introduction to Diode Thermal\nDX0108      RHOD0338429           Measurements                                                       X             X             X\n                                  Thomas S. Tarter & Bernie Siegal, Application of thermal test\nDX0109      RHOD0338445           chips to stacked chip packages                                     X             X             X\nDX0110      RHOD0338456           Kevin Dusling, Energy loss due to friction                         X             X             X\n                                  Intel White Paper, The Sustainable Data Center\n                                  Transformation: Reducing Carbon Footprint with Liquid\nDX0111      RHOD0338476           Immersion Cooling                                                  X             X             X\nDX0112      RHOD0338487           Industrial Thermocouples with Protection Head                      X             X             X\n\n                                  Bennett Joiner, Integrated Circuit Package Types and\nDX0113      RHOD0338490           Thermal Characteristics , Electronics Cooling (Feb. 1, 2006)       X             X             X\n                                  John Fuchs, Maximizing Overlow Weirs for Skimming\nDX0114      RHOD0338505           Applications                                                       X             X             X\n                                  Microcircuits , United States Navy Naval Sea Systems\nDX0115      RHOD0338510           Command                                                            X             X             X\n                                  Bernie Siegal, Practical Considerations in High Power LED\nDX0116      RHOD0338521           Junction Temperature Measurements                                  X             X             X\nDX0117      RHOD0338526           Best Assignment                                                    X             X             X\nDX0118      RHOD0338539           Precision Cleaning Equipment                                       X             X             X\nDX0119      RHOD0338540           U.S. Patent No. 8,283,276B2\n                                  F.K. Owen & D.J. Peake, Vortex breakdown and control\nDX0120      RHOD0338550           experiemnts in the Ames\u2010Dryden Water Tunnel                        X             X             X\n                                  Edson Del Rio Vieria et al., Vortex Formation in\nDX0121      RHOD0338563           Incompressible Axisymmetric Free Jets                              X             X             X\n                                  Michael Moran & Howard Shapiro, Fundamentals of\nDX0122      RHOD0338571           Engineering Thermodynamics                                         X             X             X\n                                  Edward M. Purcell, Electricity and Magnetism: Perkeley\nDX0123      RHOD0338574           Physics Course \u2010 Volume 2                                          X             X             X\n\n\n\n                                                                                Page 5\n\f                            Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA              Document 182-3              Filed 04/03/24       Page 9 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                         Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                                 Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number       Description                                                     801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\n\n                                Gordan N. Ellison, Thermal Computations for Electronics:\nDX0124      RHOD0338578         Conductive, Radiative and Convective Air Cooling               X             X             X\n                                Theodore L. Bergman & Adrienne S. Lavine, Fundamnetals\nDX0125      RHOD0338601         of Heat & Mass Transfer                                        X             X             X\n                                William C. Reynolds & Henry C. Perkins, Engineering\nDX0126      RHOD0338604         Thermodynamics                                                 X             X             X\n                                Allan Kraus & Avram Bar\u2010Cohen, Thermal Analysis and\nDX0127      RHOD0338607         Control of Electronic Equipment                                X             X             X\n                                G. P. Peterson & Alfonso Ortega, Thermal Control of\nDX0128      RHOD0338610         Electronic Equipment and Devices                               X             X             X\n                                Robert Moffatt & Alfonso Ortega, Direct Air Cooling of\nDX0129      RHOD0338613         Electronic Components                                          X             X             X\nDX0130      TACC00000065        Green Revolution Cooling CarnotJet System                      X             X             X\n                                Christine Beckner & Robert E. Curry, Water Tunnel Flow\nDX0131                          Visualization Using a Laser                                    X             X             X\nDX0132                          Defendants' Final Invalidity Contentions                       X             X             X\n\n                                Phil Tuma, Open Bath Immersion Cooling in Data Centers: A\nDX0133                          New Twist on an Old Idea, Electronic Cooling                   X             X             X\n                                Plaintiff's Supplemental Response to Defendants'\nDX0134                          Interrogatory No. 13\n                                Plaintiff's Supplemental Response to Defendants'\nDX0135                          Interrogatory No. 14\n                                Plaintiff's Supplemental Responses to Defendants'\nDX0136                          Interrogatory No. 2 (Apr. 5, 2023)\n                                Exhibit D\u20101 to the Opening Expert Report of Dr. Alfonso\nDX0137                          Ortega                                                         X             X             X\n                                Exhibit D\u20102 to the Opening Expert Report of Dr. Alfonso\nDX0138                          Ortega                                                         X             X             X\n                                Exhibit D\u20103 to the Opening Expert Report of Dr. Alfonso\nDX0139                          Ortega                                                         X             X             X\n                                Exhibit D\u20104 to the Opening Expert Report of Dr. Alfonso\nDX0140                          Ortega                                                         X             X             X\n                                Exhibit D\u20105 to the Opening Expert Report of Dr. Alfonso\nDX0141                          Ortega                                                         X             X             X\n\n\n                                                                           Page 6\n\f                            Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                Document 182-3             Filed 04/03/24       Page 10 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                           Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                                   Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number       Description                                                       801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\n                               Exhibit D\u20106 to the Opening Expert Report of Dr. Alfonso\nDX0142                         Ortega                                                            X            X              X\n                               Exhibit D\u20107 to the Opening Expert Report of Dr. Alfonso\nDX0143                         Ortega                                                            X            X              X\n                               Exhibit D\u20108 to the Opening Expert Report of Dr. Alfonso\nDX0144                         Ortega                                                            X            X              X\n                               Exhibit D\u20109 to the Opening Expert Report of Dr. Alfonso\nDX0145                         Ortega                                                            X            X              X\nDX0146      RHOD0000024        R30 Tank CAD File\nDX0147      RHOD0000759        Green Revolution Cooling CarnotJet System Overview                X            X              X\nDX0148      RHOD0337601        R30 Tank CAD FIle\nDX0149      RHOD0338617        Ansys Fluent \u2010 Fluid Simulation Software                          X            X              X\nDX0150      RHOD0338619        Arctic Systems Video \u2010 wt/tx                                      X            X              X\n                               SerpentX Tech Video \u2010 Arctic Immersion Cooling Systems at\nDX0151      RHOD0338620        Mining  Disrupt                                                   X            X              X\nDX0152      RHOD0338621        Arctic Systems Immersion Website                                  X            X              X\nDX0153      RHOD0338634        BiXBiT Website \u2010 BiXBiT Cell                                      X            X              X\n\nDX0154      RHOD0338635          Canaan Inc. Website \u2010 Avalon Immersion Cooling Miner            X            X              X\n                                 Canaan Inc. Website \u2010 Avalon Immersion Cooling Mining Box \u2010\nDX0155      RHOD0338638          40ft                                                            X            X              X\n\nDX0156      RHOD0338641          TMGcore Video \u2010 CryptoCore's Immersion Mining In Action         X            X              X\nDX0157      RHOD0338643          DCX Website \u2010 Crypto mining Liquid Cooling Systems              X            X              X\n                                 DCX Video \u2010 DCX Immersion Mining Enclosure \u2010 intallation &\nDX0158      RHOD0338646          startup part 1                                                  X            X              X\nDX0159      RHOD0338660          DUG Technology Website \u2010 DUG Cool                               X            X              X\n\nDX0160      RHOD0338668          Engineered Fluids Video \u2010 SLICTanks for Crypto & Blockchain     X            X              X\nDX0161      RHOD0338669          Engineered Fluids Video \u2010 SLICTank for Crypto Mining            X            X              X\nDX0162      RHOD0338670          Engineered Fluids \u2010 52/30 Miner Tank Datasheet                  X            X              X\n                                 Fujitsu Website \u2010 Fujitsu Launches Liquid Immersion Cooling\nDX0163      RHOD0338673          System That Lowers Total Cost of Ownership                      X            X              X\n\n                                 Forefront Technologies Video \u2010 Introducing the Fujitsu Liquid\nDX0164      RHOD0338677          Immersion Cooling System for Next Generation Data Centers       X            X              X\n\n\n                                                                              Page 7\n\f                           Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                Document 182-3            Filed 04/03/24        Page 11 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                          Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                                  Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number       Description                                                      801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\n\nDX0165      RHOD0338678         Fujitsu Website \u2010 Primergy Liquid Immersion Cooling System      X            X              X\nDX0166      RHOD0338680         GRC Video \u2010 Liquid Cooling a Data Center!                       X            X              X\nDX0167      RHOD0338684         GRC Website \u2010 Introducing the New HashRaQ Max                   X            X              X\nDX0168      RHOD0338693         GRC Website \u2010 HashRaw Max Datasheet                             X            X              X\n                                GRC Website \u2010 Webinar: Single\u2010Phase, Liquid Immersion\nDX0169      RHOD0338695         Cooling                                                         X            X              X\nDX0170      RHOD0338696         GRC Website \u2010 ICEraQ                                            X            X              X\n                                GRC Website \u2010 Introducing the DCW Award\u2010Winning ICEraQ\nDX0171      RHOD0338701         Series 10                                                       X            X              X\nDX0172      RHOD0338705         GRC Website \u2010 ICERaQ10 Datasheet                                X            X              X\nDX0173      RHOD0338707         Green Revolution Cooling \u2010 Media Kit                            X            X              X\nDX0174      RHOD0338728         Icetope Website \u2010 Precision Liquid Cooling                      X            X              X\n                                Penny Jones, Icetope liquid cools cabinets and servers with\nDX0175      RHOD0338732         3M's Novec                                                      X            X              X\n                                SerpentX Tech Video \u2010 Intelliflex Bitcoin Mining Container\nDX0176      RHOD0338753         System                                                          X            X              X\nDX0177      RHOD0338754         CES Corporation Video \u2010 Intelliflex IIII                        X            X              X\nDX0178      RHOD0338778         Submer Website \u2010 How Does Our System Work?                      X            X              X\n                                Submer Video \u2010 Submer Introduces the SmartPodX to OCP.\nDX0179      RHOD0338782         Datacenter Immersion Cooling Redefined                          X            X              X\n\nDX0180      RHOD0338783         TMGcore Video \u2010 Advanced Systems, CryptoCore Explained          X            X              X\nDX0181      RHOD0338784         TMGcore Website \u2010 CryptoCore                                    X            X              X\nDX0182      RHOD0338790         International Patent Pub. No. WO2023196401                      X            X              X\n                                Defendants' Third Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' First\nDX0183                          Set of Interrogatories\n                                Plaintiff's Supplemental Response to Defendants'\nDX0184                          Interrogatory No. 10\n                                Aktkins & Escuider, A Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering ,\nDX0185                          \"Slot\" (Pokharna Ex. 6)\n                                Plaintiff's Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 4, Ex.\nDX0186                          A\n                                Plaintiff's Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 4, Ex.\nDX0187                          B\n\n\n\n                                                                            Page 8\n\f                             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA               Document 182-3             Filed 04/03/24       Page 12 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                           Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                                   Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number       Description                                                       801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\n                               Plaintiff's Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 4, Ex.\nDX0188                         C\n                               Engineered Fluids Video \u2010 Engineered Fluids Announces the\nDX0189                         SLICTank Gen 4                                                    X            X              X\n                               Engineered Fluids Video \u2010 SLICTank Systems \u2010 Managing\nDX0190                         Operating Temperatures                                            X            X              X\nDX0191                         Canaan Inc. Video \u2010 Avalon Immersion Cooling Box                  X            X              X\nDX0192      RHOD0337602        R70 Tank CAD File\nDX0193      RHOD0338218        Engineered Fluids \u2010 BitCool Data Sheet (BC\u2010888)                   X            X              X\n\nDX0194      RHOD0338219           Engineered Fluids \u2010 BitCool Safety Data Sheet (BC\u2010889)         X            X              X\n                                  Engineered Fluids \u2010 BitCool Characteristics Summary (BC\u2010\nDX0195      RHOD0338227           888)                                                           X            X              X\nDX0196      RHOD0338228           Shell Immersion Cooling Fluid S3 X Safety Data Sheet           X            X              X\n\nDX0197      RHOD0338244           Shell Immersion Cooling Fluid S3 X Technical Data Sheet        X            X              X\nDX0198      RHOD0338622           Arctic Systems Website                                         X            X              X\nDX0199      RHOD0338624           Engineered Fluids \u2010 BitCool Data Sheet (BC\u2010888)                X            X              X\n\nDX0200      RHOD0338625           Engineered Fluids \u2010 BitCool Safety Data Sheet (BC\u2010889)         X            X              X\n                                  Engineered Fluids \u2010 BitCool Characteristics Summary (BC\u2010\nDX0201      RHOD0338633           888)                                                           X            X              X\nDX0202      RHOD0338647           Crunchbase \u2010 About DCX                                         X            X              X\n                                  DCV Video \u2010 Immersion Rack System \u2010 Installation and\nDX0203      RHOD0338651           Startup                                                        X            X              X\nDX0204      RHOD0338652           DUG Technology Website \u2010 About DUG                             X            X              X\nDX0205      RHOD0338682           GRC Press Release \u2010 GRC Introduces HashRaQ MAX                 X            X              X\n                                  GRC Press Release \u2010 GRC Releases the Next Generation of\nDX0206      RHOD0338703           Data Center Liquid Cooling                                     X            X              X\nDX0207      RHOD0338736           Shell Immersion Cooling Fluid S3 X Safety Data Sheet           X            X              X\n\nDX0208      RHOD0338752           Shell Immersion Cooling Fluid S3 X Technical Data Sheet        X            X              X\nDX0209      RHOD0338755           CES Corporation \u2010 Intelliflex III Brochure                     X            X              X\nDX0210      RHOD0338787           TMGCore Press Release re CryptoCore                            X            X              X\nDX0211      RHOD0338839           Output Data File re CFD Simulation                             X            X              X\n\n\n\n                                                                              Page 9\n\f                           Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                Document 182-3                Filed 04/03/24       Page 13 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                             Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                                     Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number       Description                                                         801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\n\nDX0212      MIDAS0041840        Amended and Restated Midas / EDSI License Agreement\nDX0213      MIDAS0102041        Midas / Alcatex Summary Company Agreement\n                                Midas Green Technologies and Whinstone US Joint Work\nDX0214      MIDAS0250954        Proposal\n                                2021/03/11 Email from L. Theriot to F. Conti re Re: Midas\u2010\nDX0215      MIDAS0251012        Whinstone Proposal\n                                2020/06/17 Email from R. Borgeson to J. Koen re Fwd:\nDX0216      MIDAS0275570        Immersion\n                                2011/03/07 Email from C. Boyd to J. Koen re Re: sales\nDX0217      MIDAS0302705        agerement outline\nDX0218      MIDAS0343175        Midas / Whinstone Purchase Order\n\n                                Sales Contract Between GRC and Midas Networks (Excerpt of\nDX0219      RHOD0001100         the Declaration of Christiaan Best) (Tooke Ex. 4)\nDX0220      RHOD0180101         Rhodium Draft Financial Model (2021)                               X            X              X\nDX0221      RHOD0231430         Imperium Legal Entity Structure as of 10/26/2020\n                                Defendants' Third Supplemental Responses and Objections\nDX0222                          to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories\n\nDX0223                          Press Release Announcing Riot Acquisition of Whinstone\nDX0224                          Third Amended Complaint\n\nDX0225                          AICPA Forensic and Valuation Sercies Practice Aid (Excerpts)\n                                Plaintiff Midas Green Technology's First Amended Complaint\nDX0226                          against EDSI                                                                    X              X\n                                EDSI's Answer and Counterclaim to Plaintiff Midas Green's\nDX0227                          First Amended Complaint                                                         X              X\nDX0228                          BVR Economic Damages Volume Two (Excerpts)                         X            X              X\nDX0229                          Riot Platforms 2021 Annual Report                                  X            X              X\nDX0230                          O'Bryan Report Exhibit 5A\nDX0231                          O'Bryan Report Exhibit 12\nDX0232                          O'Bryan Report Exhibit 2\nDX0233                          O'Bryan Report Exhibit 11\n\nDX0234                          Schedule 1 to the Expert Report and Disclosure of Juli Saitz       X            X              X\n\n\n                                                                             Page 10\n\f                           Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                Document 182-3                Filed 04/03/24       Page 14 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                             Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                                     Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number       Description                                                         801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\n\nDX0235                          Schedule 2 to the Expert Report and Disclosure of Juli Saitz       X            X              X\n\nDX0236                          Schedule 3 to the Expert Report and Disclosure of Juli Saitz       X            X              X\n\nDX0237                          Schedule 4 to the Expert Report and Disclosure of Juli Saitz       X            X              X\n                                Left photograph at page 26 of the report of Dr. Himanshu\nDX0238                          Pokharna\n                                Right photograph at page 26 of the report of Dr. Himanshu\nDX0239                          Pokharna\n                                Top photograph at page 28 of the report of Dr. Himanshu\nDX0240                          Pokharna\n                                Bottom photograph at page 28 of the report of Dr.\nDX0241                          Himanshu Pokharna\n                                Top photograph at page 30 of the report of Dr. Himanshu\nDX0242                          Pokharna\n                                Bottom photograph at page 30 of the report of Dr.\nDX0243                          Himanshu Pokharna\n                                Photograph at page 40 of the report of Dr. Himanshu\nDX0244                          Pokharna\n                                Bottom photogrpah at page 46 of the report of Dr.\nDX0245                          Himanshu Pokharna\nDX0246                          Rhodium R30 Tank (or portion thereof)\nDX0247                          Rhodium R30 Base Plate (or portion thereof)\nDX0248                          Rhodium R30 Weir (or portion thereof)\nDX0249                          Rhodium R70 Tank (or portion thereof)\nDX0250                          Rhodium R70 Base Plate (or portion thereof)\nDX0251                          Rhodium R70 Weir (or portion thereof)\nDX0252                          M30S Whatsminer (or similar Bitcoin miner)\nDX0253      RHOD0338074         Rhodium \u2010 Entity Structure\n                                2020/03/31 Email from C. Blackmon to D. Michael re Newest\nDX0254      RHOD0338074         CAD File for 24 Whatsminer M30s\n                                Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. CarnotJet System (January 12,\nDX0255      GRC002              2010)\nDX0256      MIDAS0100602        Midas Strategy\n\n\n\n                                                                             Page 11\n\f                            Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                Document 182-3              Filed 04/03/24      Page 15 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                            Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                                    Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number       Description                                                        801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\n                               Midas Green Technologies \u2010 The High Efficiency, High\nDX0257      MIDAS0028793       Performance Data Center\n                               2016/03/21 Email from C. Boyd to S. Conesa and J. Koen re\nDX0258      MIDAS0201243       [Video Link]\n                               2020/06/29 Email from R. Borgeson t. M. Conti and J. Koen\nDX0259      MIDAS0229303       re Fwd: Immersion\n                               2017/07/26 Email from J. Koen to O. Hiroyuki re Re: follow\nDX0260      MIDAS0261395       up\n\nDX0261      MIDAS0291994          2020/03/10 Messages between J. Koen and L. Canzanella\n\nDX0262      MIDAS0319824          2012/06/22 Email from T. Presley to J. Koen re RE: Design\n                                  2012/07/24 Email from C. Boyd to group re Tank temp\nDX0263      MIDAS0319877          sensor graph\n                                  Attachment to 2012/07/24 Email from C. Boyd to group re\nDX0264      MIDAS0319878          Tank temp sensor graph\nDX0265      MIDAS0322956          2012/09/01 Email from J. Koen t. M. Olsen re Re: Press\nDX0266      MIDAS0334711          Midas Green Tech \u2010 Generation\u2010Next Data Center\nDX0267      RHOD0000001           R70 Tank CAD File\nDX0268      RHOD0000002           Guntner Adibatic Fluid Cooler Submittal\nDX0269      RHOD0000025           Kelvion 10MW Spec Sheet\nDX0270      RHOD0000048           OpenLoop Fluid Pump Installation manual\nDX0271      RHOD0000088           Whatsminer M30S Operation Guide\nDX0272      RHOD0000120           R70 CAD File\nDX0273      RHOD0000121           Grundfos Pump Performance Data Sheet\n                                  Wired, Servers Too Hot? Intel Recommends a Luxurious Oil\nDX0274      RHOD0001077           Bath\nDX0275      RHOD0001106           Dry Coolers \u2010 Kinetic Pump Design Advantages\nDX0276      RHOD0001110           Guntner Dry Cooler Spec Sheet\nDX0277      RHOD0001113           Cooler CAD File\nDX0278      RHOD0001117           Prime Controls Draft Schematic\nDX0279      RHOD0001118           Prime Controls Manual\nDX0280      RHOD0001134           Prime Controls \u2010 Temple Controls Narrative\nDX0281      RHOD0004657           Ebara Pump Performance Data Sheet\nDX0282      RHOD0004660           Grundfos Pump Performance Data Sheet\nDX0283      RHOD0004737           Kelvion Schematic Drawing\n\n\n                                                                             Page 12\n\f                            Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA              Document 182-3          Filed 04/03/24      Page 16 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                      Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                              Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number       Description                                                  801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\nDX0284      RHOD0186136        Base Plate dwg file\n                               2023/01/05 Email from C. VanZoern to J. Kenny re RE: Prime\nDX0285      RHOD0332970        Controls <> RHDM \u2010 Term Sheet\nDX0286      RHOD0332972        Rhodium / Prime Controls Status Summary\nDX0287      RHOD0332973        Rhodium / Prime Controls Status Summary\nDX0288      RHOD0332452        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0289      RHOD0332453        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0290      RHOD0332454        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0291      RHOD0332455        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0292      RHOD0332456        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0293      RHOD0332457        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0294      RHOD0332458        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0295      RHOD0332459        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0296      RHOD0332460        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0297      RHOD0332461        Rhodium   Screenshot\nDX0298      RHOD0332462        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0299      RHOD0332463        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0300      RHOD0332464        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0301      RHOD0337280        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0302      RHOD0337281        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0303      RHOD0337282        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0304      RHOD0337283        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0305      RHOD0337284        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0306      RHOD0337285        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0307      RHOD0337286        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0308      RHOD0337287        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0309      RHOD0337288        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0310      RHOD0337289        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0311      RHOD0337290        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0312      RHOD0337291        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0313      RHOD0337292        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0314      RHOD0337293        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0315      RHOD0337294        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0316      RHOD0337295        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0317      RHOD0337296        Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0318      RHOD0337297        Rhodium Screenshot\n\n\n                                                                          Page 13\n\f                           Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                Document 182-3   Filed 04/03/24      Page 17 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                        Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number         Description                                          801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\nDX0319      RHOD0337298          Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0320      RHOD0337299          Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0321      RHOD0337300          Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0322      RHOD0337301          Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0323      RHOD0337302          Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0324      RHOD0337303          Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0325      RHOD0337304          Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0326      RHOD0337305          Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0327      RHOD0337306          Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0328      RHOD0337307          Rhodium Screenshot\nDX0329      MIDAS0410597         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0330      MIDAS0410598         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0331      MIDAS0410599         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0332      MIDAS0410600         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0333      MIDAS0410601         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0334      MIDAS0410602         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0335      MIDAS0410603         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0336      MIDAS0410604         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0337      MIDAS0410605         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0338      MIDAS0410606         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0339      MIDAS0410607         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0340      MIDAS0410608         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0341      MIDAS0410609         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0342      MIDAS0410610         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0343      MIDAS0410611         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0344      MIDAS0410612         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0345      MIDAS0410613         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0346      MIDAS0410614         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0347      MIDAS0410615         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0348      MIDAS0410616         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0349      MIDAS0410617         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0350      MIDAS0410618         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0351      MIDAS0410619         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0352      MIDAS0410620         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0353      MIDAS0410621         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0354      MIDAS0410622         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\n\n\n                                                                       Page 14\n\f                           Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                Document 182-3   Filed 04/03/24      Page 18 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                        Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number         Description                                          801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\nDX0355      MIDAS0410623         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0356      MIDAS0410624         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0357      MIDAS0410625         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0358      MIDAS0410626         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0359      MIDAS0410627         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0360      MIDAS0410628         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0361      MIDAS0410629         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0362      MIDAS0410630         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0363      MIDAS0410631         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0364      MIDAS0410632         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0365      MIDAS0410633         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0366      MIDAS0410634         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0367      MIDAS0410635         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0368      MIDAS0410636         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0369      MIDAS0410637         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0370      MIDAS0410638         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0371      MIDAS0410639         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0372      MIDAS0410640         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0373      MIDAS0410641         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0374      MIDAS0410642         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0375      MIDAS0410643         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0376      MIDAS0410644         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0377      MIDAS0410645         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0378      MIDAS0410646         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0379      MIDAS0410647         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0380      MIDAS0410648         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0381      MIDAS0410649         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0382      MIDAS0410650         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0383      MIDAS0410651         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0384      MIDAS0410652         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0385      MIDAS0410653         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0386      MIDAS0410654         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0387      MIDAS0410655         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0388      MIDAS0410656         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0389      MIDAS0410657         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0390      MIDAS0410658         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\n\n\n                                                                       Page 15\n\f                           Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                Document 182-3   Filed 04/03/24      Page 19 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                        Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number         Description                                          801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\nDX0391      MIDAS0410659         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0392      MIDAS0410660         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0393      MIDAS0410661         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0394      MIDAS0410662         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0395      MIDAS0410663         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0396      MIDAS0410664         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0397      MIDAS0410665         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0398      MIDAS0410666         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0399      MIDAS0410667         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0400      MIDAS0410668         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0401      MIDAS0410669         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0402      MIDAS0410670         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0403      MIDAS0410671         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0404      MIDAS0410672         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0405      MIDAS0410673         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0406      MIDAS0410674         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0407      MIDAS0410675         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0408      MIDAS0410676         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0409      MIDAS0410677         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0410      MIDAS0410678         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0411      MIDAS0410679         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0412      MIDAS0410680         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0413      MIDAS0410681         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0414      MIDAS0410682         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0415      MIDAS0410683         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0416      MIDAS0410684         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0417      MIDAS0410685         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0418      MIDAS0410686         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0419      MIDAS0410687         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0420      MIDAS0410688         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0421      MIDAS0410689         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0422      MIDAS0410690         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0423      MIDAS0410691         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0424      MIDAS0410692         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0425      MIDAS0410693         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0426      MIDAS0410694         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\n\n\n                                                                       Page 16\n\f                           Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                Document 182-3   Filed 04/03/24      Page 20 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                        Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number         Description                                          801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\nDX0427      MIDAS0410695         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0428      MIDAS0410696         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0429      MIDAS0410697         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0430      MIDAS0410698         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0431      MIDAS0410699         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0432      MIDAS0410700         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0433      MIDAS0410701         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0434      MIDAS0410702         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0435      MIDAS0410703         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0436      MIDAS0410704         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0437      MIDAS0410705         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0438      MIDAS0410706         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0439      MIDAS0410707         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0440      MIDAS0410708         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0441      MIDAS0410709         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0442      MIDAS0410710         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0443      MIDAS0410711         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0444      MIDAS0410712         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0445      MIDAS0410713         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0446      MIDAS0410714         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0447      MIDAS0410715         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0448      MIDAS0410716         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0449      MIDAS0410717         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0450      MIDAS0410718         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0451      MIDAS0410719         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0452      MIDAS0410720         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0453      MIDAS0410721         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0454      MIDAS0410722         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0455      MIDAS0410723         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0456      MIDAS0410724         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0457      MIDAS0410725         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0458      MIDAS0410726         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0459      MIDAS0410727         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0460      MIDAS0410728         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0461      MIDAS0410729         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0462      MIDAS0410730         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\n\n\n                                                                       Page 17\n\f                           Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                Document 182-3   Filed 04/03/24      Page 21 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                        Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number         Description                                          801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\nDX0463      MIDAS0410731         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0464      MIDAS0410732         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0465      MIDAS0410733         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0466      MIDAS0410734         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0467      MIDAS0410735         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0468      MIDAS0410736         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0469      MIDAS0410737         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0470      MIDAS0410738         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0471      MIDAS0410739         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0472      MIDAS0410740         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0473      MIDAS0410741         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0474      MIDAS0410742         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0475      MIDAS0410743         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0476      MIDAS0410744         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0477      MIDAS0410745         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0478      MIDAS0410746         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0479      MIDAS0410747         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0480      MIDAS0410748         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0481      MIDAS0410749         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0482      MIDAS0410750         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0483      MIDAS0410751         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0484      MIDAS0410752         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0485      MIDAS0410753         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0486      MIDAS0410754         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0487      MIDAS0410755         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0488      MIDAS0410756         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0489      MIDAS0410757         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0490      MIDAS0410758         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0491      MIDAS0410759         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0492      MIDAS0410760         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0493      MIDAS0410761         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0494      MIDAS0410762         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0495      MIDAS0410763         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0496      MIDAS0410764         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0497      MIDAS0410765         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0498      MIDAS0410766         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\n\n\n                                                                       Page 18\n\f                           Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                Document 182-3   Filed 04/03/24      Page 22 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                        Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number         Description                                          801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\nDX0499      MIDAS0410767         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0500      MIDAS0410768         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0501      MIDAS0410769         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0502      MIDAS0410770         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0503      MIDAS0410771         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0504      MIDAS0410772         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0505      MIDAS0410773         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0506      MIDAS0410774         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0507      MIDAS0410775         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0508      MIDAS0410776         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0509      MIDAS0410777         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0510      MIDAS0410778         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0511      MIDAS0410779         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0512      MIDAS0410780         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0513      MIDAS0410781         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0514      MIDAS0410782         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0515      MIDAS0410783         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0516      MIDAS0410784         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0517      MIDAS0410785         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0518      MIDAS0410786         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0519      MIDAS0410787         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0520      MIDAS0410788         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0521      MIDAS0410789         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0522      MIDAS0410790         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0523      MIDAS0410791         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0524      MIDAS0410792         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0525      MIDAS0410793         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0526      MIDAS0410794         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0527      MIDAS0410795         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0528      MIDAS0410796         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0529      MIDAS0410797         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0530      MIDAS0410798         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0531      MIDAS0410799         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0532      MIDAS0410800         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0533      MIDAS0410801         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0534      MIDAS0410802         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\n\n\n                                                                       Page 19\n\f                           Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                Document 182-3   Filed 04/03/24      Page 23 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                        Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number         Description                                          801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\nDX0535      MIDAS0410803         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0536      MIDAS0410804         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0537      MIDAS0410805         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0538      MIDAS0410806         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0539      MIDAS0410807         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0540      MIDAS0410808         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0541      MIDAS0410809         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0542      MIDAS0410810         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0543      MIDAS0410811         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0544      MIDAS0410812         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0545      MIDAS0410813         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0546      MIDAS0410814         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0547      MIDAS0410815         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0548      MIDAS0410816         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0549      MIDAS0410817         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0550      MIDAS0410818         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0551      MIDAS0410819         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0552      MIDAS0410820         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0553      MIDAS0410821         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0554      MIDAS0410822         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0555      MIDAS0410823         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0556      MIDAS0410824         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0557      MIDAS0410825         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0558      MIDAS0410826         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0559      MIDAS0410827         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0560      MIDAS0410828         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0561      MIDAS0410829         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0562      MIDAS0410830         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0563      MIDAS0410831         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0564      MIDAS0410832         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0565      MIDAS0410833         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0566      MIDAS0410834         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0567      MIDAS0410835         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0568      MIDAS0410836         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0569      MIDAS0410837         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0570      MIDAS0410838         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\n\n\n                                                                       Page 20\n\f                           Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                Document 182-3   Filed 04/03/24      Page 24 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                        Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number         Description                                          801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\nDX0571      MIDAS0410839         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0572      MIDAS0410840         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0573      MIDAS0410841         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0574      MIDAS0410842         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0575      MIDAS0410843         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0576      MIDAS0410844         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0577      MIDAS0410845         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0578      MIDAS0410846         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0579      MIDAS0410847         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0580      MIDAS0410848         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0581      MIDAS0410849         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0582      MIDAS0410850         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0583      MIDAS0410851         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0584      MIDAS0410852         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0585      MIDAS0410853         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0586      MIDAS0410854         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0587      MIDAS0410855         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0588      MIDAS0410856         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0589      MIDAS0410857         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0590      MIDAS0410858         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0591      MIDAS0410859         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0592      MIDAS0410860         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0593      MIDAS0410861         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0594      MIDAS0410862         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0595      MIDAS0410863         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0596      MIDAS0410864         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0597      MIDAS0410865         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0598      MIDAS0410866         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0599      MIDAS0410867         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0600      MIDAS0410868         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0601      MIDAS0410869         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0602      MIDAS0410870         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0603      MIDAS0410871         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0604      MIDAS0410872         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0605      MIDAS0410873         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0606      MIDAS0410874         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\n\n\n                                                                       Page 21\n\f                           Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                Document 182-3   Filed 04/03/24      Page 25 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                        Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number         Description                                          801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\nDX0607      MIDAS0410875         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0608      MIDAS0410876         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0609      MIDAS0410877         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0610      MIDAS0410878         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0611      MIDAS0410879         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0612      MIDAS0410880         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0613      MIDAS0410881         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0614      MIDAS0410882         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0615      MIDAS0410883         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0616      MIDAS0410884         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0617      MIDAS0410885         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0618      MIDAS0410886         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0619      MIDAS0410887         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0620      MIDAS0410888         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0621      MIDAS0410889         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0622      MIDAS0410890         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0623      MIDAS0410891         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0624      MIDAS0410892         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0625      MIDAS0410893         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0626      MIDAS0410894         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0627      MIDAS0410895         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0628      MIDAS0410896         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0629      MIDAS0410897         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0630      MIDAS0410898         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0631      MIDAS0410899         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0632      MIDAS0410900         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0633      MIDAS0410901         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0634      MIDAS0410902         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0635      MIDAS0410903         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0636      MIDAS0410904         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0637      MIDAS0410905         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0638      MIDAS0410906         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0639      MIDAS0410907         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0640      MIDAS0410908         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0641      MIDAS0410909         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0642      MIDAS0410910         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\n\n\n                                                                       Page 22\n\f                           Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                Document 182-3   Filed 04/03/24      Page 26 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                        Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number         Description                                          801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\nDX0643      MIDAS0410911         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0644      MIDAS0410912         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0645      MIDAS0410913         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0646      MIDAS0410914         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0647      MIDAS0410915         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0648      MIDAS0410916         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0649      MIDAS0410917         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0650      MIDAS0410918         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0651      MIDAS0410919         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0652      MIDAS0410920         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0653      MIDAS0410921         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0654      MIDAS0410922         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0655      MIDAS0410923         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0656      MIDAS0410924         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0657      MIDAS0410925         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0658      MIDAS0410926         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0659      MIDAS0410927         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0660      MIDAS0410928         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0661      MIDAS0410929         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0662      MIDAS0410930         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0663      MIDAS0410931         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0664      MIDAS0410932         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0665      MIDAS0410933         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0666      MIDAS0410934         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0667      MIDAS0410935         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0668      MIDAS0410936         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0669      MIDAS0410937         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0670      MIDAS0410938         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0671      MIDAS0410939         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0672      MIDAS0410940         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0673      MIDAS0410941         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0674      MIDAS0410942         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0675      MIDAS0410943         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0676      MIDAS0410944         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0677      MIDAS0410945         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0678      MIDAS0410946         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\n\n\n                                                                       Page 23\n\f                           Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA               Document 182-3          Filed 04/03/24       Page 27 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                      Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                              Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number         Description                                                801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\nDX0679      MIDAS0410947         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0680      MIDAS0410948         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0681      MIDAS0410949         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0682      MIDAS0410950         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0683      MIDAS0410951         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0684      MIDAS0410952         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0685      MIDAS0410953         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0686      MIDAS0410954         Site Photograph (H. Pokharna)\nDX0687      RHOD0332918          Site Photograph\nDX0688      RHOD0332919          Site Photograph\nDX0689      RHOD0332920          Site Photograph\nDX0690      RHOD0332921          Site Photograph\nDX0691      RHOD0332922          Site Photograph\nDX0692      RHOD0338715          Site Photograph (A. Ortega)\nDX0693      RHOD0338716          Site Photograph (A. Ortega)\nDX0694      RHOD0338717          Site Photograph (A. Ortega)\nDX0695      RHOD0338718          Site Photograph (A. Ortega)\nDX0696      RHOD0338719          Site Photograph (A. Ortega)\nDX0697      RHOD0338720          Site Photograph (A. Ortega)                                             X              X\nDX0698      RHOD0338721          Site Photograph (A. Ortega)                                             X              X\nDX0699      RHOD0338722          Site Photograph (A. Ortega)                                             X              X\nDX0700      RHOD0338723          Site Photograph (A. Ortega)                                             X              X\nDX0701      RHOD0338724          Site Photograph (A. Ortega)                                             X              X\nDX0702      RHOD0338725          Site Photograph (A. Ortega)                                             X              X\nDX0703      RHOD0338726          Site Photograph (A. Ortega)                                             X              X\nDX0704      RHOD0338727          Site Photograph (A. Ortega)                                             X              X\nDX0705      RHOD0338771          Rhodium Miner Desonstructed View 1\nDX0706      RHOD0338772          Rhodium Miner Desonstructed View 2\nDX0707      RHOD0338773          Rhodium Miner Desonstructed View 3\nDX0708      RHOD0338774          Rhodium Miner Desonstructed View 4\n                                 FRE 1006 Summary of Rhodium Defendants' Financial\nDX0709                           Information\n                                 FRE 1006 Summary of the Financial Information of Rhodium\nDX0710                           Enterprises, Inc.\n                                 FRE 1006 Summary of the Financial Information of Rhodium\nDX0711                           Technologies LLC\n\n\n                                                                          Page 24\n\f                             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA               Document 182-3            Filed 04/03/24      Page 28 of 28\n\n\n                                                                                                                          Midas Objections\n            Document Beginning                                                                  Hearsay (FRE Irrelevant     Lacks authentication\nDX Number   Bates Number       Description                                                      801)         (FRE 402)      (FRE 901)              Other\n                               FRE 1006 Summary of the Financial Information of Rhodium\nDX0712                         10MW LLC\n                               FRE 1006 Summary of the Financial Information of Rhodium\nDX0713                         2.0 LLC\n                               FRE 1006 Summary of the Financial Information of Rhodium\nDX0714                         30MW LLC\n                               FRE 1006 Summary of the Financial Information of Rhodium\nDX0715                         Encore LLC\n                               FRE 1006 Summary of the Financial Information of Rhodium\nDX0716                         Renewables LLC\n                               FRE 1006 Summary of the Financial Information of Rhodium\nDX0717                         Renewables Sub LLC\n                               FRE 1006 Summary of the Financial Information of Rhodium\nDX0718                         Ready Ventures LLC\n                               FRE 1006 Summary of the Financial Information of Jordan\nDX0719                         HPC LLC\n                               FRE 1006 Summary of the Financial Information of Midas\nDX0720                         Green Technologies, LLC\nDX0721                         Compilation(s) of Site Photographs \u2010 Rockdale\nDX0722                         Compilation(s) of Site Photographs \u2010 Rockdale \u2010 R30\nDX0723                         Compilation(s) of Site Photographs \u2010 Rockdale \u2010 R70\nDX0724                         Compilation(s) of Site Photographs \u2010 Temple\nDX0725                         Compilation(s) of Site Photographs \u2010 Temple \u2010 R70\nDX0726                         Compilation(s) of Screenshots \u2010 Rockdale\nDX0727                         Compilation(s) of Screenshots \u2010 Temple\nDX0728                         Video of Visit to Rockdale Site\nDX0729                         Video of Visit to Temple Site\nDX0730                         Excerpts of Video of Visit to Rockdale Site\nDX0731                         Excerpts of Video of Visit to Temple Site\nDX0732                         Still image(s) from Video of Visit to Rockdale Site\nDX0733                         Still image(s) from Video of Visit to Temple Site\n                               Compilation(s) of still images from Video of Visit to Temple\nDX0734                         Site\n                               Compilation(s) of still images from Video of Visit to Rockdale\nDX0735                         Site\n\n\n\n                                                                             Page 25\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T11:49:40.126125-08:00","document_number":"182","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"181031929084","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit C","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/427868685/","id":427868685,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/182/4/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2025-01-22T10:50:32.438912-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-23T02:51:19.943599-08:00","sha1":"760902e83687af8e32fc01a6b87d294d10ae5a88","page_count":16,"file_size":566646,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.4.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.4.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-4   Filed 04/03/24   Page 1 of 16\n\n\n\n\n                   EXHIBIT D\n             PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS LIST\n\f            Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-4   Filed 04/03/24   Page 2 of 16\n\n\n\n                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                         FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                  WACO DIVISION\n\n\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC,\n\n      Plaintiff,                          Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-00050-ADA\n\n              - vs. -                     Jury Trial Demanded\n\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc.;\nRhodium Technologies LLC;\nRhodium 10mw LLC;\nRhodium 2.0 LLC;\nRhodium 30mw LLC;\nRhodium Encore LLC;\nRhodium Renewables LLC;\n\n      Defendants.\n\n\n                             PLAINTIFF\u2019S TRIAL WITNESS LIST\n\n\n\n\n                                             1\n#420808v1\n\f             Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-4      Filed 04/03/24    Page 3 of 16\n\n\n\n\nPLEASE TAKE NOTICE Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies, LLC will call the following witnesses\n\nat trial:\n\n            Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies, LLC will call the following witnesses at trial:\n\n                                  Live or                                                Direct Time\n    No.        Witness                        Party               Subject\n                                Deposition                                                  Estimate\n        1   James Paul         Live          Pltf.    Conception and/or reduction to    2.5\n            Koen                                      practice of patented inventions\n                                                      and related subject matter;\n                                                      applications that issued as the\n                                                      asserted patents; research,\n                                                      development, design, and\n                                                      manufacture of Midas\u2019 products;\n                                                      sales and marketing of Midas\u2019\n                                                      products and services;\n                                                      infringement; damages; market\n                                                      for immersion cooling systems\n        2   Christopher        Live          Pltf.    Conception and/or reduction to    2.5\n            Boyd                                      practice of patented inventions\n                                                      and related subject matter;\n                                                      research, development, design,\n                                                      and manufacture of certain of\n                                                      Midas\u2019 products;\n\n        3   Mario Conti        Live          Pltf.    Conception and/or reduction to    2.5\n            Garcia                                    practice of patented inventions\n                                                      and related subject matter;\n                                                      applications that issued as the\n                                                      asserted patents; research,\n                                                      development, design, and\n                                                      manufacture of Midas\u2019 products;\n                                                      infringement; damages; market\n                                                      for immersion cooling systems\n        4   Scott Sickmiller   Live          Pltf.    Conception and/or reduction to    2.5\n                                                      practice of patented inventions\n                                                      and related subject matter;\n                                                      research, development, design,\n                                                      and manufacture of certain of\n                                                      Midas\u2019 products\n        5   Dr. Himanshu       Live          Pltf.    Infringement                      2.5\n            Pokharna\n        6   J. Duross          Live          Pltf.    Damages                           2.5\n            O\u2019Bryan\n        7   Dr. James Lee      Live          Pltf.    Rebuttal                          2.5\n\n                                                      2\n#420808v1\n\f            Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA      Document 182-4      Filed 04/03/24    Page 4 of 16\n\n\n         Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies, LLC will call the following witnesses at trial:\n\n                               Live or                                             Direct Time\n   No.       Witness                     Party              Subject\n                             Deposition                                              Estimate\n  Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies, LLC May call the following witnesses at trial:\n     8 Chase                Live        Def.   Knowledge of Patents; Benefits 1.0\n         Blackmon                              of Immersion Cooling;\n                                               Infringement\n     9 Nathan Nichols Live              Def.   Knowledge of Patents; Benefits 1.0\n                                               of Immersion Cooling;\n                                               Infringement\n  Plaintiffs Total Estimate                                                      19.5\n\n\n\n\n                                                  3\n#420808v1\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-4        Filed 04/03/24      Page 5 of 16\n\n\n\n\n                       IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                        FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                  WACO DIVISION\n\n\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC,         )\n                                       )\n                           Plaintiff,  )\n                                       )\n      v.                               ) Civil Action No. 6:22-CV-00050-ADA\n                                       )\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc.;             )\nRhodium Technologies LLC;              )\nRhodium 10MW LLC;                      ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\nRhodium 2.0 LLC;                       )\nRhodium 30MW LLC;                      )\nRhodium Encore LLC;                    )\nRhodium Renewables LLC;                )\nRhodium Renewables Sub LLC; and        )\nRhodium Ready Ventures LLC,            )\n                                       )\n                           Defendants. )\n_______________________________________)\n\n\n\n    DEFENDANTS\u2019 OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF\u2019S PROPOSED PRELIMINARY\n                    WITNESS LIST (MARCH 26, 2024)\n\n       Defendants Rhodium Enterprises, Inc., Rhodium Technologies LLC, Rhodium 10MW\n\nLLC, Rhodium 2.0 LLC, Rhodium 30MW LLC, Rhodium Encore LLC, Rhodium Renewables\n\nLLC, Rhodium Renewables Sub LLC, and Rhodium Ready Ventures LLC (\u201cRhodium\u201d) list the\n\nfollowing preliminary objections to Midas\u2019s proposed witness list. Defendants reserve all rights to\n\npropound additional objections pursuant to the schedule set out in the Court\u2019s standing orders.\n\n\n\n\n                                                1\n\f                    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA      Document 182-4          Filed 04/03/24   Page 6 of 16\n\n\n\n\n                                      Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies, LLC\n                                  Witnesses That May Be Expected to Testify at Trial\n\n                                                                                                        Defendants\u2019\n                           Live or                                                   Direct Time\nNo.       Witness                       Party                 Subject                                   Preliminary\n                          Deposition                                                  Estimate\n                                                                                                        Objections\n  1   Ameritex,           Live         Third    A custodian of records may be 0.5\n      Custodian      of                         called if necessary to establish\n      Records                                   the authenticity of business\n                                                records      for     admissibility\n                                                purposes.\n  2   Best, Christiaan    Live         Third    Prior art; market for immersion    4.0\n                                                cooling systems; Green\n                                                Revolution Cooling Gen 1\n                                                immersion system; Green\n                                                Revolution Cooling Gen 2\n                                                immersion system.\n\n  3   Blackmon,           Live         Def.     Design, development,               0.5\n      Cameron                                   marketing, testing,\n                                                use/implementation of accused\n                                                products; infringement;\n                                                damages; market for immersion\n                                                cooling systems; patentability\n\n  4   Blackmon,           Live         Def.     Design, development,               4.0\n      Chase                                     marketing, testing,\n                                                use/implementation of accused\n                                                products; infringement;\n                                                damages; market for immersion\n                                                cooling systems; patentability\n\n                                                          2\n\f                    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA     Document 182-4           Filed 04/03/24   Page 7 of 16\n\n\n\n\n                                     Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies, LLC\n                                 Witnesses That May Be Expected to Testify at Trial\n\n                                                                                                        Defendants\u2019\n                          Live or                                                    Direct Time\nNo.      Witness                       Party                  Subject                                   Preliminary\n                         Deposition                                                   Estimate\n                                                                                                        Objections\n\n  5   Boyd,             Live          Pltf.    Conception and/or reduction to      3.0\n      Christopher                              practice of patented inventions\n                                               and related subject matter;\n                                               research, development, design,\n                                               and manufacture of certain of\n                                               Midas\u2019 products;\n\n  6   Boyd, James       Live          Third    GRC                                 2.0             Mr. Boyd was not\n                                                                                                   disclosed as a witness,\n                                                                                                   and has not been\n                                                                                                   deposed. If Plaintiffs\n                                                                                                   seek to call Mr. Boyd\n                                                                                                   at trial, Defendants\n                                                                                                   reserve the right to\n                                                                                                   seek a deposition of\n                                                                                                   Mr. Boyd or to\n                                                                                                   otherwise object.\n  7   Burns      & Live               Third    A custodian of records may be 0.5\n      McDonnell,                               called if necessary to establish\n      Custodian  of                            the authenticity of business\n      Records,                                 records      for    admissibility\n                                               purposes.\n  8   Cerasuolo,        Deposition    Def.     Design, development,              1.0               Plaintiff has not\n      Nicholas          Designation            marketing, testing,                                 served     deposition\n                                               use/implementation of accused                       designations for Mr.\n                                               products; infringement;                             Cerasuolo.\n\n                                                          3\n\f                     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA      Document 182-4           Filed 04/03/24   Page 8 of 16\n\n\n\n\n                                       Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies, LLC\n                                   Witnesses That May Be Expected to Testify at Trial\n\n                                                                                                          Defendants\u2019\n                            Live or                                                    Direct Time\nNo.      Witness                         Party                  Subject                                   Preliminary\n                           Deposition                                                   Estimate\n                                                                                                          Objections\n                                                 damages; market for immersion                       Defendants object to\n                                                 cooling systems; patentability                      any attempt to present\n                                                                                                     a      witness      by\n                                                                                                     deposition without the\n                                                                                                     appropriate advance\n                                                                                                     service of deposition\n                                                                                                     designations.\n  9   Conti, Mario         Live         Pltf.    Conception and/or reduction to 2.0\n                                                 practice of patented inventions\n                                                 and related subject matter;\n                                                 applications that issued as the\n                                                 asserted     patents;     research,\n                                                 development,       design,     and\n                                                 manufacture of Midas\u2019 products;\n                                                 infringement; damages; market\n                                                 for immersion cooling systems\n  10 Green                 Live         Third    A custodian of records may be       0.5\n     Revolution                                  called if necessary to establish\n     Cooling,                                    the authenticity of business\n     Custodian        of                         records for admissibility\n     Records                                     purposes.\n  11 Industrial            Live         Third    A custodian of records may be 0.5\n     Builders,                                   called if necessary to establish\n     Custodian        of                         the authenticity of business\n     Records                                     records      for      admissibility\n                                                 purposes.\n\n\n                                                            4\n\f                   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA     Document 182-4             Filed 04/03/24   Page 9 of 16\n\n\n\n\n                                    Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies, LLC\n                                Witnesses That May Be Expected to Testify at Trial\n\n                                                                                                         Defendants\u2019\n                         Live or                                                      Direct Time\nNo.     Witness                       Party                    Subject                                   Preliminary\n                        Deposition                                                     Estimate\n                                                                                                         Objections\n  12 Koen, James       Live          Pltf.    Conception and/or reduction to 4.0\n                                              practice of patented inventions\n                                              and related subject matter;\n                                              applications that issued as the\n                                              asserted     patents;    research,\n                                              development,       design,    and\n                                              manufacture of Midas\u2019 products;\n                                              sales and marketing of Midas\u2019\n                                              products       and       services;\n                                              infringement; damages; market\n                                              for immersion cooling systems\n  13 Laguna, David Deposition        Pltf.    Conception and/or reduction to     1.0                Plaintiff has not\n     Christopher   Designation                practice of patented inventions                       served      deposition\n                                              and related subject matter;                           designations for Mr.\n                                              research, development, design,                        Laguna. Defendants\n                                              and manufacture of certain of                         object to any attempt\n                                              Midas\u2019 products                                       to present a witness\n                                                                                                    by deposition without\n                                                                                                    the        appropriate\n                                                                                                    advance service of\n                                                                                                    deposition\n                                                                                                    designations.\n  14 Lee, James        Live          Pltf.    Invalidity                            2.0             Dr. Lee\u2019s testimony is\n                                                                                                    inadmissible, at least\n                                                                                                    in part, pursuant to\n                                                                                                    Defendants\u2019 pending\n                                                                                                    motion.\n\n                                                           5\n\f                Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA        Document 182-4          Filed 04/03/24    Page 10 of 16\n\n\n\n\n                                    Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies, LLC\n                                Witnesses That May Be Expected to Testify at Trial\n\n                                                                                                        Defendants\u2019\n                        Live or                                                    Direct Time\nNo.      Witness                      Party                 Subject                                     Preliminary\n                       Deposition                                                   Estimate\n                                                                                                        Objections\n  15 Long, Marshall    Deposition    Def.     Design, development,                1.0              Plaintiff has not\n                       Designation            marketing, testing,                                  served      deposition\n                                              use/implementation of accused                        designations for Mr.\n                                              products; infringement;                              Long.      Defendants\n                                              damages; market for immersion                        object to any attempt\n                                              cooling systems; patentability                       to present a witness\n                                                                                                   by deposition without\n                                                                                                   the        appropriate\n                                                                                                   advance service of\n                                                                                                   deposition\n                                                                                                   designations.\n  16 Mohan, Kevin      Live          Third    There are no acceptable non-       1.0               Mr. Mohan was not\n                                              infringing market substitutes and                    disclosed as a witness,\n                                              the Bixbit software license is not                   and has not been\n                                              comparable to a patent license to                    deposed. If Plaintiffs\n                                              manufacture a patented product                       seek to call Mr.\n                                                                                                   Mohan       at    trial,\n                                                                                                   Defendants reserve\n                                                                                                   the right to seek a\n                                                                                                   deposition of Mr.\n                                                                                                   Mohan        or      to\n                                                                                                   otherwise object.\n  17 Nichols, Nathan   Deposition    Third    Design, development,                1.0              Plaintiff has not\n                       Designation            marketing, testing,                                  served      deposition\n                                              use/implementation of accused                        designations for Mr.\n                                              products; infringement;                              Nichols. Defendants\n                                                                                                   object to any attempt\n\n                                                        6\n\f                 Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA        Document 182-4          Filed 04/03/24    Page 11 of 16\n\n\n\n\n                                     Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies, LLC\n                                 Witnesses That May Be Expected to Testify at Trial\n\n                                                                                                         Defendants\u2019\n                          Live or                                                   Direct Time\nNo.      Witness                       Party                 Subject                                     Preliminary\n                         Deposition                                                  Estimate\n                                                                                                          Objections\n                                               damages; market for immersion                        to present a witness\n                                               cooling systems; patentability                       by deposition without\n                                                                                                    the        appropriate\n                                                                                                    advance service of\n                                                                                                    deposition\n                                                                                                    designations.\n  18 O\u2019Bryan,        J. Live          Pltf.    Damages                             2.0              Mr.         O\u2019Bryan\u2019s\n     Duross                                                                                         testimony           is\n                                                                                                    inadmissible, at least\n                                                                                                    in part, pursuant to\n                                                                                                    Defendants\u2019 pending\n                                                                                                    motion.\n  19 Pokharna,          Live          Pltf.    Infringement                        2.0              Dr.        Pokharna\u2019s\n     Himanshu                                                                                       testimony           is\n                                                                                                    inadmissible, at least\n                                                                                                    in part, pursuant to\n                                                                                                    Defendants\u2019 pending\n                                                                                                    motion.\n  20 Poulin, Peter      Deposition    Third    GRC       systems;    immersion 1.0\n                        Designation            cooling market\n  21 Prime Controls,    Live          Third    A custodian of records may be 0.5\n     Custodian    of                           called if necessary to establish\n     Records                                   the authenticity of business\n                                               records      for   admissibility\n                                               purposes.\n  22 Rainone,           Deposition    Third    GRC Systems design               0.5                 Plaintiff   has not\n     Michael            Designation                                                                 served      deposition\n\n                                                         7\n\f                   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA     Document 182-4          Filed 04/03/24   Page 12 of 16\n\n\n\n\n                                    Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies, LLC\n                                Witnesses That May Be Expected to Testify at Trial\n\n                                                                                                       Defendants\u2019\n                         Live or                                                   Direct Time\nNo.      Witness                      Party                 Subject                                   Preliminary\n                        Deposition                                                  Estimate\n                                                                                                       Objections\n                                                                                                  designations for Mr.\n                                                                                                  Rainone. Defendants\n                                                                                                  object to any attempt\n                                                                                                  to present a witness\n                                                                                                  by deposition without\n                                                                                                  the        appropriate\n                                                                                                  advance service of\n                                                                                                  deposition\n                                                                                                  designations.\n  23 Sickmiller,       Live          Pltf.    Conception and/or reduction to 3.0\n     Scott                                    practice of patented inventions\n                                              and related subject matter;\n                                              research, development, design,\n                                              and manufacture of certain of\n                                              Midas\u2019 products\n  24 Swinden,          Deposition    Pltf.    Conception and/or reduction to 1.0                  Plaintiff has not\n     Kenneth           Designation            practice of patented inventions                     served      deposition\n                                              and related subject matter;                         designations for Mr.\n                                              research, development, design,                      Swinden. Defendants\n                                              and manufacture of certain of                       object to any attempt\n                                              Midas\u2019 products                                     to present a witness\n                                                                                                  by deposition without\n                                                                                                  the        appropriate\n                                                                                                  advance service of\n                                                                                                  deposition\n                                                                                                  designations.\n\n\n                                                        8\n\f                 Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA      Document 182-4          Filed 04/03/24   Page 13 of 16\n\n\n\n\n                                   Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies, LLC\n                               Witnesses That May Be Expected to Testify at Trial\n\n                                                                                                      Defendants\u2019\n                       Live or                                                    Direct Time\nNo.      Witness                     Party                 Subject                                    Preliminary\n                      Deposition                                                   Estimate\n                                                                                                      Objections\n  25 Theriot, Lyle    Live          Third    There are no acceptable non- 1.0                    Mr. Theriot was not\n                                             infringing market substitutes                       disclosed as a witness,\n                                                                                                 and has not been\n                                                                                                 deposed. If Plaintiffs\n                                                                                                 seek to call Mr.\n                                                                                                 Mohan       at    trial,\n                                                                                                 Defendants reserve\n                                                                                                 the right to seek a\n                                                                                                 deposition of Mr.\n                                                                                                 Theriot      or      to\n                                                                                                 otherwise object.\n  26 Tooke, Kenneth   Deposition    Pltf.    Conception and/or reduction to 1.0                  Plaintiff has not\n                      Designation            practice of patented inventions                     served      deposition\n                                             and related subject matter;                         designations for Mr.\n                                             research, development, design,                      Tooke.     Defendants\n                                             and manufacture of certain of                       object to any attempt\n                                             Midas\u2019 products                                     to present a witness\n                                                                                                 by deposition without\n                                                                                                 the        appropriate\n                                                                                                 advance service of\n                                                                                                 deposition\n                                                                                                 designations.\n  27 Tribou,    John Deposition     Pltf.    Conception and/or reduction to 1.0                  Plaintiff has not\n     Charles         Designation             practice of patented inventions                     served      deposition\n                                             and related subject matter;                         designations for Mr.\n                                             research, development, design,                      Tribou. Defendants\n                                                                                                 object to any attempt\n\n                                                       9\n\f                   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-4        Filed 04/03/24     Page 14 of 16\n\n\n\n\n                                         Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies, LLC\n                                     Witnesses That May Be Expected to Testify at Trial\n\n                                                                                                            Defendants\u2019\n                             Live or                                                  Direct Time\nNo.        Witness                         Party               Subject                                      Preliminary\n                            Deposition                                                 Estimate\n                                                                                                            Objections\n                                                   and manufacture of certain of                       to present a witness\n                                                   Midas\u2019 products                                     by deposition without\n                                                                                                       the        appropriate\n                                                                                                       advance service of\n                                                                                                       deposition\n                                                                                                       designations.\n   28 Turner, Thomas        Deposition    Pltf.    Conception and/or reduction to    1.0               Plaintiff has not\n                            Designation            practice of patented inventions                     served      deposition\n                                                   and related subject matter;                         designations for Mr.\n                                                   research, development, design,                      Turner. Defendants\n                                                   and manufacture of certain of                       object to any attempt\n                                                   Midas\u2019 products                                     to present a witness\n                                                                                                       by deposition without\n                                                                                                       the        appropriate\n                                                                                                       advance service of\n                                                                                                       deposition\n                                                                                                       designations.\nPlaintiffs Total Estimate                                                            42.5\n\n\n\n\n                                                             10\n\f  Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-4    Filed 04/03/24    Page 15 of 16\n\n\n\n\nDATED: March 26, 2024                Respectfully submitted,\n\n                                     /s/ Elizabeth Brannen\n\n                                     Melissa R. Smith\n                                     Texas Bar No. 24001351\n                                     GILLAM & SMITH, LLP\n                                     303 South Washington Avenue\n                                     Marshall, Texas 75670\n                                     Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n                                     Facsimile: (903) 934-9257\n                                     melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com\n                                     J. Travis Underwood\n                                     Texas Bar No. 24102587\n                                     GILLAM & SMITH, LLP\n                                     102 North College Avenue, Suite 800\n                                     Marshall, Texas 75670\n                                     Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n                                     Facsimile: (903) 934-9257\n                                     travis@gillamsmithlaw.com\n\n                                     Elizabeth R. Brannen\n                                     Kenneth J. Halpern (Pro Hac Vice)\n                                     Peter J. Brody (Pro Hac Vice)\n                                     Sarah Rahimi (Pro Hac Vice)\n                                     STRIS & MAHER LLP\n                                     777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3850\n                                     Los Angeles, California 90017\n                                     Telephone: (213) 995-6800\n                                     Facsimile: (213) 216-0299\n                                     ebrannen@stris.com\n                                     khalpern@stris.com\n                                     pbrody@stris.com\n                                     srahimi@stris.com\n\n\n                                     Attorneys for Rhodium Defendants\n\n\n\n\n                                   11\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 182-4       Filed 04/03/24     Page 16 of 16\n\n\n\n\n                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n       I hereby certify that on March 26, 2024, I served the foregoing document by e-mail on\n\ncounsel of record for Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies, LLC.\n\n\n                                                   /s/ Peter J. Brody\n                                                   Peter J. Brody\n\n\n\n\n                                              12\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T11:49:40.689910-08:00","document_number":"182","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"181031929085","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit D","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/427868687/","id":427868687,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/182/5/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2025-01-22T10:50:32.479937-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-23T02:51:29.856281-08:00","sha1":"435717e3a03d53b53ffc80fe586aceaa484c27b4","page_count":4,"file_size":219001,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.5.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.5.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-5   Filed 04/03/24   Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n                   EXHIBIT E\n              DEFENDANTS' WITNESS\n                     LIST\n\f      Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA             Document 182-5          Filed 04/03/24        Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\n                         IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                          FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                    WACO DIVISION\n\n\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC,         )\n                                       )\n                           Plaintiff,  )\n                                       )\n      v.                               ) Civil Action No. 6:22-CV-00050-ADA\n                                       )\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc.;             )\nRhodium Technologies LLC;              )\nRhodium 10MW LLC;                      ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\nRhodium 2.0 LLC;                       )\nRhodium 30MW LLC;                      )\nRhodium Encore LLC;                    )\nRhodium Renewables LLC;                )\nRhodium Renewables Sub LLC; and        )\nRhodium Ready Ventures LLC.            )\n                                       )\n                           Defendants. )\n_______________________________________)\n\n\n\n                 DEFENDANTS\u2019 PROPOSED WITNESS LIST (April 3, 2024)\n\n        Defendants Rhodium Enterprises, Inc., Rhodium Technologies LLC, Rhodium 10MW\n\nLLC, Rhodium 2.0 LLC, Rhodium 30MW LLC, Rhodium Encore LLC, Rhodium Renewables\n\nLLC, Rhodium Renewables Sub LLC, and Rhodium Ready Ventures LLC (\u201cRhodium\u201d) hereby\n\nsubmit the below Proposed Witness List in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,\n\nthe Local Rules of the Western District of Texas, and this Court\u2019s Standing Orders, based on\n\ninformation reasonably available to Rhodium at this time. This Proposed Witness List discloses\n\nthose witnesses that Rhodium expects to present at trial, either live or by deposition, and those\n\nwitnesses Rhodium may call if the need arises, either live or by deposition. Rhodium expressly\n\nreserves the right to call live, by video, or by deposition (video or transcript) any witness on this\n\nlist or on Plaintiff\u2019s witness list, or on any prior or future iteration of Plaintiff\u2019s witness list.\n\n\n                                                     1\n\f      Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-5          Filed 04/03/24      Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n\n       This Proposed Witness List does not identify those witnesses whom Rhodium may choose\n\nto cross-examine at trial, and Rhodium expressly reserves the right to cross-examine and/or\n\nimpeach any witnesses called live or by deposition at trial by any party, regardless of whether those\n\nwitnesses are disclosed on this Proposed Witness List, including without limitation by counter-\n\ndesignations of proffered deposition testimony. Rhodium further expressly reserves the right to\n\npresent witnesses by deposition in the event that they become unavailable for trial.\n\n       Rhodium further expressly reserves the right to supplement or otherwise modify this\n\nProposed Witness List based on circumstances as they may evolve prior to the commencement of\n\nRhodium\u2019s case-in-chief, including to respond to issues raised by the Court\u2019s pretrial or trial rulings\n\nor to issues raised after the submission of this witness list. With respect to order, the parties are\n\nmeeting and conferring, such that Rhodium may agree to change the order listed below to permit\n\nMidas Green witnesses to testify only once or to otherwise accommodate their schedule. Finally,\n\nRhodium expressly reserves the right to call additional witnesses if necessary should Plaintiff\n\ncontest the authenticity or admissibility of any document or other evidence at trial.\n\n\n\n\n                                                  2\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA      Document 182-5        Filed 04/03/24    Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n\nWitness     Witness Name       Fact   or Estimated          Live          or May Call\nOrder                          Expert    Examination        Deposition       or    Will\n                                         Time                                Call\n1           Chase              Fact      1.5 \u2013 2 hours      Live             Will Call\n            Blackmon\n2           Nathan             Fact       0.5 hours         Live              Will Call\n            Nicholas\n3           Dr.      Alfonso   Expert     2 \u2013 2.5 hours     Live              Will Call\n            Ortega\n4           Cameron            Fact       0.5 hours         Live              May Call\n            Blackmon\n5           Christiaan Best    Fact       0.75 hours        Live          or May Call\n                                                            Deposition\n6           Michael            Fact       0.5 hours         Live          or May Call\n            Rainone                                         Deposition\n7           Juli Saitz         Expert     0.75 \u2013 1 hour     Live             May Call\n8           Nicholas           Fact       0.5 hours         Live          or May Call\n            Cerasuolo                                       Deposition\n9           Marshall Long      Fact       0.5 hours         Live              May Call\n10          Christopher        Fact       0.75 \u2013 1 hour     Live              May Call\n            Boyd\n11          James Koen         Fact       0.5 hours         Live             May Call\n12          Scott Sickmiller   Fact       0.5 hours         Live             May Call\n13          Francisco Conti    Fact       0.5 hours         Live          or May Call\n                                                            Deposition\n14          Mario Conti        Fact       0.5 hours         Live             May Call\n15          Thomas Turner      Fact       0.5 hours         Live          or May Call\n                                                            Deposition\n16          D. Christopher Fact           0.5 hours         Live          or May Call\n            Laguna                                          Deposition\n17          Kenneth        Fact           0.5 hours         Live          or May Call\n            Swinden                                         Deposition\n18          Kenneth Tooke Fact            0.25 hours        Live          or May Call\n                                                            Deposition\n\n\n\n\n                                          3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T11:49:41.309686-08:00","document_number":"182","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"181031929086","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit E","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/427868688/","id":427868688,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/182/6/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2025-01-22T10:50:32.512368-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-23T02:51:21.275959-08:00","sha1":"c1fa930722f9a18717cb4a484e70e6b8be936767","page_count":7,"file_size":389242,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.6.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.6.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-6   Filed 04/03/24   Page 1 of 7\n\n\n\n\n                  EXHIBIT F\n            PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION\n                DESIGNATIONS\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA       Document 182-6   Filed 04/03/24   Page 2 of 7\n\n\n\n\n                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                        FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                 WACO DIVISION\n\n\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC,\n\n      Plaintiff,                            Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-00050-ADA\n\n              - vs. -                       Jury Trial Demanded\n\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc.;\nRhodium Technologies LLC;\nRhodium 10mw LLC;\nRhodium 2.0 LLC;\nRhodium 30mw LLC;\nRhodium Encore LLC;\nRhodium Renewables LLC;\n\n      Defendants.\n\n\n    PLAINTIFF\u2019S PRELIMINARY LIST OF DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS\n\n\n\n\n                                        1\n#420512v1\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA       Document 182-6           Filed 04/03/24   Page 3 of 7\n\n\n\n\nPlaintiff Midas Green Technologies, LLC hereby submits the following Deposition\n\nDesignations that Midas may present as evidence at trial:\n\n\n Peter Poulin                                   13:4-11;\n Taken on December 12, 2023                     33:5-20;\n                                                36:5-24;\n                                                37:19-21;\n                                                38:2-43:5;\n                                                45:23-50:25;\n                                                55:16-56:2;\n                                                56:22-57:20;\n                                                59:15-61:4;\n                                                63:7- 64:4;\n                                                70:9-15;\n                                                70:25-71:4;\n                                                102:5-24;\n                                                104:10-105:5;\n                                                105:22-106:21;\n                                                108:1-21;\n                                                114:15-21;\n                                                115:13-116:22;\n                                                117:13-15;\n                                                118:15-119:11;\n                                                120:6-20;\n                                                127:9-128:4;\n                                                140:13-141:17;\n                                                142:7-12;\n                                                224:21-225:2;\n                                                230:15-231:10\n\n\n\n\n                                            2\n#420512v1\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA             Document 182-6      Filed 04/03/24     Page 4 of 7\n\n\n\n\n                       IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                        FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                  WACO DIVISION\n\n\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC,         )\n                                       )\n                           Plaintiff,  )\n                                       )\n      v.                               ) Civil Action No. 6:22-CV-00050-ADA\n                                       )\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc.;             )\nRhodium Technologies LLC;              )\nRhodium 10MW LLC;                      ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\nRhodium 2.0 LLC;                       )\nRhodium 30MW LLC;                      )\nRhodium Encore LLC;                    )\nRhodium Renewables LLC;                )\nRhodium Renewables Sub LLC; and        )\nRhodium Ready Ventures LLC,            )\n                                       )\n                           Defendants. )\n_______________________________________)\n\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF\u2019S DEPOSITION DESIGNATION\n                       (MARCH 26, 2024)\n\n       Defendants Rhodium Enterprises, Inc., Rhodium Technologies LLC, Rhodium 10MW\n\nLLC, Rhodium 2.0 LLC, Rhodium 30MW LLC, Rhodium Encore LLC, Rhodium Renewables\n\nLLC, Rhodium Renewables Sub LLC, and Rhodium Ready Ventures LLC (\u201cRhodium\u201d) provide\n\nthe following objections to the deposition designations Midas has disclosed. Defendatns reserve\n\nthe right to supplement or modify these objections, including to correct any unintentional\n\nomissions. Rhodium further objects to Midas\u2019s use of any deposition testimony other than the\n\ndeposition of Peter Poulin at trial, as Midas has not disclosed deposition designations in keeping\n\nwith the applicable scheduling order.\n\n\n\n\n                                                1\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA      Document 182-6           Filed 04/03/24     Page 5 of 7\n\n\n\n\n                             Deposition of Peter Poulin\n\nMidas            Rhodium Objections                          Rhodium Counter-\nDesignation                                                  Designation\n13:4-11\n33:5-20                                                      35:12\u201336:4\n36:5-24          Rhodium objects that a clarifying\n                 instruction is required, to inform the\n                 jury that this testimony refers to work\n                 by James Boyd, a GRC employee, not\n                 Chris Boyd, Midas\u2019s former employee.\n37:19-21;\n38:2-43:5;       40:14 \u2013 Misstates testimony.                43:6\u201344:8\n45:23-50:25;     49:18 \u2013 Misstates testimony.                51:1\u201314\n55:16-56:2;      Outside scope\n56:22-57:20;\n59:15-61:4;      60:11 \u2013 Misstates testimony\n                 Passage should continue through line 6      64:7\u201314\n63:7- 64:4;      to complete answer.\n                 Passage should continue through line        65:7\u201370:8\n70:9-15;         16 to complete answer.\n70:25-71:4;                                                  71:5\u201317\n                 Outside scope, confusing without            99:4\u2013102:4\n102:5-24;        context.\n104:10-105:5;                                                105:7\u201317\n105:22-106:21;   106:18 \u2013 Scope, misstates testimony\n                 108:17 \u2013 Scope, calls for speculation,      107:17\u201324, 108:23\u2013109:8\n108:1-21;        calls for a legal conclusion\n                 Absent context, which Midas does not        113:11\u2013114:14\n                 provide, this testimony is entirely\n114:15-21;       unclear. 403.\n115:13-116:22;\n117:13-15;       No answer designated.\n                 119:8 \u2013 Calls for speculation and legal\n118:15-119:11;   conclusion\n                 120:14 \u2013 Calls for speculation and legal\n120:6-20;        conclusion\n127:9-128:4;\n140:13-141:17;\n142:7-12;\n                 224:24 \u2013 Scope, calls for speculation       225:4\u2013227:15\n224:21-225:2;    and legal conclusion\n230:15-231:10\n\n\n\n\n                                          2\n\f   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-6      Filed 04/03/24     Page 6 of 7\n\n\n\n\nDATED: March 26, 2024                  Respectfully submitted,\n\n                                       /s/ Elizabeth Brannen\n\n                                       Melissa R. Smith\n                                       Texas Bar No. 24001351\n                                       GILLAM & SMITH, LLP\n                                       303 South Washington Avenue\n                                       Marshall, Texas 75670\n                                       Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n                                       Facsimile: (903) 934-9257\n                                       melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com\n                                       J. Travis Underwood\n                                       Texas Bar No. 24102587\n                                       GILLAM & SMITH, LLP\n                                       102 North College Avenue, Suite 800\n                                       Marshall, Texas 75670\n                                       Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n                                       Facsimile: (903) 934-9257\n                                       travis@gillamsmithlaw.com\n\n                                       Elizabeth R. Brannen\n                                       Kenneth J. Halpern (Pro Hac Vice)\n                                       Peter J. Brody (Pro Hac Vice)\n                                       Sarah Rahimi (Pro Hac Vice)\n                                       STRIS & MAHER LLP\n                                       777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3850\n                                       Los Angeles, California 90017\n                                       Telephone: (213) 995-6800\n                                       Facsimile: (213) 216-0299\n                                       ebrannen@stris.com\n                                       khalpern@stris.com\n                                       pbrody@stris.com\n                                       srahimi@stris.com\n\n\n                                       Attorneys for Rhodium Defendants\n\n\n\n\n                                   3\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 182-6        Filed 04/03/24     Page 7 of 7\n\n\n\n\n                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n       I hereby certify that on March 26, 2024, I served the foregoing document by e-mail on\n\ncounsel of record for Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies, LLC.\n\n\n                                                   /s/ Peter J. Brody\n                                                   Peter J. Brody\n\n\n\n\n                                              4\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T11:49:41.867474-08:00","document_number":"182","attachment_number":6,"pacer_doc_id":"181031929087","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit F","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/427868689/","id":427868689,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/182/7/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2025-01-22T10:50:32.538633-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-23T02:51:23.503053-08:00","sha1":"9de580ad78973ba00c4d2e77198397a47e16048b","page_count":17,"file_size":289115,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.7.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.7.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-7   Filed 04/03/24   Page 1 of 17\n\n\n\n\n                      EXHIBIT G\n                    DEFENDANTS'\n                     DEPOSITION\n                    DESIGNATIONS\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 182-7         Filed 04/03/24       Page 2 of 17\n\n\n\n\n                        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                         FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                   WACO DIVISION\n\n\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC,         )\n                                       )\n                           Plaintiff,  )\n                                       )\n      v.                               ) Civil Action No. 6:22\u2013CV\u201300050\u2013ADA\n                                       )\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc.;             )\nRhodium Technologies LLC;              )\nRhodium 10MW LLC;                      ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\nRhodium 2.0 LLC;                       )\nRhodium 30MW LLC;                      )\nRhodium Encore LLC;                    )\nRhodium Renewables LLC;                )\nRhodium Renewables Sub LLC; and        )\nRhodium Ready Ventures LLC.            )\n                                       )\n                           Defendants. )\n_______________________________________)\n\n\n\n                       DEFENDANTS\u2019 DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS\n\n\n        Defendants Rhodium Enterprises, Inc., Rhodium Technologies LLC, Rhodium 10MW\n\nLLC, Rhodium 2.0 LLC, Rhodium 30MW LLC, Rhodium Encore LLC, Rhodium Renewables\n\nLLC, Rhodium Renewables Sub LLC, and Rhodium Ready Ventures LLC (\u201cRhodium\u201d) disclose\n\nthe following deposition designations, upon which Rhodium may rely at trial. Rhodium reserves\n\nall rights, including but not limited to the rights to (i) supplement or modify these designations,\n\nincluding to account for unintentional omissions or to respond to issues raised by the Court\u2019s\n\npretrial or trial rulings or issues raised after the submission of these designations; (ii) to introduce\n\nany testimony designated by Plaintiff; and (iii) to propound rebuttal designations.\n\n\n\n\n                                                   1\n\f           Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA        Document 182-7             Filed 04/03/24       Page 3 of 17\n\n\n                        Defendants' Deposition Designations and Plaintiffs' Responses\n\n                                               Christiaan Best\nRhodium Designation   Midas Objection                    Midas Counter\u2010Designation      Rhodium Objection\n15:12\u201317:23\n25:8\u201326:14\n27:11\u201313\n27:15\u201328:21\n37:6\u201324\n38:1\u201317\n38:19\u201323\n39:2\u201342:9\n43:1\u201320\n47:5\u201350:2\n                                                        50:3\u201011\n                                                        50:15\u201051:1\n51:2\u20134\n51:13\u201319\n51:24\u201352:11\n                                                        52:12\u201025\n54:4\u201317\n54:23\u201355:13\n55:22\u201356:4\n56:22\u201357:25\n61:13\u201366:25\n67:2\u201318\n69:5\u201325\n                                                        70:3\u201071:3\n                                                        72:6\u201021\n74:24\u201375:22\n75:25\u201378:3\n                                                        78:4\u20107\n78:25\u201379:17\n83:19\u201325\n84:2\u201386:12\n87:11\u201388:10\n88:18\u201390:24\n91:3\u201392:3\n                                                        92:4\u201093:18\n93:19\u201394:4\n94:07\n94:12\u201397:12\n                                                        99:20\u201021\n99:22\u201325\n100:3\u201320\n                                                        100:21\u201025\n101:1\u2013103:24\n104:1\u201314\n                                                        104:15\u201019\n104:20\u2013105:2\n106:15\u201320\n107:3\u201314\n107:16\u2013108:7\n\n\n\n                                                   Page 1\n\f            Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA       Document 182-7             Filed 04/03/24    Page 4 of 17\n\n\n108:12\u2013109:2\n109:17\u201321\n110:2\u2013111:4\n111:8\u2013112:22\n112:25\u2013113:13\n                                                        113:14\u201016\n113:17\u2013114:19\n114:22\u2013115:17\n115:19\u2013116:4\n116:17\u201325\n117:2\u2013124:2\n124:5\u2013126:2\n126:4\u201313\n126:24\u2013132:22\n                                                        136:22\u2010137:4\n162:12\u201319\n163:5\u20138\n                                                        166:18\u2010167:4\n                                                        171:9\u201022\n                                                        181:16\u2010182:6\n                                                        210:3\u2010211:7\n                                                        211:16\u2010213:1\n                                                        213:20\u2010214:22\n                                                        215:1\u201011\n                                                        215:13\u201017\n                                                        218:2\u201016\n                                                        221:6\u201019\n                                                        223:16\u201020\n                                                        226:18\u2010227:23\n                                                        266:18\u2010267:5\n\n                                         Christopher Boyd \u2010 Volume 1\nRhodium Designation    Midas Objection                   Midas Counter\u2010Designation   Rhodium Objection\n7:5\u201317\n9:13\u201310:2\n10:17\u201312:2\n12:17\u201315:13\n15:23\u201316:17\n18:13\n18:25\u201322:3\n22:21\u201324:13\n51:24\u201355:17\n56:20\u201357:16\n62:10\u201313\n77:11\u201379:14\n79:18\u201381:1\n81:19\u201382:17\n83:19\u201321\n92:19\u201394:21\n98:5\u201310\n99:15\u201319\n103:25\u2013104:17\n109:16\u2013111:8\n\n\n\n                                                   Page 2\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 182-7           Filed 04/03/24      Page 5 of 17\n\n\n112:15\u201325\n113:9\u201311\n113:20\n115:3\u201323\n116:2\u20133\n116:10\u2013117:6\n117:13\u201321\n122:23\u2013123:5\n123:25\u2013125:25\n126:4\u20139\n126:16\u2013128:11\n131:4\n131:16\u201317\n132:10\u201323\n143:7\u201319\n150:20\u2013151:23\n162:11\u201318\n164:5\u201316\n166:12\u201313\n166:16\u2013167:21\n172:8\u201314\n172:24\u2013173:6\n173:11\u201319\n173:21\u2013174:20\n174:7\n174:23\u2013175:4\n176:6\u20137\n176:10\u201321\n176:25\u2013178:7\n\n                                        Christopher Boyd Errata \u2010 Volume 1\nRhodium Designation   Midas Objection                      Midas Counter\u2010Designation   Rhodium Objection\n143:10\n166:16\u201320\n174:7\n\n                                           Christopher Boyd \u2010 Volume 2\nRhodium Designation   Midas Objection                      Midas Counter\u2010Designation   Rhodium Objection\n190:20\u2013191:5\n193:21\u201323\n194:1\u20132\n196:22\u201323\n197:1\u20136\n198:1\u2013199:14\n199:20\u2013201:8\n202:24\u2013203:4\n203:6\n203:9\u201313\n203:19\u201323\n204:2\u201324\n205:18\u2013206:3\n229:7\n229:15\n\n\n\n                                                     Page 3\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-7   Filed 04/03/24   Page 6 of 17\n\n\n230:9\n230:14\n230:21\n232:23\n233:1\u20132\n233:9\u201311\n235:10\u201312\n241:15\u201320\n254:7\u2013255:25\n256:2\u201313\n256:16\n258:16\u201325\n260:21\u201323\n262:21\u2013265:17\n267:16\u2013268:14\n268:17\u2013269:9\n269:14\u201324\n270:1\u2013271:21\n272:2\u20134\n273:13\u201316\n273:19\u2013274:5\n274:9\u2013275:1\n275:4\u2013276:10\n276:19\u201325\n277:2\n277:14\u201317\n277:20\u201321\n278:1\u20133\n278:7\n278:15\u201320\n279:6\u2013280:8\n280:10\n283:17\u201319\n283:23\u2013284:1\n285:1\u20139\n285:13\u201319\n285:22\u201324\n286:12\u201323\n287:1\u2013288:6\n288:8\u20139\n288:12\n289:9\u201314\n289:17\u201321\n289:23\u2013290:4\n290:12\u201314\n290:17\u201318\n290:22\u2013291:5\n291:8\u2013292:6\n292:9\u201312\n294:24\u2013295:15\n295:18\u201320\n295:24\u2013296:7\n296:10\u201322\n\n\n\n                                        Page 4\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 182-7           Filed 04/03/24      Page 7 of 17\n\n\n296:24\u2013297:1\n297:3\u201313\n298:5\u20137\n298:11\u201317\n298:20\u2013299:2\n299:6\u201311\n300:8\u201311\n301:1\u20137\n302:10\u201315\n302:17\u201322\n302:25\u2013303:3\n303:5\u20138\n303:11\u201317\n303:20\u2013304:3\n\n                                        Christopher Boyd Errata \u2010 Volume 2\nRhodium Designation   Midas Objection                      Midas Counter\u2010Designation   Rhodium Objection\n229:7\n230:21\n229:15\n230:9\n230:14\n232:23\n233:1\u20132\n233:9\u201311\n235:10\u201312\n255:4\u20137\n255:16\u201317\n256:2\n256:13\n\n                                                 Francisco Conti\nRhodium Designation   Midas Objection                      Midas Counter\u2010Designation   Rhodium Objection\n9:21\u201310:5\n11:23\u201312:17\n13:24\u201314:11\n15:18\u201316:4\n16:13\u201317\n17:2\u201312\n20:1\u201321:18\n23:20\u201324:4\n26:11\u201313\n28:22\u201329:8\n30:17\u201324\n31:3\u201312\n32:3\u20137\n32:21\u201333:6\n34:11\u201325\n36:8\u201321\n37:13\u201320\n37:23\u201338:5\n40:11\u201341:17\n51:3\u201352:11\n\n\n\n                                                     Page 5\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 182-7        Filed 04/03/24      Page 8 of 17\n\n\n75:2\u20139\n75:18\u201376:16\n79:9\u201323\n83:1\u20133\n83:18\u201324\n84:13\u201385:8\n88:9\u201316\n88:21\u201389:4\n89:12\u201317\n89:23\u201390:2\n90:22\u201391:7\n107:7\u2013110:6\n110:10\u201320\n111:1\u20134\n112:17\u2013113:20\n115:23\u2013116:7\n126:13\u201324\n127:5\u201314\n128:13\u2013129:4\n129:18\u2013130:15\n130:23\u2013131:6\n132:5\u201319\n137:5\u2013138:14\n140:8\u20139\n140:13\u2013141:3\n144:5\u201318\n144:25\u2013145:10\n145:20\u2013146:8\n148:2\u2013149:14\n150:17\u201325\n151:20\u2013152:1\n152:5\u2013156:3\n156:20\u201324\n157:21\u2013158:6\n158:15\u201317\n162:23\u2013164:11\n164:16\u2013165:1\n185:25\u2013187:6\n187:15\u2013188:7\n189:4\u2013189:11\n210:18\u2013211:25\n212:10\u201325\n216:24\u2013217:3\n\n                                          Mario Conti Garcia\nRhodium Designation   Midas Objection                Midas Counter\u2010Designation   Rhodium Objection\n54:4\u201316\n58:23\u201359:13\n59:16\u201321\n59:25\u201360:1\n84:8\u20139\n84:13\n94:22\u201324\n\n\n\n                                                Page 6\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 182-7       Filed 04/03/24      Page 9 of 17\n\n\n95:2\u201312\n95:16\n139:11\u201317\n139:20\u2013140:1\n\n                                             Jim Koen\nRhodium Designation   Midas Objection               Midas Counter\u2010Designation   Rhodium Objection\n6:21\u20137:1\n7:6\u20137\n9:12\u201324\n11:11\u201312:20\n13:19\u201316:12\n17:15\u201318:18\n19:3\u201313\n20:19\u201322\n26:6\u20138\n33:1\u201325\n41:15\u201342:18\n43:11\u201346:6\n48:2\u201310\n49:25\u201350:20\n51:6\u201311\n51:25\u201353:2\n53:17\u201354:19\n55:18\u201325\n56:10\u201314\n57:3\u20138\n59:13\u201360:9\n60:20\u201363:9\n63:14\u201321\n64:1\u201315\n64:21\u201324\n68:2\u201370:17\n73:2\u201325\n74:19\u201375:5\n75:20\u201377:5\n77:9\n77:14\u201380:20\n83:12\u201384:4\n84:9\u201320\n85:5\u201386:22\n87:18\u201322\n88:24\u201389:1\n89:10\u201321\n93:14\u201317\n93:23\u201394:19\n98:2\n98:18\u201399:13\n104:2\u201310\n105:1\u20133\n105:11\u201314\n105:21\u2013106:2\n106:9\u2013107:22\n\n\n\n                                              Page 7\n\f            Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA       Document 182-7         Filed 04/03/24       Page 10 of 17\n\n\n108:5\u2013108:22\n109:1\u2013112:20\n112:25\u2013113:4\n113:6\u2013114:19\n125:14\u2013126:8\n128:8\u2013129:25\n130:7\u201311\n132:5\u20138\n132:15\u201324\n133:4\u2013134:9\n136:21\u201325\n137:18\u2013138:2\n149:25\n150:18\u201321\n151:2\u201313\n169:4\u20139\n169:17\u2013172:17\n173:13\u2013174:16\n177:12\u2013178:10\n178:20\u2013179:1\n193:22\u2013194:18\n201:13\u2013202:5\n202:17\u2013205:2\n216:6\n216:14\u2013217:13\n218:11\u2013218:19\n219:12\u2013220:18\n221:23\u2013222:2\n223:25\u2013225:23\n228:25\u2013229:22\n241:9\u2013243:22\n256:13\u201321\n263:6\u20139\n263:22\n264:20\u2013267:24\n268:16\u2013269:1\n269:12\u2013271:18\n287:21\u2013289:13\n292:13\u201322\n298:21\n305:15\u2013306:13\n306:17\u201325\n307:9\u2013308:1\n311:20\u2013312:3\n312:25\u2013315:11\n335:2\u2013337:23\n339:23\u2013340:24\n\n                                         David Christopher Laguna\nRhodium Designation    Midas Objection                  Midas Counter\u2010Designation   Rhodium Objection\n                                                        11:15\u201013:22\n                                                        14:1\u201019\n32:5\u201333:2\n\n\n\n                                                  Page 8\n\f           Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA        Document 182-7               Filed 04/03/24   Page 11 of 17\n\n\n33:10\u201317\n34:17\u201335:6\n35:7\u201336:12\n                                                           38:4\u201041:11\n41:12\u201343:5\n43:19\u201344:9\n44:22\u201324\n45:1\u20133\n                                                           45:4\u201010\n45:11\u201314\n45:17\u201321\n45:24\u201346:7\n                                                           46:8\u201015\n51:9\u201352:15\n52:18\u201323\n53:3\u201314\n                                                           54:2\u20103\n54:18\u201355:7\n                                                           55:8\u201010\n78:12\u201379:3\n80:4\u201313\n81:1\u201323\n83:1\u201384:4\n84:11\u201385:4\n85:6\u201386:17\n86:19\u201387:10\n90:19\u201391:16\n91:19\u201320\n                                                           92:25\u201094:7\n95:2\u201320\n95:23\u201396:11\n96:14\u201398:2\n98:4\u201313\n101:11\u2013102:6\n103:3\u20139\n103:14\u201319\n104:2\u201325\n                                                           105:1\u20106\n105:25\u2013106:8\n110:14\u201324\n111:2\u20133\n                                                           111:4\u201011\n111:19\u2013112:22\n112:25\u2013113:9\n113:14\u201315\n\n                      117:9\u201018 (Objection as to claims\n                      being read separately; Claims need\n                      to be read as a whole; Improper\n117:9\u201318              questioning as to a lay witness)\n\n\n\n\n                                                     Page 9\n\f         Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-7                Filed 04/03/24    Page 12 of 17\n\n\n                      117:22\u2010118:2 (Objection as to\n                      claims being read separately; Claims\n                      need to be read as a whole;\n                      Improper questioning as to a lay\n117:22\u2013118:2          witness)\n\n                      121:1\u201011 (Objection as to claims\n                      being read separately; Claims need\n                      to be read as a whole; Improper\n120:1\u201311              questioning as to a lay witness)\n133:22\u201325\n134:14\u201316\n134:19\u2013135:12\n\n                                                 Mike Rainone\nRhodium Designation   Midas Objection                     Midas Counter\u2010Designation      Rhodium Objection\n11:2\u201313:2\n                                                             13:4\u201017\n14:15\u201316:12\n16:17\u201316:21\n                                                             16:22\u201024\n16:25\u201318:15\n                                                             18:16\u201018\n                                                             22:13\u201023:22\n23:23\u201324\n24:4\u201317\n25:3\u20137\n25:10\u201327:17\n28:19\u201321\n28:25\u201329:14\n30:4\u201331:14            30:4\u201014 (Hearsay)\n                                                             31:15\u201017\n                                                             32:12\u201033:3\n33:23\u201335:2\n35:5\u201335:23\n36:1\u20133\n                                                             36:4\u20107\n                                                             36:13\n39:3\u20134\n39:7\u201319\n39:23\u201340:2\n                                                             40:7\u201011\n                                                             46:7\u20109\n48:10\u201312\n48:22\u201349:20\n50:4\u201322\n                                                             51:3\u20105\n51:6\u201322\n52:3\u201310\n52:13\u201353:1\n                                                             53:2\u20104\n58:21\u201361:9\n61:21\u201362:8\n\n\n\n                                                     Page 10\n\f           Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA        Document 182-7              Filed 04/03/24    Page 13 of 17\n\n\n\n                      63:20\u201024 (Objection as to\n                      Relevancy; Testimony regarding the\n63:20\u201324              446 Patent is improper testimony)\n\n                      64:7\u201022 (Objection as to Relevancy;\n                      Testimony regarding the 446 Patent\n64:7\u201322               is improper testimony)\n\n                      65:5\u201015 (Objection as to Relevancy;\n                      Testimony regarding the 446 Patent\n65:5                  is improper testimony)\n65:8\u201310\n65:15\n                                                            66:6\u201067:11\n                                                            68:1\u201015\n68:16\u201322\n                                                            68:23\u201070:17\n                                                            71:4\u201025\n                                                            73:1\u201014                   Calls for Legal Conclusion\n                                                            73:15\u201025                  Calls for Legal Conclusion\n                                                            74:1\u201025\n                                                            75:1\u20104\n                                                            75:5\u20109\n                                                            75:10\u201016\n                                                            76:4\u201024\n                                                            77:2\u20105\n84:7\u201385:22\n                                                            94:14\u201095:2\n96:2\u20136                96:2\u20106 (nonresponsive)\n                                                            94:14\u201095:2\n                                                            97:4\u201017\n                                                            97:22\u201025\n                                                            98:2\n                                                            98:5\u201017\n                                                            99:10\u201020\n                                                            99:21\u201025\n                                                            100:1\n\n                                                Scott Sickmiller\nRhodium Designation   Midas Objection                     Midas Counter\u2010Designation   Rhodium Objection\n7:15\u20138:8\n8:17\u201325\n11:16\u201324\n13:8\u201311\n13:18\u201320\n14:21\u201315:6\n15:12\u201319\n17:5\u201310\n18:21\u201319:2\n20:7\u201311\n20:24\u201325:2\n21:20\u201322:10\n\n\n\n                                                    Page 11\n\f        Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-7   Filed 04/03/24   Page 14 of 17\n\n\n25:6\u201325:10\n32:5\u201312\n32:21\u201323\n33:21\u201324\n34:10\u201311\n36:2\u201320\n44:17\u201347:5\n47:9\u201348:19\n49:2\u201351:22\n54:10\u201355:2\n68:9\u201319\n70:20\u201323\n71:3\u201320\n72:1\u201373:22\n73:25\u201374:2\n74:17\u201321\n79:21\u201380:13\n80:17\u201381:5\n81:8\u201320\n81:24\u201382:3\n82:16\u201387:8\n88:15\u201389:1\n125:1\u2013126:4\n129:5\u2013130:25\n131:4\u20139\n132:1\u20139\n133:5\u20138\n133:12\u201323\n134:4\u201314\n139:19\u2013140:25\n141:7\u201324\n142:12\u201318\n142:22\u2013144:21\n145:12\u201321\n148:6\u201313\n148:24\u2013151:24\n161:1\u201311\n164:1\u20135\n165:6\u201320\n167:2\u20137\n167:22\u201325\n168:2\u20138\n168:24\u2013169:10\n169:17\u2013170:2\n170:13\u201322\n173:16\u2013174:20\n175:6\u201312\n175:15\u201321\n176:5\u201311\n178:8\u201316\n186:2\u201315\n193:18\u2013194:3\n195:15\u201318\n\n\n\n                                       Page 12\n\f            Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA       Document 182-7          Filed 04/03/24     Page 15 of 17\n\n\n197:14\u201321\n211:7\u201311\n211:20\u2013213:8\n220:5\u2013221:25\n231:8\u2013231:25\n232:9\u201311\n236:2\u2013237:20\n242:5\u2013243:20\n\n                                           Kenneth D. Swinden\nRhodium Designation    Midas Objection                 Midas Counter\u2010Designation   Rhodium Objection\n28:12\u201329:21\n29:25\u201330:11\n31:1\u201324\n33:4\u201334:3\n                                                      34:14\u201037:8\n78:15\u201379:9\n                                                      79:10\n\n                                             John C. Tribou\nRhodium Designation    Midas Objection                 Midas Counter\u2010Designation   Rhodium Objection\n                                                       26:13\n26:14\u201323\n41:21\u201344:1\n44:4\u201311\n44:18\u201323\n                       48:6\u201019 (ATTORNEY\u2010CLIENT\n                       COMMUNICATIONS/PRIVILEGED\n48:6\u20138                 COMMUNICATION)\n48:14\u201319\n                       50:8\u201017 (ATTORNEY\u2010CLIENT\n                       COMMUNICATIONS/PRIVILEGED\n50:8\u201317                COMMUNICATION)\n51:10\u201316\n52:22\u201353:6\n58:7\u201360:13\n60:16\u201323\n                                                      60:24\u201061:6\n61:9\u201362:4\n                                                      62:14\u201063:8\n63:9\u201324\n                                                      64:18\u201024\n                                                      65:4\u201025\n68:2\u201315\n                                                      69:3\u20109\n71:9\u201372:17\n                                                      72:18\u201073:2\n73:10\u201375:22\n                                                      75:23\u201024\n76:3\u201023\n                                                      76:24\u201025\n77:1\u201378:9\n\n\n\n\n                                                 Page 13\n\f            Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 182-7                Filed 04/03/24    Page 16 of 17\n\n\n                                                  Kenneth Tooke\nRhodium Designation    Midas Objection                     Midas Counter\u2010Designation      Rhodium Objection\n7:10\u201324\n8:15\u201323\n11:23\u201012:6\n12:18\u201324\n13:9\u201324\n18:24\u201319:25\n                                                              20:7\u201025\n                                                              22:3\u20109\n                                                              22:13\u201024\n                                                              23:12\u201015\n32:18\u201334:10\n                                                              34:11\u201019\n34:20\u201335:6\n36:11\u201323\n                                                              36:24\u201037:2\n                                                              37:15\u201038:14\n39:1\u201311\n39:13\u201316\n                                                              39:17\u201040:7\n40:11\u201323\n                                                              41:23\u201043:5\n43:6\u201345:4\n45:6\u201325\n                                                              47:10\u201013\n                       47:21\u201048:20 (Hearsay; Calls for\n47:21\u201348:18            Speculation)\n48:20\n48:23\u201349:8\n51:1\u20139\n                       53:4\u201054:18 (Hearsay; Calls for\n51:23\u201353:22\n                       Speculation)\n53:25\u201354:18\n                                                              54:14\u201022\n                       55:23\u201056:23 (Hearsay; Calls for\n55:23\u201356:23            Speculation)\n\n                                                 Thomas R. Turner\nRhodium Designation    Midas Objection                     Midas Counter\u2010Designation      Rhodium Objection\n                                                           17:10\u201012\n                                                           17:18\u201018:1\n                                                           18:6\n                                                           18:8\u201010\n                                                           18:14\u201019:10\n27:8\u201312\n27:14\u201315\n27:23\u201328:6\n28:10\u201311\n                                                              28:14\u201016\n                                                              28:18\u201022\n                                                              30:9\u201021\n32:19\u201334:10\n\n\n\n                                                         Page 14\n\f          Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-7        Filed 04/03/24   Page 17 of 17\n\n\n35:4\u201336:12\n36:15\u201321\n                                              36:22\u201023\n37:4\u201338:20\n                                              40:5\u201012\n                                              40:25\u201041:4\n                                              87:13\u201088:3\n88:4\u201320\n                                              88:25\u201090:7\n90:8\u201312\n                                              90:13\u201017\n90:18\u201391:11\n                                              91:13\u201019\n                                              91:23\u201092:14\n92:15\u201393:25\n94:3\u201311\n                                              97:16\u201098:8\n98:9\u201399:11\n                                              99:16\u201019\n99:20\u2013100:24\n101:1\u201322\n102:1\u20137\n                                              102:10\u201012\n102:13\u201320\n103:1\u20139\n                                              103:10\u201020\n103:21\u201325\n104:2\u2013105:6\n                                              154:6\u20107\n                                              154:11\n                                              155:7\u20108\n                                              155:10\n                                              158:19\u201024\n\n\n\n\n                                         Page 15\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T11:49:42.356394-08:00","document_number":"182","attachment_number":7,"pacer_doc_id":"181031929088","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit G","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/427868690/","id":427868690,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/182/8/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2025-01-22T10:50:32.558010-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-23T02:51:22.817994-08:00","sha1":"d38a7afe027fdbb33b3e11105d19e69850691484","page_count":93,"file_size":681036,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.8.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.8.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-8   Filed 04/03/24   Page 1 of 93\n\n\n\n\n                      EXHIBIT H\n                   PROPOSED JURY\n              INSTRUCTIONS AND SPECIAL\n                    INSTRUCTIONS\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA       Document 182-8   Filed 04/03/24   Page 2 of 93\n\n\n\n\n                   IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                    FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                              WACO DIVISION\n\n\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC,           )\n                                         )\n                         Plaintiff,      )\n                                         ) Case No. 6:22-CV-00050-ADA\n            v.                           )\n                                         )\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc.;               ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\nRhodium Technologies LLC;                )\nRhodium 10MW LLC;                        )\nRhodium 2.0 LLC;                         )\nRhodium 30MW LLC;                        )\nRhodium Encore LLC;                      )\nRhodium Renewables LLC;                  )\nRhodium Renewables Sub LLC; and          )\nRhodium Ready Ventures LLC.,             )\n                                         )\n                         Defendants.     )\n                                         )\n\n                        PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24     Page 3 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       Pursuant to the Court\u2019s Standing Order, the parties make the below jury instruction\n\nproposal. Text agreed by the parties is in black. Proposals by plaintiff Midas Green Technologies,\n\nLLC (\u201cMidas Green\u201d) are in red. Proposals by defendants Rhodium Enterprises, Inc., Rhodium\n\nTechnologies LLC, Rhodium 10MW LLC, Rhodium 2.0 LLC, Rhodium 30MW LLC, Rhodium\n\nEncore LLC, Rhodium Renewables LLC, Rhodium Renewables Sub LLC, and Rhodium Ready\n\nVentures LLC (together, \u201cRhodium\u201d) are in blue.\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                 Document 182-8                   Filed 04/03/24              Page 4 of 93\n\n\n\n\n1.            PRETRIAL INSTRUCTIONS................................................................................ 5\n\n        1.1            Instructions for the Beginning of Trial ....................................................... 5\n\n        1.2            Nature of the Parties and the Action ........................................................... 7\n\n        1.3            United States Patents................................................................................... 8\n\n        1.4            Patent Litigation .......................................................................................... 9\n\n        1.5            Contentions of the Parties ......................................................................... 10\n\n        1.6            Trial Procedure.......................................................................................... 12\n\n        1.7            Preliminary Instructions to Jury ................................................................ 14\n\n2.            DURING-TRIAL INSTRUCTIONS .................................................................... 16\n\n        2.1            First Recess ............................................................................................... 16\n\n        2.2            Stipulations of Fact ................................................................................... 17\n\n        2.3            Limiting Instruction .................................................................................. 18\n\n        2.4            Charts and Summaries .............................................................................. 19\n\n        2.5            Demonstrative Evidence ........................................................................... 20\n\n        2.6            Impeachment by Witnesses\u2019 Inconsistent Statements .............................. 21\n\n        2.7            Deposition Testimony ............................................................................... 22\n\n3.            FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS .......................................................................... 23\n\n        3.1            Prefatory Final Jury Charge ...................................................................... 23\n\n        3.2            Summary of Contentions .......................................................................... 25\n\n        3.3            Burden of Proof: Preponderance of the Evidence..................................... 27\n\n        3.4            Burden of Proof: Clear and Convincing Evidence ................................... 28\n\n\n                                                                  2\n\fCase 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                   Document 182-8                    Filed 04/03/24               Page 5 of 93\n\n\n\n\n   3.5              Evidence .................................................................................................... 29\n\n   3.6              Witnesses .................................................................................................. 30\n\n   3.7              Expert Witnesses ....................................................................................... 31\n\n   3.8              Claim Construction ................................................................................... 32\n\n          3.8.1 Midas Green\u2019s Proposal ............................................................................ 32\n\n          3.8.2 Rhodium\u2019s Proposal .................................................................................. 33\n\n   3.9              Infringement .............................................................................................. 36\n\n          3.9.1 Midas Green\u2019s Proposal ............................................................................ 36\n\n          3.9.2 Rhodium\u2019s Proposal .................................................................................. 40\n\n   3.10             Invalidity ................................................................................................... 43\n\n          3.10.1 Midas Green\u2019s Proposal ............................................................................ 43\n\n          3.10.2 Rhodium\u2019s Proposal .................................................................................. 45\n\n   3.11             Anticipation............................................................................................... 54\n\n          3.11.1 Anticipation - Generally ............................................................................ 54\n\n          3.11.2 Prior Public Knowledge (Pre-AIA) ........................................................... 57\n\n          3.11.3 Prior Public Use (Pre-AIA) ....................................................................... 58\n\n          3.11.4 Prior Patent (Pre-AIA) .............................................................................. 60\n\n   3.12             Damages Generally ................................................................................... 61\n\n   3.13             Damages Start Date................................................................................... 64\n\n   3.14             Kinds of Damages That Can Be Recovered ............................................. 65\n\n   3.15             Lost Profits - Generally ............................................................................ 66\n\n          3.15.1 Midas Green Proposal ............................................................................... 66\n\n\n\n                                                                3\n\f   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA                        Document 182-8                 Filed 04/03/24              Page 6 of 93\n\n\n\n\n                 3.15.2 Rhodium Proposal ..................................................................................... 67\n\n          3.16              Lost Profits \u2013 Panduit Factors \u2013 Demand ................................................. 69\n\n          3.17              Lost Profits \u2013 Panduit Factors \u2013 Acceptable Non-Infringing Substitutes . 70\n\n          3.18              Lost Profits \u2013 Panduit Factors - Ability to Meet Demand ....................... 71\n\n          3.19              Lost Profits \u2013 Amount of Profit \u2013 Incremental Income Approach ........... 72\n\n          3.20              Lost Profits \u2013 Convoyed Sales .................................................................. 73\n\n          3.21              Reasonable Royalty \u2013 Generally ............................................................... 74\n\n          3.22              Reasonable Royalty \u2013 Hypothetical Negotiation Method ........................ 76\n\n          3.23              Reasonable Royalty \u2013 Relevant Factors If Using the Hypothetical\n\nNegotiation Method .................................................................................................................. 77\n\n          3.24              Reasonable Royalty \u2013 Attribution / Apportionment ................................. 80\n\n          3.25              Reasonable Royalty \u2013 Timing................................................................... 82\n\n          3.26              Reasonable Royalty \u2013 Availability of Non-Infringing Substitutes ........... 83\n\n          3.27              Reasonable Royalty \u2013 Use of Comparable License Agreements.............. 85\n\n          3.28              Doubts Resolved Against Infringer .......................................................... 86\n\n          3.29              Willful Infringement ................................................................................. 87\n\n          3.30              Bias \u2013 Corporate Party Involved ............................................................... 88\n\n          3.31              Duty to Deliberate; Notes ......................................................................... 89\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      4\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 7 of 93\n\n\n\n\n1.     Pretrial Instructions\n\n       1.1     Instructions for the Beginning of Trial\n\n         Members of the jury panel, if you have a cell phone, PDA, smart phone, iPhone or any\nother wireless communication device with you, please take it out now and turn it off. Do not turn\nit to vibrate or silent; power it down. During jury selection, you must leave it off.\n\n       There are certain rules you must follow while participating in this trial.\n\n        First, you may not communicate with anyone about the case, including your fellow\njurors, until it is time to deliberate. I understand you may want to tell your family, close friends\nand other people that you have been called for jury service so that you can explain when you are\nrequired to be in court. You should warn them not to ask you about this case, tell you anything\nthey know or think they know about it, or discuss this case in your presence, until after I accept\nyour verdict or excuse you as a juror.\n\n         Similarly, you must not give any information to anyone by any means about this case. For\nexample, do not talk face-to-face or use any electronic device or media, such as the telephone, a\ncell or smart phone, camera, recording device, PDA, computer, the Internet, any Internet service,\nany text or instant messaging ser- vice, any Internet chat room, blog, or website such as\nFacebook, YouTube, Snapchat, Instagram, or Twitter, or any other way to communicate to\nanyone any information about this case until I accept your verdict or until you have been excused\nas a juror. This includes any information about the parties, witnesses, participants, claims,\nevidence, or anything else related to this case.\n\n        Second, do not speak with anyone in or around the courthouse other than your fellow\njurors or court personnel. Some of the people you encounter may have some connection to the\ncase. If you were to speak with them, that could create an appearance or raise a suspicion of\nimpropriety.\n\n        Third, do not do any research\u2014on the Internet, in libraries, in books, newspapers,\nmagazines, or using any other source or method. Do not make any investigation about this case\non your own. Do not visit or view any place discussed in this case and do not use Internet\nprograms or other devices to search for or view any place discussed in the testimony. Do not in\nany way research any information about this case, the law, or the people involved, including the\nparties, the wit- nesses, the lawyers, or the judge, until after you have been excused as jurors. If\nyou happen to see or hear anything touching on this case in the media, turn away and report it to\nme as soon as possible.\n\n        These rules protect the parties\u2019 right to have this case decided only on evidence they\nknow about, that has been presented here in court. If you do any research, investigation or\nexperiment that we do not know about, or gain any information through improper\ncommunications, then your verdict may be in\ufb02uenced by inaccurate, incomplete or misleading\ninformation that has not been tested by the trial process, which includes the oath to tell the truth\nand cross-examination. It could also be unfair to the parties\u2019 right to know what information the\njurors are relying on to decide the case. Each of the parties is entitled to a fair trial by an\nimpartial jury, and you must conduct yourself so as to maintain the integrity of the trial process.\n\n\n                                                      5\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24       Page 8 of 93\n\n\n\n\nIf you decide the case based on information not presented in court, you will have denied the\nparties a fair trial in accordance with the rules of this country and you will have done an\ninjustice. It is very important that you abide by these rules. Failure to follow these instructions\ncould result in the case having to be retried.\n\nSource: Pattern Jury Instructions 2020.\n\n\n\n\n                                                      6\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 9 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       1.2     Nature of the Parties and the Action\n\n       Members of the jury:\n\n       Now that you have been sworn, I have the following preliminary instructions for your\nguidance on the nature of the case and on your role as jurors.\n\n        This is a patent case. The patents involved in this case relate to immersion cooling\ntechnology. Computers can get hot when they operate. One way to cool them is to immerse them\nin a [special][non-conductive] fluid so the heat moves from the computer to the fluid. The\n[circulating fluid can be cooled][fluid can be circulated and cooled] so that the computers operate\nin a safe temperature range. During the trial, the parties will offer testimony to familiarize you\nwith this technology.\n\n      [Midas is the owner of a patent, which is identified by the Patent Office number: 10,405,\n457 (which may be called \u201cthe \u2018457 patent\u201d).]\n\n        [This action concerns U.S. Patent Number 10,405,457. This patent may be called the \u2018457\nPatent.]\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n         {Rhodium\u2019s minor changes more accurately reflect the technology. Rhodium contends\nthat it is improper to instruct the jury on the ownership of the \u2018457 Patent before that ownership\nhas been established. Rhodium\u2019s proposed final paragraph, as an alternative to Midas\u2019s, will aid\nthe jury\u2019s understanding without touching on that issue.}\n\n\n\n\n                                                     7\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 10 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       1.3     United States Patents\n\n         Patents are granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (sometimes called\nthe \u201cPTO\u201d or \u201cUSPTO\u201d). A patent gives the owner the right to exclude others from making,\nusing, offering to sell, or selling [[the claimed invention] [a product made by a process according\nto the claimed invention]] within the United States or importing it into the United States. During\nthe trial, the parties may offer testimony to familiarize you with how one obtains a patent from\nthe PTO, but I will give you a general background here. To obtain a patent, an application for a\npatent must be filed with the PTO by an applicant. The application includes a specification,\nwhich should have a written description of the invention, how it works, and how to make and use\nit so as to enable others skilled in the art to do so. The specification concludes with one or more\nnumbered sentences or paragraphs. These are called the \u201cclaims\u201d of the patent. The purpose of\nthe claims is to particularly point out what the applicant regards as the claimed invention and to\ndefine the scope of the patent owner\u2019s exclusive rights. After an application for a patent is filed\nwith the PTO, the application is reviewed by a trained PTO Patent Examiner. The Patent\nExaminer reviews (or examines) the patent application to determine whether the claims are\npatentable and whether the specification adequately describes the claimed invention. In\nexamining a patent application, the Patent Examiner searches records available to the PTO for\nwhat is referred to as \u201cprior art,\u201d and he or she also reviews prior art submitted by the applicant.\nWhen the parties are done presenting evidence, I will give you more specific instructions as to\nwhat constitutes prior art in this case. Generally, prior art is previously existing technical\ninformation and knowledge against which the Patent Examiners determine whether or not the\nclaims in the application are patentable. The Patent Examiner considers, among other things\nwhether each claim defines an invention that is new, useful, and not obvious in view of this prior\nart. In addition, the Patent Examiner may consider whether the claims are directed to subject\nmatter that is not eligible for patenting, such as natural phenomena, laws of nature, and abstract\ndeas. The Patent Examiner also may consider whether the claims are not indefinite and are\nadequately enabled and described by the application\u2019s specification. Following the prior art\nsearch and examination of the application, the Patent Examiner advises the applicant in writing\nwhat the Patent Examiner has found and whether any claim is patentable (in other words,\n\u201callowed\u201d). This writing from the Patent Examiner is called an \u201cOffice Action.\u201d More often than\nnot, the initial Office Action by the Patent Examiner rejects the claims. The applicant then\nresponds to the Office Action and sometimes cancels or changes the claims or submits new\nclaims or makes arguments against a rejection. This process may go back and forth between the\nPatent Examiner and the applicant for several months or even years until the Patent Examiner is\nsatisfied that the application and claims are patentable. Upon payment of an issue fee by the\napplicant, the PTO then \u201cissues\u201d or \u201cgrants\u201d a patent with the allowed claims. The collection of\npapers generated by the Patent Examiner and the applicant during this time of corresponding\nback and forth is called the \u201cprosecution history.\u201d You may also hear the \u201cprosecution history\u201d\nreferred to as the \u201cfile history\u201d or the \u201cfile wrapper.\u201d In this case, it is ultimately for you to\ndecide, based on my instructions to you, whether [the Defendant] has shown that the patent\nclaims are invalid.\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n      {In light of the patent video and other instructions, Rhodium believes this instruction is\nunnecessary.}\n\n\n                                                     8\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 11 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       1.4     Patent Litigation\n\n         Someone is said to be infringing a claim of a patent when they, without permission from\nthe patent owner, import, make, use, offer to sell, or sell the claimed invention, as defined by the\nclaims, within the United States before the term of the patent expires. A patent owner who\nbelieves someone is infringing the exclusive rights of a patent may bring a lawsuit, like this one,\nto attempt to stop the alleged infringing acts or to recover damages, which generally means\nmoney paid by the infringer to the patent owner to compensate for the harm caused by the\ninfringement. The patent owner must prove infringement of the claims of the patent. The patent\nowner must also prove the amount of damages the patent owner is entitled to receive from the\ninfringer as compensation for the infringing acts. A patent is presumed to be valid. In other\nwords, it is presumed to have been properly granted by the PTO. But that presumption of validity\ncan be overcome if clear and convincing evidence is presented in court that proves the patent is\ninvalid. A party accused of infringing a patent may deny infringement and/or prove that the\nasserted claims of the patent are invalid. If a party challenges the validity of the patent, you must\ndecide, based on the instructions I will give you, whether the challenger has overcome the\npresumption of validity with proof that the asserted claims of the patent are invalid. The party\nchallenging validity must prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. I will discuss more\nof this topic later. I will now briefly explain the parties\u2019 basic contentions in more detail.\n\n\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n       {Rhodium believes this instruction is unnecessary.}\n\n\n\n\n                                                     9\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 12 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       1.5     Contentions of the Parties\n\n        Midas contends that Rhodium imports, makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells an immersion\ncooling system that infringes claims 1 and 5 of the \u2018457 patent. Midas must prove that Rhodium\ninfringes one or more claims of the \u2018457 patent by a preponderance of the evidence. That means\nthat Midas must show that it is more likely that Rhodium\u2019s immersion cooling system infringes\nthan it does not infringe.\n\n        There are two ways in which a patent claim can be directly infringed. First, a claim can\nbe literally infringed. Second, a claim can be infringed under what is called the \u201cdoctrine of\nequivalents.\u201d To determine infringement, you must compare the accused immersion cooling\nsystem with each claim from the \u2018457 that Midas asserts is infringed. It will be my job to tell you\nwhat the language of the patent claims means. You must follow my instructions as to the\nmeaning of the patent claims. You are not to define the patent claims yourselves.\n\n       A patent claim is literally infringed only if Rhodium\u2019s immersion cooling system includes\neach and every element in that patent claim. If Rhodium\u2019s immersion cooling system does not\ncontain one or more elements in that claim, Rhodium does not literally infringe that claim. You\nmust determine literal infringement with respect to each patent claim individually.\n\n         A patent claim is infringed under the doctrine of equivalents only if there is an equivalent\ncomponent in Rhodium\u2019s immersion cooling system for each element of the patent claim that is\nnot literally present in Rhodium\u2019s immersion cooling system. In other words, Midas must prove\nthat it is more likely than not that Rhodium\u2019s immersion cooling system contains the equivalent\nof each element of the claimed invention that is not literally present in Rhodium\u2019s immersion\ncooling system. An equivalent of an element is a component that is only insubstantially different\nfrom the claimed element. One way of showing that an element is only insubstantially different\nis to show that it performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to\nachieve substantially the same result as would be achieved by the element that is not literally\npresent in the accused product.\n\n       Rhodium denies that it is infringing the claims of the \u2018457 patent and contends that the\n\u2018457 patent is invalid.\n\n        Invalidity of the asserted patent claim(s) is a defense to infringement. Therefore, even\nthough the Patent Examiner has allowed the claims of the \u2018457 patent, you, the jury, must decide\nwhether each claim of the \u2018457 patent that is challenged by Rhodium is invalid. Rhodium must\nprove invalidity of each challenged claim by clear and convincing evidence in order to overcome\nthe presumption of validity. Clear and convincing evidence means that it is highly probable that\nthe fact is true. This standard is different from the standard that applies to other issues in this\ncase. I have instructed you that other issues, such as infringement, may be found under a lower\nstandard, namely, by a preponderance of the evidence. You may think of this \u201cpreponderance of\nthe evidence\u201d as slightly greater than 50%. This is different from the criminal law standard of\n\u201cbeyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d You may think of this \u201cbeyond a reasonable doubt\u201d standard as\napproaching certainty, without reasonable doubt. The \u201cclear and convincing\u201d standard is between\nthe two.\n\n\n\n\n                                                     10\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 13 of 93\n\n\n\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n        {Rhodium contends that Midas\u2019s instruction is so lengthy and complicated as to be\nentirely unhelpful for the jury. Rhodium further objects that Midas\u2019s instruction refers to a single\ncooling system, when the facts will show that Rhodium has different systems at each of its\nTemple and Rockdale facilities. Rhodium also objects that Midas\u2019s repeated references to the\nterm \u201cimmersion cooling system\u201d are unnecessary. Rhodium further objects to Midas\u2019s inclusion\nof an instruction on infringement by equivalents, as Midas has conceded any such claim. Dkt.\n169. Rhodium further objects that Midas\u2019s instruction omits Rhodium\u2019s defense that the patent\nmay not be asserted. Rhodium instead maintains that the Court should adopt its instruction,\nwhich is narrowly tailored to the needs and issues of this case.}\n\n       At this point, will first give you a summary of each side\u2019s contentions in this case. Midas\nGreen seeks money damages from Rhodium for allegedly infringing the \u2019457 Patent by making\nproducts that Midas Green argues are covered by claims 1 and 5 of the \u2019457 Patent. These are the\n\u201cAsserted Claims\u201d of the \u2019457 Patent.\n\n       The Rhodium products that are alleged to infringe are the R70 immersion cooling\nsystems as installed at the Temple facility and the R70 and R30 immersion cooling systems\nlocated at the Rockdale facility.\n\n        Midas alleges that Rhodium\u2019s products infringe claims 1 and 5 of the \u2018457 Patent. Midas\nalso asserts that any infringement was willful.\n\n        Rhodium denies that it has infringed the Asserted Claims of the \u2019457 Patent, and further\ndenies that any infringement was willful. Rhodium also argues that the Asserted Claims are\ninvalid and may not be asserted because Midas\u2019s \u2018457 Patent does not identify the proper\ninventors, because the claims are obvious and not novel in light of existing technology, and\nbecause they fail the \u201cwritten description\u201d and \u201cenablement\u201d requirements. Your job is to decide\nwhether Rhodium has infringed the Asserted Claims of the \u2019457 Patent, and whether any of the\nAsserted Claims of the \u2019457 Patent is invalid. If you decide that any claim of the \u2019457 Patent has\nbeen infringed and is not invalid, you will then need to decide any money damages to be\nawarded to Midas Green to compensate it for the infringement.\n\n\n\nSource: Profectus Technology LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:20-cv-00101 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2021);\nVideoshare, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:19-cv-00663-ADA (W.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2021);\nCloudofChange LLC v. NCR Corp., No. 6:19-cv-00513 (W.D. Tex. May, 19, 2021); ESW Hold-\nings, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00044-ADA (W.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2021); Freshub, Inc. v. Am-\nazon.com, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00511-ADA (W.D. Tex. Jun. 21, 2021).\n\n\n\n\n                                                    11\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 182-8          Filed 04/03/24      Page 14 of 93\n\n\n\n\n        1.6     Trial Procedure\n\n        We are about to commence the opening statements in the case. Before we do that, I want\nto explain the procedures that we will be following during the trial and the format of the trial.\n\n      This trial, like all jury trials, comes in six phases. We have completed the first phase,\nwhich was to select you as jurors.\n\n       We are now about to begin the second phase, the opening statements. The opening\nstatements of the lawyers are statements about what each side expects the evidence to show. The\nopening statements are not evidence for you to consider in your deliberations. You must make\nyour decision based on the evidence and not the lawyers\u2019 statements and arguments.\n\n        In the third phase, the evidence will be presented to you. Witnesses will take the witness\nstand and documents will be offered and admitted into evidence. Midas goes first in calling\nwitnesses to the witness stand. These witnesses will be questioned by Midas\u2019 counsel in what is\ncalled direct examination. After the direct examination of a witness is completed, Rhodium has\nan opportunity to cross-examine the witness. After Midas has presented its witnesses, Rhodium\nwill call its witnesses, who will also be examined and cross-examined. The parties may present\nthe testimony of a witness by having the individual testify live for you, by reading from their\ndeposition transcript, or by playing a videotape of the witness\u2019s deposition testimony. All three\nare acceptable forms of testimony. A deposition is the sworn testimony of a witness taken before\ntrial and is entitled to the same consideration as if the witness had testified at trial.\n\n         The evidence often is introduced piecemeal, meaning that all the evidence relating to an\nissue may not be presented all at one time but, rather, may be presented at different times during\nthe trial. You need to keep an open mind as the evidence comes in. You are to wait until all the\nevidence comes in before you make any decisions. In other words, keep an open mind\nthroughout the entire trial.\n\n        In the fourth phase, the lawyers will again have an opportunity to talk to you in what is\ncalled \u201cclosing arguments.\u201d As with the opening statements, what the lawyers say in the closing\narguments is not evidence for you to consider in your deliberations.\n\n        In the fifth phase, I will read you the final jury instructions. I will instruct you on the law\nthat you must apply in this case. I have already explained to you a little bit about the law. In the\nfifth phase, I will explain the law to you in more detail.\n\n        Finally, the sixth phase is the time for you to deliberate and reach a verdict. You will\nevaluate the evidence, discuss the evidence among yourselves, and decide in this case. We both\nhave a job to do. I will explain the rules of law that apply to this case, and I will also explain the\nmeaning of the patent claim language. You must follow my explanation of the law and the patent\nclaim language, even if you do not agree with me. Nothing I say or do during the trial is intended\nto indicate what your verdict should be.\n\n\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n                                                      12\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24     Page 15 of 93\n\n\n\n\n        {Rhodium believes this instruction is unnecessary. Rhodium further notes that any\ninstruction on the order of party presentation may require modification to the extent the Court\nand parties agree that it is appropriate to take any witness out of order.}\n\n\n\n\n                                                   13\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 16 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       1.7     Preliminary Instructions to Jury\n\n         You have now been sworn as the jury to try this case. As the judge, I will decide all\nquestions of law and procedure. As the jury, you are the judges of the facts. At the end of the\ntrial, I will instruct you on the rules of law that you must apply to the facts as you \ufb01nd them.\n\n        You may take notes during the trial. Do not allow your note-taking to distract you from\nlistening to the testimony. Your notes are an aid to your memory. If your memory should later be\ndifferent from your notes, you should rely on your memory. Do not be unduly in\ufb02uenced by the\nnotes of other jurors. A juror\u2019s notes are not entitled to any greater weight than each juror\u2019s\nrecollection of the testimony.\n\n        Until this trial is over, do not discuss this case with anyone and do not permit anyone to\ndiscuss this case in your presence. This includes your spouse, children, relatives, friends,\ncoworkers, and people with whom you commute to court each day. During your jury service, you\nmust not communicate any information about this case by any means, by conversation or with\nthe tools of technology. For example, do not talk face-to-face or use any electronic device or\nmedia, such as the telephone, a cell or smart phone, camera, recording device, PDA, computer,\nthe Internet, any Internet service, any text or instant messaging service, any Internet chat room,\nblog, or website such as Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Snapchat, Instagram, or Twitter, or any\nother way to communicate to anyone any information about this case until I accept your verdict\nor excuse you as a juror.\n\n         Do not even discuss the case with the other jurors until the end of the case when you\nretire to deliberate. It is unfair to discuss the case before all of the evidence is in, because you\nmay become an advocate for one side or the other. The parties, the witnesses, the attorneys, and\npersons associated with the case are not allowed to communicate with you. And you may not\nspeak with anyone else in or around the courthouse other than your fellow jurors or court\npersonnel.\n\n        Do not make any independent investigation of this case. You must rely solely on what\nyou see and hear in this courtroom. Do not try to learn anything about the case from any other\nsource. In particular, you may not use any electronic device or media, such as a telephone, cell\nphone, smartphone, or computer to research any is- sue touching on this case. Do not go online\nor read any newspaper account of this trial or listen to any radio or television newscast about it.\nDo not visit or view any place discussed in this case and do not use Internet programs or other\ndevices to search for or to view any place discussed in the testimony. In sum, you may not\nresearch any information about this case, the law, or the people involved, including the parties,\nthe wit- nesses, the lawyers, or the judge, until after you have been excused as jurors.\n\n        There are some issues of law or procedure that I must decide that the attorneys and I must\ndiscuss. These issues are not part of what you must decide and they are not properly discussed in\nyour presence. To avoid having you leave the courtroom and to save time, I may discuss these\nissues with the attorneys at the bench, out of your hearing. When I confer with the attorneys at\nthe bench, please do not listen to what we are discussing. If the discussions require more time, I\nmay have you leave the courtroom until the lawyers and I resolve the issues. I will try to keep\nthese interruptions as few and as brief as possible.\n\n\n                                                     14\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 17 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       The trial will now begin. Lawyers for each side will make an opening statement. Opening\nstatements are intended to assist you in understanding the signi\ufb01cance of the evidence that will\nbe presented. The opening statements are not evidence.\n\n        After the opening statements, the plaintiff will present its case through witness testimony\nand documentary or other evidence. Next, the defendant will have an opportunity to present its\ncase. The plaintiff may then present rebuttal evidence. After all the evidence is introduced, I will\ninstruct you on the law that applies to this case. The lawyers will then make closing arguments.\nClosing arguments are not evidence, but rather the attorneys\u2019 interpretations of what the evidence\nhas shown or not shown. Finally, you will go into the jury room to deliberate to reach a verdict.\n\n        Keep an open mind during the entire trial. Do not decide the case until you have heard all\nof the evidence, my instructions, and the closing arguments.\n\n       It is now time for the opening statements.\n\n\n\nSource: Pattern Jury Instructions 2020\n\n\n\n\n                                                    15\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24       Page 18 of 93\n\n\n\n\n2.     During-Trial Instructions\n\n       2.1     First Recess\n\n         We are about to take our \ufb01rst break in this trial. Remember, until the trial is over, you are\nnot to discuss this case with anyone, including your fellow jurors. If anyone approaches you and\ntries to talk to you about the case, advise me about it immediately. Do not read or listen to any\nnews reports of the trial or use any technology tools to do independent research. Remember to\nkeep an open mind until all the evidence has been received. Finally, do not speak with anyone in\nor around the courthouse other than your fellow jurors or court personnel.\n\n\n\nSource: Pattern Jury Instructions 2020\n\n\n\n\n                                                      16\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 182-8       Filed 04/03/24     Page 19 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       2.2     Stipulations of Fact\n\n        A \u201cstipulation\u201d is an agreement. When there is no dispute about certain facts, the\nattorneys may agree or \u201cstipulate\u201d to those facts. You must accept a stipulated fact as evidence\nand treat that fact as having been proven here in court.\n\n\n\nSource: Pattern Jury Instructions 2020\n\n\n\n\n                                                    17\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24     Page 20 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       2.3    Limiting Instruction\n\n       When testimony or an exhibit is admitted for a limited purpose, you may consider that\ntestimony or exhibit only for the speci\ufb01c limited purpose for which it was admitted.\n\n\n\nSource: Pattern Jury Instructions 2020\n\n\n\n\n                                                  18\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-8       Filed 04/03/24     Page 21 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       2.4    Charts and Summaries\n\n        Certain charts and summaries have been shown to you solely to help explain or\nsummarize the facts disclosed by the books, records, and other documents that are in evidence.\nThese charts and summaries are not evidence or proof of any facts. You should determine the\nfacts from the evidence.\n\n\n\nSource: Pattern Jury Instructions 2020\n\n\n\n\n                                                  19\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 22 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       2.5     Demonstrative Evidence\n\n         [Certain exhibits shown to you, such as PowerPoint presentations, posters, or models, are\nillustrations of the evidence, but are not themselves evidence.][Exhibit __ is an illustration.] It is\nparty\u2019s [describe exhibit] used to describe something involved in this trial. If your recollection of\nthe evidence differs from the exhibit, rely on your recollection.\n\n\n\nSource: Pattern Jury Instructions 2020\n\nSource: Profectus Technology LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:20-cv-00101 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2021);\nVideoshare, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:19-cv-00663-ADA (W.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2021); Jiaxing\nSuper Lighting Elec. Appliance Co., Ltd. v. CH Lighting Tech. Co. Ltd., No. 6:20-cv-00018-\nADA (W.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2021); CloudofChange LLC v. NCR Corp., No. 6:19-cv-00513 (W.D.\nTex. May, 19, 2021); ESW Holdings, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00044-ADA (W.D. Tex. Apr.\n9, 2021); MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-00308-ADA (W.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2020).\n\n\n\n\n                                                     20\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 23 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       2.6     Impeachment by Witnesses\u2019 Inconsistent Statements\n\n       In determining the weight to give to the testimony of a witness, consider whether there\nwas evidence that at some other time the witness said or did something, or failed to say or do\nsomething, that was different from the testimony given at the trial.\n\n        A simple mistake by a witness does not necessarily mean that the witness did not tell the\ntruth as he or she remembers it. People may forget some things or remember other things\ninaccurately. If a witness made a misstatement, consider whether that misstatement was an\nintentional falsehood or simply an innocent mistake. The signi\ufb01cance of that may depend on\nwhether it has to do with an important fact or with only an unimportant detail.\n\n\n\nSource: Pattern Jury Instructions 2020\n\n\n\n\n                                                   21\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 24 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       2.7     Deposition Testimony\n\n       Certain testimony will now be presented to you through a deposition. A deposition is the\nsworn, recorded answers to questions a witness was asked in advance of the trial. Under some\ncircumstances, if a witness cannot be present to testify from the witness stand, that witness\u2019s\ntestimony may be presented, under oath, in the form of a deposition.\n\n        Sometime before this trial, attorneys representing the parties in this case questioned this\nwitness under oath. A court reporter was present and recorded the testimony. The questions and\nanswers will be shown to you today. This deposition testimony is entitled to the same\nconsideration and weighed and otherwise considered by you in the same way as if the witness\nhad been present and had testi\ufb01ed from the witness stand in court. You should not hold the\nquality of the video against either party.\n\n\n\nSource: Pattern Jury Instructions 2020\n\nSource: Profectus Technology LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:20-cv-00101 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2021);\nVideoshare, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:19-cv-00663-ADA (W.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2021); Jiaxing\nSuper Lighting Elec. Appliance Co., Ltd. v. CH Lighting Tech. Co. Ltd., No. 6:20-cv-00018-\nADA (W.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2021); Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00511-ADA\n(W.D. Tex. Jun. 21, 2021); ESW Holdings, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00044-ADA (W.D.\nTex. Apr. 9, 2021); MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-00308-ADA (W.D. Tex. Oct.\n14, 2020).\n\n\n\n\n                                                     22\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 25 of 93\n\n\n\n\n3.     Final Jury Instructions\n\n       3.1     Prefatory Final Jury Charge\n\n       MEMBERS OF THE JURY:\n\n        It is my duty and responsibility to instruct you on the law you are to apply in this case.\nThe law contained in these instructions is the only law you may follow. It is your duty to follow\nwhat I instruct you the law is, regardless of any opinion that you might have as to what the law\nought to be.\n\n        If I have given you the impression during the trial that I favor either party, you must\ndisregard that impression. If I have given you the impression during the trial that I have an\nopinion about the facts of this case, you must disregard that impression. You are the sole judges\nof the facts of this case. Other than my instructions to you on the law, you should disregard\nanything I may have said or done during the trial in arriving at your verdict.\n\n        You should consider all of the instructions about the law as a whole and regard each\ninstruction in light of the others, without isolating a particular statement or paragraph.\n\n         The testimony of the witnesses and other exhibits introduced by the parties constitute the\nevidence. The statements of counsel are not evidence; they are only arguments. It is important for\nyou to distinguish between the arguments of counsel and the evidence on which those arguments\nrest. What the lawyers say or do is not evidence. You may, however, consider their arguments in\nlight of the evidence that has been admit- ted and determine whether the evidence admitted in\nthis trial supports the arguments. You must determine the facts from all the testimony that you\nhave heard and the other evidence submitted. You are the judges of the facts, but in \ufb01nding those\nfacts, you must apply the law as I instruct you.\n\n        You are required by law to decide the case in a fair, impartial, and unbiased manner,\nbased entirely on the law and on the evidence presented to you in the courtroom. You may not be\nin\ufb02uenced by passion, prejudice, or sympathy you might have for the plaintiff or the defendant in\narriving at your verdict.\n\n        After the remainder of these instructions, you will hear closing arguments from the\nattorneys. Statements and arguments of the attorneys, I remind you. are not evidence, and they\nare not instructions on the law. They are intended only to assist the jury in understanding the\nevidence and the parties\u2019 contentions.\n\n        A verdict form has been prepared for you. You are to take this verdict form with you to\nthe jury room; and when you have reached a unanimous decision or agreement as to the verdict,\nyou are to have your foreperson fill in the blanks in the verdict form, date it, and sign it. Answer\neach question in the verdict form from the facts as you find them to be. Do not decide who you\nthink should win the case and then answer the questions to reach that result. Again, your answers\nand your verdict must be unanimous.\n\nSource: Pattern Jury Instructions 2020\n\n\n\n                                                    23\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA        Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24    Page 26 of 93\n\n\n\n\nSource: Profectus Technology LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:20-cv-00101 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2021);\n5th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil Cases), with revisions through June 2020, \u00a7 3.1;\nVideoshare, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:19-cv-00663-ADA (W.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2021); Jiaxing\nSuper Lighting Elec. Appliance Co., Ltd. v. CH Lighting Tech. Co. Ltd., No. 6:20-cv-00018-ADA\n(W.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2021); Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00511-ADA (W.D. Tex.\nJun. 21, 2021); CloudofChange LLC v. NCR Corp., No. 6:19-cv-00513 (W.D. Tex. May, 19,\n2021); ESW Holdings, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00044-ADA (W.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2021); MV3\nPartners LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-00308-ADA (W.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2020).\n\n\n\n\n                                                 24\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 27 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.2     Summary of Contentions\n\n        I will now summarize the issues that you must decide and for which I will provide\ninstructions to guide your deliberations. You must decide the following four main issues:\n\n\n\n       1. Whether Midas has proven that Rhodium infringed claims 1 and 5 of the \u2018457 patent.\n\n\n\n       2. Whether Rhodium has proven that claims 1 and 5 of the\u2019457 patent are invalid.\n\n\n\n       3. What amount of damages, if any, Midas has proven.\n\n\n\n       4. Whether Rhodium\u2019s infringement was willful.\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n         {Rhodium objects that that Midas\u2019s sparse instruction will not be helpful in situating the\njury at the outset of deliberations. Rhodium further objects that Midas\u2019s third and fourth asserted\nissues assume that there is infringement; the Court should decline any instruction that adopts one\nparty\u2019s contention. Rhodium proposes the language below, which echoes its pre-trial\n\u201cContentions of the Parties\u201d proposal.}\n\n         As I did at the start of the case, I will first give you a summary of each side\u2019s contentions\nin this case. I will then provide you with detailed instructions on what each side must prove to\nwin on each of its contentions. As I previously told you, Midas Green seeks money damages\nfrom Rhodium for allegedly infringing the \u2019457 Patent by making products that Midas Green ar-\ngues are covered by claims 1 and 5 of the \u2019457 Patent. These are the \u201cAsserted Claims\u201d of the\n\u2019457 Patent.\n\n       The Rhodium products that are alleged to infringe are the R70 immersion cooling\nsystems as installed at the Temple facility and the R70 and R30 immersion cooling systems\nlocated at the Rockdale facility.\n\n        Midas alleges that Rhodium\u2019s products infringe claims 1 and 5 of the \u2018457 Patent. Midas\nalso asserts that any infringement was willful.\n\n        Rhodium denies that it has infringed the Asserted Claims of the \u2019457 Patent, and further\ndenies that any infringement was willful. Rhodium also argues that the Asserted Claims are\ninvalid and may not be asserted because Midas\u2019s \u2018457 Patent does not identify the proper\ninventors, because the claims are obvious and not novel in light of existing technology, and\n\n\n                                                      25\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24     Page 28 of 93\n\n\n\n\nbecause they fail the \u201cwritten description\u201d and \u201cenablement\u201d requirements. Your job is to decide\nwhether Rhodium has infringed the Asserted Claims of the \u2019457 Patent, and whether any of the\nAsserted Claims of the \u2019457 Patent is invalid. If you decide that any claim of the \u2019457 Patent has\nbeen infringed and is not invalid, you will then need to decide any money damages to be\nawarded to Midas Green to compensate it for the infringement.\n\n\n\n\n                                                    26\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-8       Filed 04/03/24     Page 29 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.3    Burden of Proof: Preponderance of the Evidence\n\n        Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies has the burden of proving its case by a\npreponderance of the evidence. To establish by a preponderance of the evidence means to prove\nsomething is more likely so than not so. If you \ufb01nd that Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies has\nfailed to prove any element of its claim by a preponderance of the evidence, then it may not\nrecover on that claim.\n\n\n\nSource: Pattern Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n\n                                                  27\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24       Page 30 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.4     Burden of Proof: Clear and Convincing Evidence\n\n       Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that produces in your mind a \ufb01rm belief or\nconviction as to the truth of the matter sought to be established. It is evidence so clear, direct,\nweighty and convincing as to enable you to come to a clear conviction without hesitancy .\n\n\n\nSource: Pattern Jury Instructions 2020\n\n\n\n\n                                                      28\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 31 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.5     Evidence\n\n       The evidence you are to consider consists of the testimony of the witnesses, the\ndocuments and other exhibits admitted into evidence, and any fair inferences and reasonable\nconclusions you can draw from the facts and circumstances that have been proven.\n\n        Generally speaking, there are two types of evidence. One is direct evidence, such as\ntestimony of an eyewitness. The other is indirect or circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial\nevidence is evidence that proves a fact from which you can logically conclude an- other fact\nexists. As a general rule, the law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial\nevidence, but simply requires that you \ufb01nd the facts from a preponderance of all the evidence,\nboth direct and circumstantial.\n\n       As I instructed you before the trial began, in judging the facts, you must consider all the\nevidence, both direct and circumstantial. That does not mean you have to believe all the\nevidence. It is entirely up to you to give the evidence you receive in this case whatever weight\nyou individually believe it deserves. It will be up to you to decide which witnesses to believe,\nwhich witnesses not to believe, the weight you give any testimony you hear, and how much of\nany witness\u2019s testimony you choose to accept or reject.\n\n        You should never be influenced by my ruling on any objection. If I sustained an\nobjection, then just pretend the question was never asked. If there was an answer given, ignore it.\nIf I overruled the objection, act like the objection was never made. If I gave you instructions that\nsome item of evidence was received for a limited purpose, you must follow my instruction. If I\ngave any limiting instruction during trial, you must follow it. Any testimony I tell you to exclude\nor disregard is not evidence and may not be considered.\n\n       You must not conduct any independent research or investigation. You must make your\ndecision based only on the evidence here, and nothing else.\n\n\n\nSource: Pattern Jury Instructions\n\nSource: Profectus Technology LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:20-cv-00101 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2021);\n5th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil Cases), with revisions through June 2020, \u00a7 3.3;\nVideoshare, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:19-cv-00663-ADA (W.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2021); Jiaxing\nSuper Lighting Elec. Appliance Co., Ltd. v. CH Lighting Tech. Co. Ltd., No. 6:20-cv-00018-\nADA (Nov. 4, 2021); Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00511-ADA (W.D. Tex.\nJun. 21, 2021); CloudofChange LLC v. NCR Corp., No. 6:19-cv-00513 (W.D. Tex. May, 19,\n2021); ESW Holdings, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00044-ADA (W.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2021);\nMV3 Partners LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-00308-ADA (W.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2020).\n\n\n\n\n                                                    29\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 32 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.6     Witnesses\n\n         You alone are to determine the questions of credibility or truthfulness of the witnesses. In\nweighing the testimony of the witnesses, you may consider the witness\u2019s manner and demeanor\non the witness stand, any feelings or interest in the case, or any prejudice or bias about the case,\nthat he or she may have, and the consistency or inconsistency of his or her testimony considered\nin the light of the circumstances. Has the witness been contradicted by other credible evidence?\nHas he or she made statements at other times and places contrary to those made here on the\nwitness stand? You must give the testimony of each witness the credibility that you think it\ndeserves.\n\n       Even though a witness may be a party to the action and therefore interested in its\noutcome, the testimony may be accepted if it is not contradicted by direct evidence or by any\ninference that may be drawn from the evidence, if you believe the testimony.\n\n        You are not to decide this case by counting the number of witnesses who have testi\ufb01ed on\nthe opposing sides. Witness testimony is weighed; witnesses are not counted. The test is not the\nrelative number of wit- nesses, but the relative convincing force of the evidence. The testimony\nof a single witness is suf\ufb01cient to prove any fact, even if a greater number of witnesses testi\ufb01ed\nto the contrary, if after considering all of the other evidence, you believe that witness.\n\n\n\nSource: Pattern Jury Instructions 2020\n\n\n\n\n                                                     30\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24     Page 33 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.7     Expert Witnesses\n\n        When knowledge of technical subject matter may be helpful to the jury, a person who has\nspecial training or experience in that technical \ufb01eld is permitted to state his or her opinion on\nthose technical matters. However, you are not required to accept that opinion. As with any other\nwitness, it is up to you to decide whether to rely on it.\n\n\n\nSource: Pattern Jury Instructions 2020\n\n\n\n\n                                                   31\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24     Page 34 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.8     Claim Construction\n\n        {The parties present alternative proposals for claim construction instructions. Rhodium\ncontends that its instructions accurately summarize the relevant concepts for the jury. Midas\nGreen\u2019s instructions, on the other hand, lack detail and will confuse the jury on the core issues.\nFor example, Midas\u2019s instruction on claim scope does not define what the phrase \u201ccover\u201d means\nin the patent context, although Midas uses the term later in its proposed instructions. Rhodium\u2019s\nproposal gives that important definition. The Court should adopt Rhodium\u2019s proposed\ninstructions.}\n\n               3.8.1   Midas Green\u2019s Proposal\n\n                       (a)    Claim Construction \u2013 Generally\n\n       Before you decide whether Rhodium has infringed the claims of Midas\u2019 patent or whether\nMidas\u2019 patent is invalid, you will have to understand the patent claims.\n\n        The patent claims are numbered sentences at the end of the patent. The patent claims\ninvolved here are claim 1, beginning at column 9, line 33 of the patent, and claim 5, beginning at\ncolumn 10, line 11, which is Exhibit JX1 in evidence. The claims are intended to define, in\nwords, the boundaries of the inventor\u2019s rights. Only the claims of the patent can be infringed.\nNeither the written description, nor the drawings of a patent can be infringed. Each of the claims\nmust be considered individually. You must use the same claim meaning for both your decision on\ninfringement and your decision on invalidity.\n\n\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n                       (b)    Claim Construction for the Case\n\n        It is my job as judge to provide to you the meaning of any claim language that must be\ninterpreted. You must accept the meanings I give you and use them when you decide whether any\nclaim has been infringed and whether any claim is invalid. I will now tell you the meanings of\nthe following words and groups of words from the patent claims.\n\n\n\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions.\n\n\n\n                                                    32\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 35 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       {Rhodium contends that its proposal, set out below, is superior. Here, Rhodium notes\nonly that to the extent the Court adopts Midas\u2019s instruction, it should not refer to the \u2018446 Patent,\nwhich is no longer asserted.}\n\n               3.8.2   Rhodium\u2019s Proposal\n\n                       (a)     The Role of Claims of a Patent\n\n        Before you can decide many of the issues in this case, you will need to understand the\nrole of patent \u201cclaims.\u201d The patent claims are the numbered sentences at the end of each patent.\nThe claims are important because it is the words of the claims that define what a patent covers.\nThe figures and text in the rest of the patent provide a description and/or examples of the\ninvention and provide a context for the claims, but it is the claims that define the breadth of the\npatent\u2019s coverage. Therefore, what a patent covers depends, in turn, on what each of its claims\ncovers.\n\n        You will first need to understand what each claim covers in order to decide whether or\nnot there is infringement of the claim. The law says that it is my role to define the terms of the\nclaims and it is your role to apply my definitions to the issues that you are asked to decide in this\ncase. Therefore, as I explained to you at the start of the case, I have determined the meaning of\nthe claims and I will provide to you my definitions of certain claim terms. You must accept my\ndefinitions of these words in the claims as being correct. It is your job to take these definitions\nand apply them to the issues that you are deciding, including the issues of infringement.\n\n        The claims are intended to define, in words, the boundaries of the inventor\u2019s rights. Only\nthe claims of the patent can be infringed. Neither the written description, nor the drawings of a\npatent can be infringed. Each of the claims must be considered individually.\n\n         For claim limitations that I have not construed\u2014that is, interpreted or defined\u2014you are\nto use the plain and ordinary meaning of the limitations as understood by one of ordinary skill in\nthe art, which is to say, in the field of technology of the patent at the time of the invention.\n\n\n\nSource: 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 112; Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015); Phillips\nv. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus,\nInc., 295 F.3d 1277, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967\n(Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff\u2019d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996); SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena\nLabs. Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 882 (Fed. Cir. 1988).\n\n                       (b)     How a Claim Defines What It Covers\n\n       I will now explain how a claim defines what it covers.\n\n        A claim sets forth, in words, a set of requirements. Each claim sets forth its requirements\nin a single sentence. If a device or a method satisfies each of these requirements, then it is\ncovered by the claim.\n\n\n\n                                                     33\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 36 of 93\n\n\n\n\n        There can be several claims in a patent. Each claim may be narrower or broader than an-\nother claim by setting forth more or fewer requirements. The coverage of a patent is assessed\nclaim-by-claim. In patent law, the requirements of a claim are often referred to as \u201cclaim\nelements\u201d or \u201cclaim limitations.\u201d When a thing (such as a product or a process) meets all of the\nrequirements of a claim, the claim is said to \u201ccover\u201d that thing, and that thing is said to \u201cfall\u201d\nwith-in the scope of that claim. In other words, a claim covers a product or process where each of\nthe claim elements or limitations is present in that product or process.\n\n        Sometimes the words in a patent claim are difficult to understand, and therefore it is\ndifficult to understand what requirements these words impose. It is my job to explain to you the\nmeaning of the words in the claims and the requirements these words impose.\n\n        As I just instructed you, there are certain specific terms that I have defined and you are to\napply the definitions that I provide to you.\n\n       By understanding the meaning of the words in a claim and by understanding that the\nwords in a claim set forth the requirements that a product or process must meet in order to be\ncovered by that claim, you will be able to understand the scope of coverage for each claim. Once\nyou understand what each claim covers, then you are prepared to decide the issues that you will\nbe asked to decide, such as infringement.\n\n\n\nSource: MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-00308-ADA (W.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2020); 35\nU.S.C. \u00a7 112; Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015); Phillips v. AWH\nCorp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc., 295\nF.3d 1277, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir.\n1995) (en banc), aff\u2019d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996); SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Labs. Corp.,\n859 F.2d 878, 882 (Fed. Cir. 1988).\n\n                       (c)     Independent and Dependent Claims\n\n        This case involves two types of patent claims: independent claims and dependent claims.\nAn \u201cindependent claim\u201d does not refer to any other claim of the patent. An independent claim\nsets forth all of the requirements that must be met in order to be covered by that claim. Thus, it is\nnot necessary to look at any other claim to determine what an independent claim covers.\n\n         A dependent claim does not itself recite all of the requirements of the claim but refers to\nanother claim for some of its requirements. In this way, the claim \u201cdepends\u201d on another claim. A\ndependent claim incorporates all of the requirements of the claim(s) to which it refers. The de-\npendent claim then adds its own additional requirements. To determine what a dependent claim\ncovers, it is necessary to look at both the dependent claim and any other claim to which it refers.\nA product that meets all of the requirements of both the dependent claim and the claim to which\nit refers is covered by that dependent claim.\n\n        In this case, the independent claim is claim 1 of the \u2019457 Patent. You know claim 1 is in-\ndependent because it mentions no other claims. Accordingly, the words of claim 1 of the \u2019457\nPatent are read by themselves in order to determine what claim 1 covers. You know claim 5, on\n\n\n                                                     34\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 37 of 93\n\n\n\n\nthe other hand, is a dependent claim because it refers to independent claim 1. Accordingly, the\nwords of claims 1 and 5 are read together in order to determine what claim 5 of the patent covers.\n\n\n\nSource: Comaper Corp. v. Antec. Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Callaway Golf Co.\nv. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498\nF.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007).\n\n                      (d)     Claim Interpretation\n\n        I will now explain to you the meaning of some of the words of the claims in this case. In\ndoing so, I will explain some of the requirements of the claims. As I have previously instructed\nyou, you must accept my definition of these words in the claims as correct. For any words in the\nclaim for which I have not provided you with a definition, you should apply the plain and\nordinary meaning to one of skill in the art at the time of the invention. You should not take my\ndefinition of the language of the claims as an indication that I have a view regarding how you\nshould decide the issues that you are being asked to decide, such as infringement. These issues\nare yours to decide.\n\n       All of the Asserted Claims require \u201cweir\u201d and a \u201cplenum.\u201d These are my constructions:\n\n \u201cplenum\u201d                                         A structure for dispensing liquid.\n\n \u201cweir\u201d                                           An overflow structure or             barrier   that\n                                                  determines the level of liquid.\n\n\n\nSource: 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 112; Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015); Phillips\nv. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus,\nInc., 295 F.3d 1277, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967\n(Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff\u2019d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996); SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena\nLabs. Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 882 (Fed. Cir. 1988).\n\n\n\n\n                                                   35\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 38 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.9     Infringement\n\n         {The parties present alternative instructions on infringement below. Rhodium contends\nthat its instruction is superior \u2013 unlike Midas Green\u2019s, Rhodium\u2019s instructions are customized to\nthe case (for example, Midas\u2019s instructions discuss indirect infringement, which is not at issue in\nthis case). Rhodium\u2019s instructions accurately summarize the issues in this case in a way that will\nbe helpful for the jury, while Midas Green\u2019s boilerplate instructions are likely to confuse the jury.\nThe Court should adopt Rhodium\u2019s proposed infringement instructions.}\n\n               3.9.1   Midas Green\u2019s Proposal\n\n                       (a)     Infringement - Generally\n\n       Questions 1 through 2 of the Verdict Form read as follows:\n\nQuestion 1A:\n       Has Midas proven that it is more likely than not that Rhodium made, had made, or used a\nproduct that contains each element of Claim 1 of the \u2018457 Patent?\n\nQuestion 1B:\n       Has Midas proven that it is more likely than not that Rhodium made, had made, or used a\nproduct that contains each element of Claim 5 of the \u2018457 Patent?\n\nQuestion 2:\n         Has Midas proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Rhodium\u2019s infringement was\nwillful?\n\n        I will now instruct you as to the rules you must follow when deciding whether Midas has\nproven that Rhodium infringed any of the claims of the \u2018457 patent. Patent law gives the owner\nof a valid patent the right to exclude others from importing, making, using, offering to sell, or\nselling the claimed invention within the United States during the term of the patent. Any person\nor business entity that has engaged in any of those acts without the patent owner\u2019s permission\ninfringes the patent. Here, Midas alleges that Rhodium\u2019s immersion cooling system infringes\nclaim(s) 1 and 5 of Midas\u2019 \u2018457 patent.\n\n       You have heard evidence about both Midas\u2019 commercial product and Rhodium\u2019s accused\nimmersion cooling system. However, in deciding the issue of infringement you may not compare\nRhodium\u2019s accused immersion cooling system to Midas\u2019 commercial product. Rather, you must\ncompare the Rhodium\u2019s accused product to the claims of the \u2018457 patent when making your\ndecision regarding infringement.\n\n        A claim of a patent may be infringed directly or indirectly. As explained further in the\nfollowing Instructions, direct infringement results if the accused product is covered by at least\none claim of the patent. Indirect infringement results if the defendant induces another to infringe\na claim of a patent or contributes to the infringement of a claim of a patent by another.\n\n\n\n\n                                                     36\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 39 of 93\n\n\n\n\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 271; Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014); Merial\nLtd. v. CIPLA Ltd., 681 F.3d 1283, 1302-03 (Fed. Cir. 2012); WiAV Solutions LLC v. Motorola,\nInc., 631 F.3d 1257, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2010); WordTech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Network Solutions,\nInc., 609 F.3d 1308, 1313-18 (Fed. Cir. 2010).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n        {Rhodium objects that its instruction, set forth below, is superior. Rhodium objects here\nto note that Midas includes instructions addressing indirect infringement; there is no theory of\nindirect infringement in this case, and no instruction on indirect infringement should be given.}\n\n                       (b)     Direct Infringement \u2013 Knowledge of the Patent and Intent to\n                               Infringe are Immaterial\n\n        In this case, Midas asserts that Rhodium has directly infringed the patent. Rhodium is\nliable for directly infringing Midas\u2019 patent if you find that Midas has proven that it is more likely\nthan not that Rhodium made, used, imported, offered to sell, or sold the invention defined in at\nleast one claim of Midas\u2019 patent.\n\n       A party can directly infringe a patent without knowing of the patent or without knowing\nthat what the party is doing is patent infringement.\n\n\n\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 271(a); Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920 (2015); Medtronic,\nInc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 134 S. Ct. 843 (2014); Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v.\nSEB, S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060, 2065 n.2 (2011); Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co.,\n520 U.S. 17, 35 (1997); DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1330 (Fed. Cir.\n2001); Seal-Flex, Inc. v. Athletic Track & Court Constr., 172 F.3d 836, 842 (Fed. Cir. 1999);\nSmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Labs. Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1988).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n        {Rhodium believes this instruction is unnecessary. The infringement instruction will state\nwhat is necessary for infringement.}\n\n                       (c)     Infringement of Dependent Claims\n\n       There are two different types of claims in the patent. One type is called an independent\nclaim. The other is called a dependent claim.\n\n         An independent claim does not refer to any other claim of the patent. For example, Claim\n1 is an independent claim. An independent claim must be read separately from the other claims\nto determine the scope of the claim.\n\n\n\n\n                                                     37\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 40 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       A dependent claim refers to at least one other claim in the patent. For example, Claim 5 is\na dependent claim that refers to claim 1. A dependent claim includes all elements recited in the\ndependent claim, as well as all elements of the independent claim to which it refers.\n\n        To establish literal infringement of claim 5, Midas must show that it is more likely than\nnot that Rhodium\u2019s product includes each and every element of Claim 1 and Claim 5.\n\n       If you find that Claim 1 from which Claim 5 depends is not literally infringed, then you\nmust find that Claim 5 is also not literally infringed.\n\n\n\nWolverine World Wide v. Nike Inc., 38 F.3d 1192, 1196-99 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing Johnston v.\nIVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1577-89 (Fed. Cir. 1989)); Wilson Sporting Goods v. David\nGeoffrey & Assocs., 904 F.2d 677, 685-86 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Wahpeton Canvas Co., Inc. v.\nFrontier, Inc., 870 F.2d 1546, 1552-53 n.9 & n.10 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Shatterproof Glass Corp. v.\nLibbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 626 (Fed. Cir. 1985).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n                       (d)    Infringement of \u201cComprising of,\u201d \u201cConsisting of,\u201d and\n                              \u201cConsisting Essentially of\u201d Claims\n\n        (Alternative 1: \u201ccomprising\u201d) The preamble to claim 1 uses the phrase \u201cAn appliance\nimmersion cooling system comprising\u201d. The word \u201ccomprising\u201d means \u201cincluding the following\nbut not excluding others.\u201d\n\n       If you find that Rhodium\u2019s product includes all of the elements in claim 1, even if\nRhodium\u2019s product includes additional components method steps, you must find that Rhodium\u2019s\nproduct literally infringes claim 1.\n\nCIAS Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Norian Corp. v. Stryker\nCorp., 363 F.3d 1321, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg. LP, 327 F.3d\n1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003); AFG Indus. V. Cardinal IG Co., 239 F.3d 1239, 1244-45 (Fed. Cir.\n2001); PPG Indus. V. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Moleculon\nResearch Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 1986); AB Dick Co. v. Burroughs\nCorp., 713 F.2d 700, 703 (Fed. Cir. 1983).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n       {Rhodium objects that this instruction, which is unnecessary, cannot be understood. The\nCourt should not give an instruction that will confuse the jury.}\n\n                       (e)    Direct Infringement \u2013 Infringement Under the Doctrine of\n                              Equivalents\n\n\n\n                                                    38\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 41 of 93\n\n\n\n\n        If you decide that Rhodium\u2019s product does not literally infringe an asserted patent claim,\nyou must then decide whether it is more probable than not that Rhodium\u2019s product infringes the\nasserted claim under what is called the \u201cdoctrine of equivalents.\u201d Under the doctrine of\nequivalents, the product can infringe an asserted patent claim if it includes components that are\nequivalent to those elements of the claim that are not literally present in the product. If the\nproduct is missing an equivalent component method step to even one component method step of\nthe asserted patent claim, the product cannot infringe the claim under the doctrine of equivalents.\nThus, in making your decision under the doctrine of equivalents, you must look at each\nindividual element of the asserted patent claim and decide whether the product has an equivalent\ncomponent method step to each individual claim element that is not literally present in the\nproduct.\n\n        An equivalent of an element is a component that is insubstantially different from the\nclaimed element. One way of showing that an element is insubstantially different is to show that\nit performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve\nsubstantially the same result as would be achieved by the element that is not literally present in\nthe accused product.\n\n       In deciding whether any difference between a claim requirement and the product is not\nsubstantial, you may consider whether, at the time of the alleged infringement, persons of\nordinary skill in the field would have known of the interchangeability of the component with the\nclaimed requirement. However, known interchangeability between the claim requirement and the\ncomponent of the product is not necessary to find infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.\n\n        Further, the same component of the accused product may satisfy more than one element\nof a claim. Further, two components of the accused product may satisfy a single claim element.\n\nWarner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997); Graver Tank & Mfg.\nCo., v. Linde Air Prods. Co., 339 U.S. 605, 609 (1950); Intendis GmbH v. Glenmark\nPharmaceuticals Inc., 822 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2016); Ring & Pinion Serv., Inc. v. ARB\nCorp., 743 F.3d 831, 834 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Johnson & Johnston Assoc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d\n1046, 1053-54 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc); Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d\n1473, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Dolly, Inc. v. Spalding & Evenflo Cos., 16 F.3d 394, 397 (Fed. Cir.\n1994); Datascope Corp. v. SMEC, Inc., 776 F.2d 320, 325 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Cadence Pharm. Inc.\nv. Exela PharmSci Inc., 780 F.3d 1364, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Eagle Comtronics, Inc. v.\nArrow Commc\u2019n. Labs., Inc., 305 F.3d 1303, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2002); DeMarini Sports, Inc. v.\nWorth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Dolly, Inc. v. Spalding & Evenflo Cos.,\nInc., 16 F.3d 394, 398 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n        {Rhodium contends that this instruction is inappropriate. Midas Green has conceded any\nclaim under the Doctrine of Equivalents, and may not present it at trial. Dkt. 169. Accordingly,\nthe jury need not be instructed on this theory; doing so will cause unnecessary confusion and\n\n\n\n\n                                                    39\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24       Page 42 of 93\n\n\n\n\nprejudice to Rhodium. Further, even if the Court were inclined toward Midas Green\u2019s proposal,\nthe final two sentences should be removed; neither theory is a part of this case.]\n\n               3.9.2   Rhodium\u2019s Proposal\n\n                       (a)     Infringement Generally\n\n       I will now instruct you how to decide whether or not Midas Green has proven that\nRhodium has infringed the \u2019457 Patent. Infringement is assessed on a claim-by-claim basis.\nTherefore, there may be infringement as to one claim but no infringement as to another.\n\n         A patent owner has the right to prevent others from using the invention covered by his or\nher patent claims in the United States during the life of the patent. If any person makes, uses,\nsells or offers to sell within the United States or imports into the United States what is covered\nby the patent claims without the patent owner\u2019s permission, that person is said to infringe the\npatent.\n\n        In this case, there are two possible ways that a claim be infringed: (1) literal infringement;\nand (2) infringement by the doctrine of equivalents. In this case, Midas Green alleges that\nRhodium literally infringes the \u2019457 Patent. Alternatively, Midas Green alleges that Rhodium\ninfringes the \u2019457 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents.\n\n       To prove infringement, Midas Green must prove that the requirements for one or more\ntypes of infringement are met by a preponderance of the evidence, that is, that it is more likely\nthan not that all of the requirements of infringement have been proved.\n\n       I will now explain literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents\nin more detail.\n\n\n\nSource: 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 271; Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 572 U.S. 915, 921\n(2014); Merial Ltd. v. CIPLA Ltd., 681 F.3d 1283, 1302\u201303 (Fed. Cir. 2012); WordTech Sys., Inc.\nv. Integrated Network Solutions, Inc., 609 F.3d 1308, 1313\u201318 (Fed. Cir. 2010).\n\n                       (b)     Literal Infringement\n\n        In order to prove literal infringement, Midas Green must prove by a preponderance of the\nevidence that Rhodium made, used, sold, or offered for sale within the United States, or imported\ninto the United States, a product that meets all of the requirements of a claim and did so without\nthe permission of Midas Green. You must compare the product with each and every one of the\nrequirements of a claim to determine whether the system contains each and every requirement or\nlimitation recited in the claim. If Rhodium\u2019s product does not have every requirement in the\npatent claim, exactly, Rhodium\u2019s product does not literally infringe that claim.\n\n        You must determine, separately for each Asserted Claim, whether or not there is\ninfringement. For dependent claims, if you find that a claim to which a dependent claim refers is\nnot infringed, there cannot be infringement of that dependent claim. On the other hand, if you find\n\n\n                                                      40\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 43 of 93\n\n\n\n\nthat an independent claim has been infringed, you must still decide, separately, whether the\nproduct meets the additional requirement(s) of any claims that depend from the independent\nclaim to determine whether those dependent claims have also been infringed. A dependent claim\nincludes all the requirements of any of the claims to which it refers plus additional requirement(s)\nof its own.\n\n\n\nSource: Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equip., Inc., 808 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir.\n2015) (quoting Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1995));\nLimelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 572 U.S. 915, 921 (2014); Hutchins v. Zoll Med.\nCorp., 492 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Hunt-Wesson, Inc., 103 F.3d 978,\n981 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Amstar Corp. v. Envirotech Corp., 730 F.2d 1476, 1481\u201382 (Fed. Cir.\n1984); The Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions (May 2020) \u00a7\nB.3.1a; Int\u2019l Bus. Mach. Corp. v. Booking Holdings Inc., 775 F. App\u2019x 674, 677\u201378 (Fed. Cir.\n2019); Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Zoll Med. Corp., 656 F. App\u2019x 504, 520\u201321 (Fed. Cir. 2016);\nEricsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1219\u201322 (Fed. Cir. 2014); SiRF Tech, Inc. v.\nITC, 601 F.3d 1319, 1330\u201331 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Sapphire Crossing LLC v. Abbyy USA\nSoftware House, Inc., No. 20-cv-03590-YGR, *4\u2013*6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2020).\n\n                       (c)    Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents\n\n       {Rhodium contends that this instruction is unnecessary in light of Midas\u2019s concession on\nthe Doctrine of Equivalents. Dkt. 169. Nevertheless, it proposes this instruction in the event the\nCourt does not agree.}\n\n       If you decide that Rhodium\u2019s product does not literally infringe an asserted patent claim,\nyou must then decide whether it is more probable than not that product infringes the asserted\nclaim under what is called the \u201cdoctrine of equivalents.\u201d You will only consider the doctrine of\nequivalents for those claim limitations where Midas argues that they are infringed by\nequivalents, namely: the overflow lip and the secondary circulation facility,\n\n        Under the doctrine of equivalents, the product can infringe an asserted patent claim if it\nincludes components that are equivalent to those elements of the claim that are not literally pre-\nsent in the product. If the product is missing an equivalent component to even one component of\nthe asserted patent claim, the product cannot infringe the claim under the doctrine of equivalents.\n\n        Thus, in making your decision under the doctrine of equivalents, you must look at each\nindividual element of the asserted patent claim and decide whether the product has an equivalent\ncomponent to each individual claim element that is not literally present in the product. An equiv-\nalent of an element is a component that is insubstantially different from the claimed element.\nOne way of showing that an element is insubstantially different is to show that it performs\nsubstan-tially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same\nresult as would be achieved by the element that is not literally present in the accused product.\n\nSource:       AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions, 2018; Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v.\nHilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co., v. Linde Air Prods. Co.,\n\n\n\n                                                    41\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 44 of 93\n\n\n\n\n339 U.S. 605, 609 (1950); Intendis GmbH v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., 822 F.3d 1355\n(Fed. Cir. May 16, 2016); Ring & Pinion Serv., Inc. v. ARB Corp., 743 F.3d 831, 834 (Fed. Cir.\n2014); Johnson & Johnston Assoc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1053-54 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en\nbanc); Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Dolly,\nInc. v. Spalding & Evenflo Cos., 16 F.3d 394, 397 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Datascope Corp. v. SMEC,\nInc., 776 F.2d 320, 325 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Cadence Pharm. Inc. v. Exela PharmSci Inc., 780 F.3d\n1364, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Eagle Comtronics, Inc. v. Arrow Commc\u2019n. Labs., Inc., 305 F.3d\n1303, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2002); DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1332 (Fed.\nCir. 2001) (citing Dolly, Inc. v. Spalding & Evenflo Cos., Inc., 16 F.3d 394, 398 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).\n\n\n\n\n                                                    42\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 182-8          Filed 04/03/24       Page 45 of 93\n\n\n\n\n        3.10    Invalidity\n\n         {The parties present alternative instructions on invalidity below. Rhodium contends that\nits instruction is superior. Rhodium\u2019s instructions accurately summarize the issues in this case in\na way that will be helpful for the jury, while Midas Green\u2019s boilerplate instructions are likely to\nconfuse the jury and contains several instructions that are in no way relevant to the case. The\nCourt should adopt Rhodium\u2019s proposed invalidity instructions.}\n\n                3.10.1 Midas Green\u2019s Proposal\n\n                        (a)     Summary of Invalidity Defense\n\n        Rhodium contends that the asserted claim(s) of the patent[s]-in-suit are invalid.\n\n        Rhodium must prove that it is highly probable that each asserted claim is invalid. Claims\nof an issued patent may be found to be invalid. Thus, you must determine whether each of\nMidas\u2019s claims is invalid.\n\n        Rhodium contends that \u2018457 patent claims 1 and 5 are invalid for the following reasons:\n\n        -       Claims 1 and 5 are anticipated by one or more of the prior art references;\n\n        -       The invention of claims 1 and 5 was obvious in light of the prior art references;\n\n        -       The patent names the wrong persons as inventors;\n\n        -       The patent does not adequately describe the invention of claims 1 or 5; and\n\n        -       The patent does not enable a person of ordinarily skill in the art to make and use\n                the invention of claims 1 or 5.\n\n       I will now instruct you in more detail why Rhodium alleges that the asserted claim(s) of\nthe \u2018457 patent are invalid.\n\n\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n                        (b)     Prior Art\n\n         {Rhodium objects to Midas\u2019s attempt to provide only pre-AIA instructions. The priority\ndate of Midas\u2019s patent is in dispute; Rhodium contends that Midas's priority date is not supported\nby its first provisional application, and thus that the appropriate priority date is after the effective\ndate of the AIA. The Court should give Rhodium\u2019s proposed instructions, which accommodate\nthis possibility, and should not give Midas\u2019s incomplete instructions. Nor should the Court adopt\nMidas\u2019s March 14, 2012 effective filing date.}\n\n                                (i)     Prior Art Defined (pre-AIA)\n\n\n\n                                                      43\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 46 of 93\n\n\n\n\n        Prior art includes any of the following items received into evidence during trial:\n\n       1. any product that was publicly known or used by others in the United States before the\nclaimed invention was invented;\n\n        2. any product that was in public use or on sale in the United States before March 14,\n2012;\n\n        3. any patents that issued before March 14, 2012;\n\n        4. any publications having dates of public accessibility before March 14, 2012; and\n\n       5. any product that was made by anyone in the United States before the date of invention\nwhere the claimed invention was not later abandoned, suppressed, or concealed.\n\n        In this case, [the Defendant] contends that the following items are prior art:\n\n        [Identify the prior art admitted into evidence by name] 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 102 (pre-AIA).\n\n\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n                               (ii)    Prior Art Considered or Not Considered by the USPTO\n\n       Regardless of whether a particular prior art references were considered by the Patent\nExaminer during the prosecution of the application which matured into the \u2018457 patent, Rhodium\nmust prove that it is highly probable that the challenged claims are invalid. This burden of proof\non Rhodium never changes regardless of whether the Patent Examiner considered the reference.\n\nMicrosoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P\u2019ship., 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2251 (2011); Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin\nLtd., 684 F.3d 1253, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2012); SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharm. Corp.,\n225 F.3d 1349, 1355-56 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d\n1297, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2005).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n        {Rhodium does not disagree with the substance of this instruction, only its location. This\ninstruction is repeated and adopted in Rhodium\u2019s proposal below.}\n\n                       (c)     Invalidity of Independent and Dependent Claims\n\n       There are two different types of claims in the patent. One type is called an \u201cindependent\nclaim.\u201d The other is called a \u201cdependent claim.\u201d\n\n         An independent claim does not refer to any other claim of the patent. For example, claim\n1 is an independent claim. An independent claim must be read separately from the other claims\nto determine the scope of the claim. A dependent claim refers to at least one other claim in the\n\n\n\n                                                     44\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 47 of 93\n\n\n\n\npatent. For example, claim 5 is a dependent claim that refers to claim 1. A dependent claim\nincludes all of the elements recited in the dependent claim, as well as all of the elements of the\nclaim to which it refers.\n\n       Claim 5 requires each of the elements of claim, as well as all of the additional elements of\nclaim 1.\n\n         You must evaluate the invalidity of each asserted claim separately. Even if an\nindependent claim is invalid, this does not mean that the dependent claims that depend from it\nare automatically invalid. Rather, you must consider the validity of each claim, separately. You\nmust decide this issue of validity on a claim-by-claim basis. However, if you find that a\ndependent claim is invalid, then you must find that the independent claim from which it depends\nis also invalid. The dependent claim includes all of the elements of the independent claim from\nwhich it depends.\n\nComaper Corp. v. Antec. Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Callaway Golf Co. v.\nAcushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d\n1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n                       (d)     Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art\n\n       The question of invalidity of a patent claim is determined from the perspective of a\nperson of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the claimed invention as of the March 14, 2012.\nThus, prior art must be evaluated from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the field of the\ninvention as of the March 14, 2012.\n\n\n\n      35 U.S.C. \u00a7 103; KSR Int\u2019l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007); Continental\nCan Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991).\n\n       Source: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions.\n\n               3.10.2 Rhodium\u2019s Proposal\n\n                       (a)     Invalidity \u2013 Burden of Proof\n\n        I will now instruct you on the rules you must follow in deciding whether or not Rhodium\nhas proven that the Asserted Claims of the \u2019457 Patent are invalid. To prove that any claim of a\npatent is invalid, Rhodium must persuade you by clear and convincing evidence, that is, you\nmust be left with a clear conviction that the claim is invalid.\n\n\n\nSource: Profectus Technology LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:20-cv-00101 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2021);\nFederal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions, May 2020, \u00a7 B.4.1; Jiaxing\n\n\n                                                     45\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 182-8          Filed 04/03/24      Page 48 of 93\n\n\n\n\nSuper Lighting Elec. Appliance Co., Ltd. v. CH Lighting Tech. Co. Ltd., No. 6:20-cv-00018-ADA\n(W.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2021); Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00511-ADA (W.D. Tex.\nJun. 21, 2021); CloudofChange LLC v. NCR Corp., No. 6:19-cv-00513 (W.D. Tex. May, 19,\n2021); ESW Holdings, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00044-ADA (W.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2021).\n\n                        (b)     Inventorship\n\n         In this case, Rhodium contends that the \u2019457 patent is invalid because of incorrect\ninventorship. A patent is invalid if it fails to meet the requirement that all of the actual inventors,\nand only the actual inventors, be named as inventors in the patent. This is known as the\n\u201cinventorship\u201d requirement. To be an inventor, one must make a significant contribution to the\nconception of at least one of the claims of the patent (even if that claim has not been alleged to\nbe infringed). Whether the contribution is significant in quality is measured against the scope of\nthe full invention. If someone only explains to the actual inventors well-known concepts or the\ncurrent state of the art, he or she is not an inventor. Merely helping with experimentation, by\ncarrying out the inventor\u2019s instructions, also does not make someone an inventor. What is\nrequired is some significant contribution to the idea claimed. Persons may be inventors even if\nthey do not make the same type or amount of contribution, and even if they do not contribute to\nthe subject matter of each claim of the patent. Persons may be joint or co-inventors even though\nthey do not physically work together, but they must have some open line of communication\nduring or at approximately the time of their inventive effort.\n\n\n\nSource:         Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Instructions (2020); 35 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 102,\n256; Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (\u201cIf a patentee demonstrates\nthat inventorship can be corrected as provided for in section 256, a district court must order\ncorrection of the patent, thus saving it from being rendered invalid.\u201d) and id. at 1351 (setting\nforth framework for determining joint inventorship); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp., 376 F.3d\n1352, 1358-59 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Hess v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. Inc., 106 F.3d 976, 980-\n81 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (applying \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d standard to inventorship claims\nand finding plaintiff who offered suggestions to named inventors was not an inventor);\nBurroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1227-28 (Fed. Cir. 1994);\nShatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see\nSiOnyx LLC v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., 981 F.3d 1339, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (describing\njury\u2019s determination of inventorship below); LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. Appx.\n991, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same).\n\n                        (c)     Invalidity Based on Prior Art\n\n                                (i)     Prior Art \u2013 Generally\n\n        In order for someone to be entitled to a patent, the invention must actually be \u201cnew\u201d and\n\u201cnonobvious\u201d compared to what came before, which is referred to as the prior art. Prior art is\nconsidered in determining whether claim(s) 1 and 5 of the \u2019457 Patent are invalid for being\nanticipated or obvious. I will explain anticipation and obviousness more fully a bit later. Prior art\nmay include items that were publicly known or that have been used or offered for sale, or\n\n\n\n                                                      46\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 49 of 93\n\n\n\n\nreferences, such as publications or patents, that disclose the claimed invention or elements of the\nclaimed invention.\n\n        Rhodium contends that the Asserted Claims of the \u2019457 Patent are invalid because the\nprior art references came before the \u2019457 Patent and possessed the same functionality Midas\naccuses of infringement.\n\n        Where Rhodium is relying on prior art that was not considered by the PTO during\nexamination, you may consider whether that prior art is significantly different and more relevant\nthan the prior art that the PTO did consider. If you decide it is different and more relevant, you\nmay weigh that prior art more heavily when considering whether the challenger has carried its\nclear-and-convincing burden of proving invalidity.\n\n        If a dependent claim is invalidated by the prior art for anticipation or obviousness, then\nthe claims from which it depends are necessarily anticipated or obvious as well.\n\nSource: Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P\u2019ship., 564 U.S. 91, 110\u201311 (2011); Sciele Pharma Inc. v.\nLupin Ltd., 684 F.3d 1253, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2012).\n\n                               (ii)   Prior Art \u2013 Conception and Reduction to Practice\n\n        There is no dispute that the prior art references Rhodium identifies are early enough to\nqualify as prior art, except for the U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2014/0211412 Al (the\n\u201cBest Publication\u201d). Rhodium contends that the Best Publication is prior art to the \u2019457 Patent\nbecause it was filed on August 4, 2012, which is earlier than the earliest invention date the \u2019457\nPatent is entitled to. Midas contends that the Best Publication is not prior art because the\ninvention of the \u2019457 Patent was conceived on March 14, 2012 and was diligently reduced to\npractice andthe Patent is therefore entitled to an invention date of March 14, 2012.\n\n        In this case, you must determine the date of invention for the claims of the \u2019457 Patent.\nThe date of invention is either when the invention was reduced to practice or when it was\nconceived, provided the inventor(s) were diligent in reducing the invention to practice. Diligence\nmeans working continuously, though not necessarily every day. Conception is the mental part of\nan inventive act, i.e., the formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea\nof the complete and operative invention as it is thereafter to be applied in practice, even if the\ninventor did not know at the time that the invention would work.\n\n        Conception of an invention is complete when the idea is so clearly defined in the\ninventor\u2019s mind that, if the idea were communicated to a person having ordinary skill in the field\nof the technology, he or she would be able to reduce the invention to practice without undue\nresearch or experimentation. This requirement does not mean that the inventor has to have a\nprototype built, or actually explained her or his invention to another person. But, there must be\nsome evidence beyond the inventor\u2019s own testimony that confirms the date on which the inventor\nhad the complete idea. Conception may be proven when the invention is shown in its complete\nform by drawings, disclosure to another person, or other forms of evidence presented at trial. The\ncomplete idea of the invention must contain every limitation of the claim.\n\n\n\n\n                                                     47\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA             Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 50 of 93\n\n\n\n\n        A claimed invention is \u201creduced to practice\u201d when it has been constructed, used, or tested\nsufficiently to show that it will work for its intended purpose or when the inventor files a patent\napplication that fully describes the invention.\n\n\n\nSource: AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions, 2018; In re Magnum Oil Tools Int\u2019l, Ltd., 829\nF.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (\u201ca patentee bears the burden of establishing that its claimed\ninvention is entitled to an earlier priority date than an asserted prior art reference\u201d); Mahurkar\nv. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1576-79 (Fed. Cir. 1996); E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co. v.\nUnifrax I LLC, 921 F.3d 1060 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus\nAm., Inc., 841 F.3d 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d\n1223, 1227-28 (Fed. Cir. 1994).\n\n                               (iii)   Date of Invention \u2013 Priority to Provisional Application\n\n      A patent application can be provisional or nonprovisional. A provisional application is a\ntemporary placeholder for a more substantive nonprovisional application to follow.\n\n        The provisional application serves the purpose of setting a priority date for the claimed\ninvention provided it contains a written description of the invention, and of the manner and pro-\ncess of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person\nskilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention. This priority date is then used to deter-\nmine what qualifies as prior art for evaluating the question of validity.\n\n         In this case, the parties dispute the priority date of the \u2019457 Patent. Specifically, Rhodium\ncontends that the priority date for the \u2019457 Patent is the filing date of its nonprovisional\napplication, December 13, 2013, and that the \u2019457 Patent is not entitled to the filing date of either\nprovisional application. Midas Green claims that the priority date for the \u2019457 Patent, if you find\nit is not March 14, 2012, is the filing date of the first provisional application, December 14,\n2012.\n\n        For the \u2019457 Patent to be entitled to the priority date of the provisional application, Midas\nGreen has the burden of providing evidence that the provisional application satisfies both the\nwritten description and enablement requirements. If Midas Green does so, Rhodium has the bur-\nden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the provisional application does not meet\nthose two requirements. Rhodium also contends, and has the burden of showing by clear and\nconvincing evidence, that even with the later December 13, 2013 priority date, the application\nfor the \u2019457 Patent does not meet the written description or enablement requirements.\n\n       I will now tell you more about each of these two requirements.\n\nSource: Profectus Technology LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:20-cv-00101-ADA, Dkt. 193 at 26-27,\n(W.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2021); MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-00308-ADA (W.D. Tex.\nOct. 14, 2020); Internet Machines, LLC v. PLX Tech., Inc., No. 6:10-cv-23 (E.D. Tex.); Dynamic\nDrinkware, LLC v. Nat\u2019l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Tech. Licensing\nCorp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Federal Circuit Bar\nAssociation Model Patent Ju-ry Instructions \u00a7\u00a7 B.4.2a, B.4.2b; 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 112.\n\n\n                                                     48\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24     Page 51 of 93\n\n\n\n\n                      (d)     Obviousness\n\n       Even though an invention may not have been identically disclosed or described before it\nwas made by an inventor, in order to be patentable, the invention must also not have been\nobvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of technology of the patent at the time the\ninvention was made.\n\n         Rhodium may establish that a patent claim is invalid by proving, by clear and convincing\nevidence, that the claimed invention would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in\nthe art at the time the invention was made in the field of the invention.\n\n               Unlike anticipation, which allows consideration of only one item of prior art,\nobviousness may be shown by considering one or more than one item of prior art. Rhodium\ncontends that the invention of the \u2019457 Patent was obvious in light of the Best Tank, the Best\nPublication, and the Best \u2019463 Patent alone or in combination with the teachings of each other, or\nin combination with the teachings of the following patents and patent applications: Oktay \u2019244,\nJP \u2019758, the Pfahnl Application, Best \u2019914, Rolfson \u2019298, Quon \u2019108, and Attlesey \u2019419.\n\n        In determining whether a claimed invention is obvious, you must consider the level of or-\ndinary skill in the field of the invention that someone would have had at the time the invention\nwas made, the scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the prior art and the\nclaimed invention, and, if present, so-called objective evidence or secondary considerations,\nwhich I will describe shortly. Do not use hindsight; consider only what was known at the time of\nthe invention.\n\n        Keep in mind that the existence of each and every element of the claimed invention in the\nprior art does not necessarily prove obviousness. Most, if not all, inventions rely on building\nblocks of prior art. In considering whether a claimed invention is obvious, you should consider\nwhether, at the time of the claimed invention, there was a reason that would have prompted a\nperson having ordinary skill in the field of the invention to combine the known elements in the\nprior art in a way the claimed invention does, taking into account such factors as (1) whether the\nclaimed invention was merely the predictable result of using prior art elements according to their\nknown function(s); (2) whether the claimed invention provides an obvious solution to a known\nproblem in the relevant field; (3) whether the prior art teaches or suggests the desirability of\ncom-bining elements claimed in the invention; (4) whether the prior art teaches away from\ncombining elements in the claimed invention; (5) whether it would have been obvious to try the\ncombina-tions of elements, such as when there is a design incentive or market pressure to solve a\nproblem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions. To find it rendered the\nclaimed invention obvious, you must find that the prior art provided a reasonable expectation of\nsuccess.\n\n       In determining whether the claimed invention is obvious, you should take into account\nany objective evidence (sometimes called \u201csecondary considerations\u201d) that may shed light on\nwhether or not the claimed invention is obvious, such as:\n\n\n\n\n                                                    49\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 52 of 93\n\n\n\n\n        a.      Whether the claimed invention was commercially successful as a result of the\nmerits of the claimed invention (rather than the result of design needs or market-pressure\nadvertis-ing or similar activities);\n\n       b.      Whether the claimed invention satisfied a long-felt need;\n\n       c.      Whether others had tried and failed to make the claimed invention;\n\n       d.      Whether others invented the claimed invention at roughly the same time;\n\n       e.      Whether others copied the claimed invention;\n\n      f.     Whether there were changes or related technologies or market needs con-\ntemporaneous with the claimed invention;\n\n       g.      Whether the claimed invention achieved unexpected results;\n\n       h.      Whether others in the field praised the claimed invention;\n\n        i.      Whether persons having ordinary skill in the art of the invention expressed\nsurprise or disbelief regarding the claimed invention;\n\n       J.      Whether others sought or obtained rights to the patent from the patent holder; and\n\n       k.      Whether the inventor proceeded contrary to accepted wisdom in the field.\n\n       In determining whether the claimed invention was obvious, consider each claim\nseparately, but understand that if a dependent claim is obvious, then the claims from which it\ndepends are necessarily obvious as well.\n\n\n\nSource: Profectus Technology LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:20-cv-00101 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2021);\nMicrosoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P\u2019ship, 564 U.S. 91, 110\u201311 (2011); KSR Int\u2019l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550\nU.S. 398, 405 and 421 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17\u201318 (1966); Apple Inc.\nv. MPS Elecs. Co., Ltd., 839 F.3d 1034, 1047\u201348 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Cir. Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc.,\n795 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658\u201359 (Fed. Cir.\n1992); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036\u201337 (C.C.P.A. 1979); KSR Int\u2019l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550\nU.S. 398, 420\u201322 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17\u201318 (1966); Arendi S.A.R.L.\nv. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc.,\n773 F.3d 1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Inherency: Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d\n1186, 1194\u201396 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., 687 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed.\nCir. 2012); In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2009); KSR Int\u2019l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550\nU.S. 398, 420\u201322 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17\u201318 (1966); Ruiz v. A.B.\nChance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 666\u201367 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713\nF.2d 693, 696\u201397 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17\u201318 (1966); U.S. v.\nAdams, 383 U.S. 39, 52 (1966); Apple Inc. v. MPS Elecs. Co., Ltd., 839 F.3d 1034, 1048, 1052\u2013\n53 (Fed. Cir. 2016); WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1329\u201337 (Fed. Cir. 2016).\n\n\n                                                    50\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 53 of 93\n\n\n\n\n                       (e)     Level of Ordinary Skill\n\n        In deciding what the level of ordinary skill in the field of the invention is, you should\nconsider all the evidence introduced at trial, including but not limited to: (1) the levels of\neducation and experience of the inventor and other persons actively working in the field; (2) the\ntypes of problems encountered in the field; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) the\nrapidity with which innovations are made; and (5) the sophistication of the technology.\n\n\n\nSource: KSR Int\u2019l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420\u201322 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co.,\n383 U.S. 1, 17\u201318 (1966); Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 666\u201367 (Fed. Cir. 2000);\nEnvtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696\u201397 (Fed. Cir. 1983); VocaLife LLC v.\nAmazon.com, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-123-JRG, Dkt. 340 at 42 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 9, 2020); Graham v.\nJohn Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966); Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256\n(Fed. Cir. 2007); Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 666-67 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Orthopedic\nEquip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil\nCo., 713 F.2d 693 (Fed. Cir. 1983).\n\n                       (f)     Scope and Content of Prior Art\n\n       In considering whether the claimed invention was obvious, you must first determine the\nscope and content of the prior art.\n\n        The scope and content of prior art for deciding whether the invention was obvious\nincludes at least prior art in the same field as the claimed invention. It also includes prior art\nfrom different fields that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered when trying\nto solve the problem that is addressed by the invention.\n\n\n\nSource: Cir. Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also In re Clay,\n966 F.2d 656, 658\u201359 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036\u201337 (C.C.P.A. 1979).\n\n                       (g)     Written Description\n\n        A patent application, whether provisional or nonprovisional, must contain an adequate\nwritten description of the claimed invention. Rhodium contends that the asserted claims of the\n\u2019457 Patent are invalid for failure of the patent to provide an adequate written description. To\ndemonstrate that the \u2019457 Patent lacks adequate written description, Rhodium must prove by\nclear and convincing evidence that the original specification set forth in the application for the\npatent filed in 2013 does not describe the full scope of the Asserted Claims.\n\n        The patent laws require that a patent must contain an adequate written description of the\nclaims of the patent. That means the original specification must describe the invention in full,\nclear, concise, and exact terms. The written description requirement helps to ensure that the pa-\ntent applicant actually invented what is claimed, in other words, that the patent inventor pos-\nsessed the full scope of the claimed invention at the time the patent application was filed.\n\n\n                                                     51\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24       Page 54 of 93\n\n\n\n\n        The written description requirement is satisfied if persons of ordinary skill in the field of\nthe invention would recognize, from reading the original patent specification, that the inventor\ninvented what is contained in the Asserted Claims of the patent. The written description may be\nsatisfied by the words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, et cetera, in the original patent ap-\nplication, and any combination of them as understood by one of ordinary skill.\n\n       It is not necessary to use identical language to the claims. However, the original patent\napplication must contain a precise definition of the invention and all the claim limitations must\nappear in the specification.\n\n         If a claim limitation is not described explicitly, the original specification must describe it\ninherently. That means a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the original specification\nwould recognize that the limitation is necessarily present. It is not enough if the limitation would\nhave been obvious and not enough if a person of ordinary skill might be able to identify or con-\nstruct the patentee's device from the teachings of the disclosure. Rather, the application must\nnecessarily disclose that particular device. There must be sufficient description that a person of\nordinary skill in the art reading the disclosure would immediately discern that the claim\nlimitation is present.\n\n\n\n        Source:        Profectus Technology LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:20-cv-00101-ADA, Dkt.\n193 at 26-27, (W.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2021); MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-00308-\nADA (W.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2020); Internet Machines, LLC v. PLX Tech., Inc., No. 6:10-cv-23 (E.D.\nTex.); Nuvo Pharms. (Ireland) Designated Activity Co. v. Dr. Reddy\u2019s Labs. Inc., 923 F.3d 1368,\n1382 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat\u2019l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379\n(Fed. Cir. 2015); Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Tech. Licens-\ning Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2008); PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-\nMobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc.,\n230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1159 (Fed. Cir.\n1998); Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Federal Circuit\nBar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions \u00a7\u00a7 B.4.2a, B.4.2b; 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 112.\n\n                       (h)     Enablement\n\n         A patent application, whether provisional or nonprovisional, must also disclose sufficient\ninformation to enable one skilled in the field of the invention, at the time the application was\nfiled, to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. This requirement is\nknown as the enablement requirement. Each claim must be analyzed for compliance with the\nenablement requirement. If a patent claim is not enabled, it is invalid. In considering whether a\npatent complies with the enablement requirement, you must keep in mind that patents are written\nfor persons of ordinary skill in the field of the invention.\n\n\n\nSource: MTel v. Samsung, No. 2:13-cv-259, Dkt. No. 115 at 27:2-15 (Dec. 18, 2014);\nErfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 2:15-CV-1202-WCB, 2017 WL\n2190055, at *5 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2017); Profectus Technology LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:20-\n\n\n                                                      52\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 55 of 93\n\n\n\n\ncv-00101-ADA, Dkt. 193 at 26-27, (W.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2021); MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku, Inc.,\nNo. 6:18-cv-00308-ADA (W.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2020); Internet Machines, LLC v. PLX Tech., Inc.,\nNo. 6:10-cv-23 (E.D. Tex.); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat\u2019l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375,\n1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir.\n2008); Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions \u00a7\u00a7 B.4.2a, B.4.2b; 35\nU.S.C. \u00a7 112.\n\n                       (i)     Claims Must be Applied Identically for Validity and\n                               Infringement\n\n        You must apply the claims with the same scope when determining validity and\ninfringement. Therefore, if the same technology or technological feature accused of infringing\nthe patent is found in the prior art, then that technology or technological feature is either present\nfor purposes of both infringement and validity, or it is absent for both infringement and validity.\nThat which infringes if later anticipates if earlier.\n\n\n\nSource: Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 789 F.2d 1556, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing\nPeters v. Active Mfg. Co., 129 U.S. 530, 537 (1889); 01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. Citrix Sys.,\nInc., 889 F.3d 735, 742 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d\n1313, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343,\n1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001).\n\n\n\n\n                                                     53\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA              Document 182-8       Filed 04/03/24      Page 56 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.11    Anticipation\n\n               3.11.1 Anticipation - Generally\n\n        An invention must be new to be entitled to patent protection under the U.S. patent laws.\nIf a device or process has been previously invented and disclosed to the public, then it is not new,\nand therefore the claimed invention is \u201canticipated\u201d by the prior invention. To prove anticipation,\n[the Defendant] must prove that it is highly probable that the claimed invention is not new.\n\n        In this case, Rhodium contends that claims 1 and 5 of the \u2018457 patent are anticipated. For\nexample, Rhodium contends that the invention of claims 1 and 5 of the \u2018457 patent were present\nin the best tank.\n\n       In deciding whether the claims are new or anticipated by prior art, you are to consider the\nfollowing items received into evidence during the trial which the parties agree are prior art and\nthe Rhodium contends anticipates the claimed invention:\n\n       (i) the Best Tank\n\n       (ii) the Best Publication, and\n\n       (iii) the Best \u2019463 Patent.\n\n       You must determine what is the prior art that may be considered in determining whether\nthe \u2018457 patent is new or anticipated. There are different types of prior art and I will instruct you\non each of the relevant types of prior art that you will need to consider.\n\n        To anticipate a claim, each element in the claim must be present in a single item of prior\nart and arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim. You may not combine two\nor more items of prior art to find anticipation. In determining whether every one of the elements\nof the claimed invention is found in the prior publication, patent, etc., you should consider what a\nperson of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from his or her review of the particular\nprior publication, patent, etc.\n\n         Inherency: In determining whether the single item of prior art anticipates a patent claim,\nyou should take into consideration not only what is expressly disclosed in the particular prior art\nreference prior publication, patent, etc., but also what is inherently present or disclosed in that\nprior art or inherently results from its practice. Prior art inherently anticipates a patent claim if\nthe missing element or feature would necessarily result from what the single item of prior art\nteaches to persons of ordinary skill in the art. A party claiming inherent anticipation must prove\nthat it is highly probable that the allegedly inherent element or feature necessarily is present.\n\n         Evidence outside of the prior art reference itself [including experimental testing] may be\nused to show that elements that are not expressly disclosed in the reference are inherent in it. To\nbe inherent, the feature that is alleged to have been inherent must necessarily have existed in the\nprior art reference. The fact that the feature is likely to have existed is not sufficient. It is not\nrequired, however, that persons of ordinary skill recognize or appreciate the inherent disclosure\nat the time the prior art was first known or used. Thus, the prior use of the patented invention that\n\n\n                                                     54\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA              Document 182-8      Filed 04/03/24      Page 57 of 93\n\n\n\n\nwas unrecognized and unappreciated can still be an invalidating anticipation, provided the\nallegedly inherent feature was necessarily present in the reference.\n\n        You must keep these requirements in mind and apply them to each kind of anticipation\nyou consider in this case. There are additional requirements that apply to the categories of\nanticipation that Rhodium contends apply in this case. I will now instruct you about these.\n\n\n\nNet MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Toro Co. v. Deere\n& Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1320-21 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339\nF.3d 1373, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Atlas\nPowder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Glaverbel Societe\nAnonyme v. Northlake Mktg. & Supply, Inc., 45 F.3d 1550, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Minn. Mining\n& Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1992);\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n        {Rhodium agrees that an instruction on anticipation is appropriate, and does not dispute\nthat the first paragraph is appropriate. Rhodium contends that, as to the remainder, its instruction\nis superior.}\n\n        An invention must be new to be entitled to patent protection under the U.S. patent laws.\nIf a device or process has been previously invented and disclosed to the public, then it is not new,\nand therefore the claimed invention is \u201canticipated\u201d by the prior invention. To prove anticipation,\n[the Defendant] must prove that it is highly probable that the claimed invention is not new.\n\n        In this case, Rhodium contends that claims 1 and 5 of the \u2019457 Patent are anticipated. In\nparticular, Rhodium contends that the invention of claims 1 and 5 of the \u2019457 Patent was present\nin:\n\n       (i) the Best Tank, and described in each of\n\n       (ii) the Best Publication, and\n\n       (iii) the Best \u2019463 Patent.\n\n       In deciding whether the claims are new or anticipated by prior art, you are to consider the\nfollowing items received into evidence during the trial which the parties agree are prior art and\nRhodium contends anticipates the claimed invention: the Best Tank and Best \u2019463 Patent.\n\n        You must also determine whether the Best Publication is prior art that may be considered\nin determining whether the \u2019457 Patent patent is new or anticipated. There are different types of\nprior art and I will instruct you on each of the relevant types of prior art that you will need to\nconsider. To anticipate a claim, each element in the claim must be present in a single item of\nprior art and arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim. You may not combine\ntwo or more items of prior art to find anticipation. In determining whether every one of the\nelements of the claimed invention is found in the Best Tank, Best Publication, or Best \u2019463\n\n\n                                                     55\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24     Page 58 of 93\n\n\n\n\nPatent, you should consider what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood\nfrom his or her review of the particular system or publication.\n\n\n\nSource:        AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions, 2018; Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc.,\n545 F.3d 1359, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1320-21 (Fed.\nCir. 2004); Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In\nre Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d\n1342, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Glaverbel Societe Anonyme v. Northlake Mktg. & Supply, Inc.,\n45 F.3d 1550, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson\nOrthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Cont\u2019l Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co.,\n948 F.2d 1264, 1267-69 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Buildex, Inc. v. Kason Indus., Inc., 849 F.2d 1461,\n1463 (Fed. Cir. 1988).\n\n\n\n\n                                                   56\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 59 of 93\n\n\n\n\n               3.11.2 Prior Public Knowledge (Pre-AIA)\n\n       Rhodium contends that claims of the \u2018457 patent are invalid because the invention\ndefined in that claim was publicly known by others in the United States before March 14, 2012.\n\n        That patent claim is invalid if the invention defined in that claim was publicly known by\nothers in the United States before it was invented by Midas.\n\n        The invention defined by claim of the \u2018457 patent was invented on before March 14,\n2012.\n\n\n\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 102(a) (pre-AIA); Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294,\n1301, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 227 F.3d 1361,\n1369(Fed. Cir. 2000); Woodland Trust v. Flowertree Nursery, 148 F.3d 1368, 1370 (Fed. Cir.\n1998).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n        {Rhodium contends that this instruction is unnecessary in light of the prior art\ninstructions to be given above. Rhodium further reiterates its objection to Midas\u2019s March 14,\n2012 proposed effective filing date and its use of exclusively pre-AIA. }\n\n\n\n\n                                                   57\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 60 of 93\n\n\n\n\n               3.11.3 Prior Public Use (Pre-AIA)\n\n       Rhodium contends that claims 1 and 5 of the \u2018457 patent are invalid because the\ninvention defined in that claim was publicly used by others in the United States before March 12,\n2012 was publicly used in the United States before March 14, 2012.\n\n        The patent claim is invalid if the invention defined in that claim was publicly used by\nothers in the United States before it was invented by Midas.\n\n       The invention defined by claims 1 and 5 of the \u2018457 patent were invented on March 14,\n2012. Midas filed his patent application on December 14, 2021.\n\n        That invention was publicly used in the United States if an embodiment of the claimed\ninvention was both: (1) accessible to the public or commercially exploited in the United States,\nand (2) ready for patenting.\n\n       An invention is publicly used if it is used by the inventor or by a person who is not under\nany limitation, restriction, or obligation of secrecy to the inventor. Factors relevant to\ndetermining whether a claimed invention was in public use include: the nature of the activity that\noccurred in public; public access to the use; confidentiality obligations imposed upon observers;\ncommercial exploitation; and the circumstances surrounding any testing and experimentation.\n\n        The absence of affirmative steps to conceal the use of the invention is evidence of a\npublic use. However, secret use by a third party is not public, unless members of the public or\nemployees of the third party have access to the invention.\n\n        To be a public use, the invention also must have been ready for patenting at the time of\nthe alleged public use. The invention is ready for patenting when there is reason to believe it\nwould work for its intended purpose. An invention is ready for patenting either when it is\nreduced to practice or when the inventor has prepared drawings or other descriptions of the\ninvention sufficient to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the invention. An\ninvention is reduced to practice when it has been (1) constructed or performed within the scope\nof the patent claims, and (2) determined that it works for its intended purpose.\n\n\n\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 102(a), (b) (pre-AIA); Clock Spring, L.P. v. Wrapmaster, Inc., 560 F.3d 1317, 1325-\n27 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Am. Seating Co. v. USSC Grp., Inc., 514 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2008);\nInvitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 424 F.3d 1374, 1379-82 (Fed. Cir. 2005); SmithKline\nBeecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 365 F.3d 1306, 1316-20 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Netscape Commc\u2019ns\nCorp. v. Konrad, 295 F.3d 1315, 1320-23 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Abbott Labs. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc.,\n182 F.3d 1315, 1319, (Fed. Cir. 1999); Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342 1347 (Fed.\nCir. 1999); Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (as to reduction to\npractice); Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 906 (Fed. Cir. 1988);\nMoleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1265-67 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Kinzenbaw v.\nDeere & Co., 741 F.2d 383, 390-91 (Fed. Cir. 1984); TP Lab., Inc. v. Prof\u2019l Positioners, Inc.,\n724 F.2d 965, 970-72 (Fed. Cir. 1984); WL Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,\n1549-50 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Smith, 714 F.2d 1127, 1134-37 (Fed. Cir. 1983).\n\n\n                                                     58\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24     Page 61 of 93\n\n\n\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n        {Rhodium contends that this instruction is unnecessary in light of the prior art\ninstructions to be given above. Rhodium further reiterates its objection to Midas\u2019s March 14,\n2012 proposed effective filing date and its use of exclusively pre-AIA}\n\n\n\n\n                                                   59\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 62 of 93\n\n\n\n\n               3.11.4 Prior Patent (Pre-AIA)\n\n       Rhodium contends that claims 1 and 5 of the \u2018457 patent is invalid because the invention\ndefined in that claim was patented by Best \u2018463 Patent before March 14, 2012\n\n       That patent claim is invalid if the invention defined in that claim was patented in the\nUnited States or a foreign country by Best \u2018463 before March 14, 2012.\n\n       The invention defined by claim 1 of the \u2018457 patent was invented on March 14, 2012.\n\n\n\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 102(a), (b) (both pre-AIA); Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d\n1272, 1287-83 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Carlson, 983 F.2d 1032, 1035-36 (Fed. Cir. 1992).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n        {Rhodium contends that this instruction is unnecessary in light of the prior art\ninstructions to be given above. Rhodium further reiterates its objection to Midas\u2019s March 14,\n2012 proposed effective filing date and its use of exclusively pre-AIA}\n\n\n\n\n                                                    60\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 63 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.12    Damages Generally\n\n        If you find that the accused device infringes any of the claims of the \u2018457 patent, and that\nthose claims are not invalid, you must determine the amount of damages to be awarded Midas\nfor the infringement. On the other hand, if you find that each of the asserted patent claims is\neither invalid or is not infringed, then you should not consider damages in your deliberations.\n\n        Midas must prove each element of its damages\u2014including the amount of the damages\u2014\nby a preponderance of the evidence, which means more likely than not.\n\n        If proven by Midas, damages must be in an amount adequate to compensate Midas for the\ninfringement. The purpose of a damage award is to put Midas in about the same financial\nposition it would have been in if the infringement had not happened. But the damage award\ncannot be less than a reasonable royalty. You may not add anything to the amount of damages to\npunish an accused infringer or to set an example. You also may not add anything to the amount\nof damages for interest.\n\n       The fact that I am instructing you on damages does not mean that the Court believes that\none party or the other should win in this case. My Instructions about damages are for your\nguidance only in the event you find in favor of Midas. You will need to address damages only if\nyou find that one or more of the asserted claims are both not invalid and infringed. the patent\nclaim. Even if you conclude that some of the above factors have been established, those factors\nshould be considered along with all the other evidence in the case in determining whether\nRhodium has proven that the claimed invention would have been obvious.\n\n\n\nGraham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966); United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 52\n(1966); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 839 F.3d 1034, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2016); WBIP,\nLLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision\nCorp., 732 F.2d 888, 894-95 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d\n693, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1983); WL Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1555-56\n(Fed. Cir. 1983); Stratoflex, Inc., v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983).\nPowell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2011); ResQNet.com, Inc. v.\nLansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d\n1301, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 284 (2004); Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top\nReplacement Co., 377 U.S. 476, 507 (1964); Dow Chem. Co. v. Mee Indus., Inc., 341 F.3d 1370,\n1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vulcan Eng\u2019g Co. v. FATA Aluminum, Inc., 278 F.3d 1366, 1376 (Fed.\nCir. 2002); Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prods. Co., 185 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir.\n1999); Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc., 86 F.3d 1098, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Hebert v. Lisle Corp.,\n99 F.3d 1109, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1544-45 (Fed.\nCir. 1995); Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 870 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Fromson v. W.\nLitho Plate & Supply Co., 853 F.2d 1568, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1988), overruled on other grounds by\nKnorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge v. Dana Corp., 383 F.3d 1337, 1342 (Fed. Cir 2004);\nDel Mar Avionics, Inc. v. Quinton Instrument Co., 836 F.2d 1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1987).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n                                                    61\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 64 of 93\n\n\n\n\n        {Rhodium agrees that an instruction on this topic is appropriate, but contends that its\nsingle instruction more completely instructs the jury on the applicable law.}\n\n        If you find that Rhodium infringed any valid claim of the \u2019457 Patent, you must then\nconsider what amount of damages to award to Midas Green. I will now instruct you about the\nmeasure of damages. By instructing you on damages, I am not suggesting which party should\nwin this case, on any issue. If you find that Rhodium has not infringed any valid claim of the\npatent, then Midas Green is not entitled to any damages.\n\n       The damages you award must be adequate to compensate Midas Green for the infringe-\nment. They are not meant to punish an infringer. Your damages award, if you reach this issue,\nshould put Midas Green in approximately the same financial position that it would have been in\nhad the infringement not occurred.\n\n        Midas Green has the burden to establish the amount of its damages by a preponderance of\nthe evidence. In other words, you should award only those damages that Midas Green estab-\nlishes that it more likely than not has suffered. While Midas Green is not required to prove the\namount of its damages with mathematical precision, it must prove them with reasonable\ncertainty. You may not award damages that are speculative, damages that are only possible, or\ndamages that are based on guesswork.\n\n       There are different types of damages that Midas Green may be entitled to recover. In this\ncase, Midas Green seeks lost profits or, alternatively, a reasonable royalty.\n\n         Lost profits refers to the additional profits that the patentee would have made if the de-\nfendant had not infringed. You may hear this referred to as the \u201cbut for\u201d test\u2014which means,\n\u201cwhat profits would the patent owner have made \u2018but for\u2019 the alleged infringement?\u201d Lost prof-\nits can include not only the profits the patentee would have made on sales lost due to the in-\nfringement, but also, under certain circumstances, profits that the patentee lost from being unable\nto sell related products with those lost sales or from being forced to reduce its price for its prod-\nuct or other related products to compete.\n\n        A reasonable royalty is defined as the money amount Midas Green and Rhodium would\nhave agreed upon as a fee for use of the invention at the time just prior to when infringement be-\ngan. But, regardless of the type of damages you may choose to award, you must be careful to\nensure that award is no more and no less than the value of the patented invention.\n\n       I will give more detailed instructions regarding damages shortly. Note, however, that if\nyou conclude that it is entitled to damages, Midas Green is entitled to recover no less than a\nreasonable royalty for each infringing sale.\n\n\n\nSource:        AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions, 2018; 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 284 (2004);\nWesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 138 S. Ct. 2129, 2137 (2018); Lucent Techs., Inc.\nv. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, 488 F.3d\n\n\n                                                     62\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 182-8       Filed 04/03/24    Page 65 of 93\n\n\n\n\n973, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Bigelow v. R.K.O. Pictures, Inc., 327 U.S. 251, 264 (1946);\nResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 868\u201369 (Fed. Cir. 2010); DSU Med. Corp. v.\nJMS Co., Ltd., 471 F.3d 1293, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top\nReplacement Co., 377 U.S. 476, 507 (1964); Dow Chem. Co. v. Mee Indus., Inc., 341 F.3d 1370,\n1381\u201382 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prods. Co., 185 F.3d 1341,\n1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1544\u201345 (Fed. Cir. 1995);\nWang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 870 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Lam, Inc. v. Johns-\nManville Corp., 718 F.2d 1056, 1065 (Fed. Cir. 1983).\n\n\n\n\n                                                 63\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24     Page 66 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.13    Damages Start Date\n\n        The date that Midas first notified Rhodium of its claim for patent infringement is the date\nfor the start of damages. The parties do not agree on that date, and it is up to you to determine\nwhat that date is. Midas must prove that it is more likely than not that the Rhodium was put on\nnotice of the claim for patent infringement as of the date alleged by Midas.\n\n        Midas can give notice in either of two ways. The first way is to give notice to the public\nin general. Midas can do this by marking substantially all products it sold which included the\npatented invention, or by including on the labeling of substantially all products the word \u201cpatent\u201d\nor the abbreviation \u201cPAT\u201d with the number of the patent. Midas also may give notice by marking\nsubstantially all products with \u201cPatent\u201d or \u201cPat\u201d and a free internet address where there is a\nposting that connects the product with the patent number. This type of notice to the public in\ngeneral starts from the date Midas began to mark substantially all of its products that use the\ninvention with the patent number. If Midas did not mark substantially all of those products with\nthe patent number, then Midas did not provide notice in this way.\n\n         A second way Midas can give notice of its patents is to directly notify Rhodium with a\nspecific claim that the allegedly infringing product infringed the \u2018457 patent. This type of notice\nstarts from the date Rhodium received the notice.\n\n        If you find that Midas, before filing this lawsuit, did not provide an effective public\nnotice by properly marking its products to, and did not properly provide direct notice to Rhodium\nwith a specific charge that the allegedly infringing product infringed, then Midas can only\nrecover damages for infringement that occurred after it sued Rhodium on January 1, 2022.\n\n\n\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 287(a); Funai Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp., 616 F.3d 1357, 1373-74 (Fed.\nCir. 2010); Gart v. Logitech, Inc., 254 F.3d 1334, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Lans v. Digital Equip.\nCorp., 252 F.3d 1320, 1327-28 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech\nMicroelecs. Int\u2019l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Amsted Indus., Inc. v. Buckeye Steel\nCastings Co., 24 F.3d 178, 184-87 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Devices for Med., Inc. v. Boehl, 822 F.2d\n1062, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 1987).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n\n                                                    64\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 67 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.14    Kinds of Damages That Can Be Recovered\n\n       There are several kinds of damages that are available for patent infringement.\n\n        One kind of damages is lost profits, that is, the additional profits that the patentee would\nhave made if the defendant had not infringed. You may hear this referred to as the \u201cbut for\u201d\ntest\u2014which means, \u201cwhat profits would the patent owner have made \u2018but for\u2019 the alleged\ninfringement?\u201d Lost profits can include not only the profits the patentee would have made on\nsales lost due to the infringement, but also, under certain circumstances, profits that the patentee\nlost from being unable to sell related products with those lost sales or from being forced to\nreduce its price for its product or other related products to compete.\n\n        Another kind of patent damages is an established royalty, namely an amount that the\npatentee has agreed to accept for licensing the patented invention to either the accused infringer\nor to other parties through a consistent licensing practice outside of litigation.\n\n        Another kind of patent damages is a reasonable royalty. A reasonable royalty is the\namount that someone wanting to use the patented invention would have agreed to pay to the\npatent owner and the patent owner would have accepted. A reasonable royalty is the minimum\namount of damages that a patent owner can receive for an infringement.\n\n\n\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 284; Rude v. Westcott, 130 U.S. 152, 165 (1889); Seymour v. McCormick, 57\nU.S.480, 490-91 (1854); Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1333 (Fed. Cir.\n2009); Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, 488 F.3d 973, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley\nCo., 56 F.3d 1538, 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n        {Rhodium contends that this separate instruction is unnecessary because the information\ncovered herein is included in Rhodium\u2019s proposed instruction 3.12. Rhodium suggests that its\nmore succinct summary will conserve jury time. Further, to the extent the Court includes this\ninstruction, it should not include the paragraph on established royalty; Midas does not contend\nthat there is an established royalty for its technology.}\n\n\n\n\n                                                     65\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24     Page 68 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.15    Lost Profits - Generally\n\n       {Rhodium agrees that an instruction on these topics are appropriate if Midas Green\u2019s\nexpert will be permitted to opine on lost profits notwithstanding Rhodium\u2019s pending Daubert\nmotion, Dkt. 154. However, Rhodium contends that its single instruction is more straightforward,\nand will more ably assist the jury in determining the issues.}\n\n               3.15.1 Midas Green Proposal\n\n                      (a)     Lost Profits \u2013 The \u201cBut For\u201d Test\n\n         Midas is seeking lost profits damages in this case. To prove lost profits, Midas must show\nthat, but for Rhodium\u2019s infringement, Midas would have made additional profits through the sale\nof all or a portion of the sales of the allegedly infringing products made by Rhodium. Plaintiff\nmust prove this by a preponderance of the evidence, more likely than not. Part of your job is to\ndetermine what the parties who practiced the allegedly infringing product from Rhodium would\nhave done if the alleged infringement had not occurred. It is important to remember that the\nprofits I have been referring to are the profits allegedly lost by Midas, not the profits, if any,\nmade by Rhodium.\n\n\n\nSiemens Med. Solutions USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc., 637 F.3d 1269,\n1289 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Am. Seating Co. v. USSC Grp., Inc., 514 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Aro\nMfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 U.S. 476, 507 (1964); Micro Chem. v.\nLextron, Inc., 318 F.3d 1119, 1122-25 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Ferguson Beauregard/Logic Controls v.\nMega Sys., L.L.C., 350 F.3d 1327, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Ericsson, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 352\nF.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Maxcess Techs., Inc., 222 F.3d 958,\n971 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prods. Co., 185 F.3d 1341, 1349\n(Fed. Cir. 1999); King Instruments Corp. v. Perego, 65 F.3d 941, 952 (Fed. Cir. 1995); State\nIndus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc., 883 F.2d 1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag- Bag\nCorp., 857 F.2d 1418, 1428 (Fed. Cir. 1988); King Instrument Corp. v. Otari Corp., 767 F.2d\n853, 863-64 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Paper Converting Mach. Co. v. Magna-Graphics Corp., 745 F.2d\n11, 21 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Am. Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., 725 F.2d 1350, 1365\n(Fed. Cir. 1984); Central Soya Co. v. Geo. A. Hormel & Co., 723 F.2d 1573, 1578-79 (Fed. Cir.\n1983).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n                      (b)     Lost Profits \u2013 Panduit Factors\n\n        Midas has proven its lost profits if you find that Midas has proven each of the following\nfactors by the more likely than not standard:\n\n       1.      the demand for the patented product;\n\n       2.      absence of acceptable non-infringing substitutes;\n\n\n\n                                                    66\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 69 of 93\n\n\n\n\n        3.      that Midas had the manufacturing and marketing ability to make all or a part of\nthe infringing sales actually made by Rhodium; and\n\n        4.    the amount of profit that Midas would have made if it were not for Rhodium\u2019s\ninfringement.\n\n       I will now explain each of these factors.\n\nMentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Siemens Med.\nSolutions USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc., 637 F.3d 1269, 1287 (Fed. Cir.\n2011); DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1329 (Fed. Cir.\n2009); Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Maxcess Techs., Inc., 222 F.3d 958, 971 (Fed. Cir. 2000);\nGargoyles, Inc. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1572, 1577-79 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Stryker Corp. v.\nIntermedics Orthopedics, Inc., 96 F.3d 1409, 1417-18 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley\nCo., 56 F.3d 1538, 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1995); State Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc., 883 F.2d\n1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Yarway Corp. v. Eur-Control USA, Inc., 775 F.2d 268, 275\n(Fed.Cir. 1985); Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir.\n1978).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n               3.15.2 Rhodium Proposal\n\n         To recover lost profits (as opposed to reasonable royalties), Midas must show a causal\nrelationship between the infringement and its loss of profit. In other words, Midas must show\nthat, but for the infringement, there is a reasonable probability that it would have earned higher\nprofits. To show this, Midas must prove that, if there had been no infringement, it would have\nsold its products to Rhodium. Midas is entitled to lost profits if it establishes each of the\nfollowing:\n\n       (1) That there was demand for the patented product.\n\n        (2) That there were no available, acceptable, noninfringing substitute products, or, if there\nwere, that Rhodium would have bought Midas\u2019s product, despite the availability of other\nacceptable noninfringing substitutes.\n\n       (3) That Midas had the manufacturing and marketing capacity to make the sales to\nRhodium for which Midas seeks an award of lost profits\u2014in other words, that Midas was\ncapable of satisfying the demand.\n\n       (4) The amount of profit that Midas would have made if Rhodium had not infringed.\n\n\n\nSource: Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions \u00a7 B.5, 5.2 (May 2020);\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 284; Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Co., 377 U.S. 476, 502-07 (1964); Ericsson,\nInc. v. Harris Corp., 352 F.3d 1369, 1377-79 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Micro Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, Inc.,\n318 F.3d 1119, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Gargoyles, Inc. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1572, 1577-78\n\n\n                                                     67\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 70 of 93\n\n\n\n\n(Fed. Cir. 1997); Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc);\nBIC Leisure Prods., Inc. v. Windsurfing Int\u2019l, Inc., 1 F.3d 1214, 1218-19 (Fed. Cir. 1993);\nCarella v. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135, 141 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Gyromat Corp. v. Champion\nSpark Plug Co., 735 F.2d 549, 552 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works,\nInc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978). The four-factor \u201cbut for\u201d test was first articulated in\nPanduit, 575 F.2d at 1156, and has since been adopted by the Federal Circuit. See, e.g., Rite-\nHite, 56 F.3d at 1545. It is not, however, the only available method for proving lost profits. Id.;\nsee also BIC, 1 F.3d at 1218-19. Once a patent holder has shown the four elements of the\nPanduit test, the burden then shifts to alleged infringer to show that patent holder\u2019s \u201cbut for\u201d\ncausation analysis is unreasonable under the specific circumstances. Rite-Hite, 56 F.3d at 1545.\n\n\n\n\n                                                    68\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 71 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.16    Lost Profits \u2013 Panduit Factors \u2013 Demand\n\n       The first factor asks whether there was demand for the patented product in the relevant\nmarket. Midas can prove demand for the patented product by showing significant sales of\nMidas\u2019s own patented product. Midas also can prove demand for the patented product by\nshowing Rhodium\u2019s demand for the Midas\u2019 product by proving Rhodium made and used Midas\u2019\nproduct.\n\n\n\nDePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2009);Rite-\nHite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1548-49 (Fed. Cir. 1995); BIC Leisure Prods., Inc. v.\nWindsurfing Int\u2019l, Inc., 1 F.3d 1214, 1218-19 (Fed. Cir. 1993); SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v.\nHelena Labs. Corp., 926 F.2d 1161, 1165 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Gyromat Corp. v. Champion\nSpark Plug Co., 735 F.2d 549, 552 (Fed. Cir. 1984).\n\n\n\n        {Rhodium objects that this instruction is circular \u2013 Midas would have the Court instruct\nthe jury that the existence of infringement proves demand for Midas\u2019s product. Midas\u2019s\nconstruction therefore reads the \u201cdemand for the patented product\u201d out of the test. It is also\ninaccurate on its own terms \u2013 Rhodium constructed its own products. The Court should adopt\nRhodium\u2019s proposed construction.}\n\n       Demand for the patented product can be proven by significant sales of a patent holder\u2019s\npatented product or significant sales of an infringing product containing the patented features.\n\n        To show that it has sold the patented product, Midas must show it is more likely than not\nthat the products it sold contain each and every limitation of the patented invention.\n\n\n\nSource: Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions \u00a7 B.5, 5.2 (May 2020);\nDePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2009);\nHebert v. Lisle Corp., 99 F.3d 1109, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 1990).\n\n\n\n\n                                                   69\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 72 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.17    Lost Profits \u2013 Panduit Factors \u2013 Acceptable Non-Infringing Substitutes\n\n         The second factor asks whether there were non-infringing, acceptable substitutes for\nMidas\u2019s product that competed with Rhodium\u2019s infringing product in the marketplace and the\nimpact of such substitutes on the marketplace absent the sale of Rhodium\u2019s product. If the\nrealities of the marketplace are that competitors other than Midas would likely have captured\nsome or all of the products made by Rhodium, even despite a difference in the products, then\nMidas is not entitled to lost profits on those sales.\n\n         To be an acceptable substitute, the product must have had one or more of the advantages\nof the patented invention that were important to the actual buyers of the infringing products, not\nthe public in general. The acceptable substitutes also must not infringe the patent because they\nwere licensed under the patent or they did not include all the features required by the patent. A\nnon-infringing substitute may be one that involved the modification of the infringing product to\navoid infringement or the removal of at least one feature of the invention from the product. The\nacceptable substitutes, in addition to being either licensed or non-infringing, must have been\navailable during the damages period. The acceptable substitute need not have actually been sold\nat that time. But, if the acceptable substitute was not sold during the damages period, then\nRhodium must show by a preponderance of the evidence that, during the damages period, a\ncompetitor or Rhodium had all the necessary equipment, materials, know-how, and experience to\ndesign and manufacture the acceptable substitute.\n\n        Even if you find that Midas\u2019s and Rhodium\u2019s products were the only ones with the\nadvantages of the patented invention, Midas is nonetheless required to prove to you that it, in\nfact, would have made Rhodium\u2019s infringing sales.\n\nSynQor, Inc. v. Aresyn Techs., Inc., 709 F.3d 1365, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2013); DePuy Spine, Inc. v.\nMedtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1331-32 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Am. Seating Co. v.\nUSSC Grp., Inc., 514 F.3d 1262, (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc., 527 F.3d\n1359, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prods. Co., 185 F.3d\n1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Gargoyles, Inc. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1572, 1577-78 (Fed.\nCir.1997); Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 939 F.2d 1540, 1545-46 (Fed. Cir. 1991);\nStandard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., 953 F.2d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Kaufman\nCo. v. Lantech, Inc., 926 F.2d 1136, 1142-43, 1143 n.17 (Fed. Cir. 1991); SmithKline\nDiagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Lab. Corp., 926 F.2d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 1991); TWM Mfg. Co. v.\nDura Corp., 789 F.2d 895, 901-02 (Fed. Cir. 1986).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n\n                                                    70\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24     Page 73 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.18    Lost Profits \u2013 Panduit Factors - Ability to Meet Demand\n\n        The third factor asks whether Midas had the manufacturing and marketing ability to\nactually make the sales it allegedly lost due to Rhodium\u2019s infringement. Midas must prove that it\ncould have supplied the additional products needed to make the sales Midas said it lost, or that\nsomeone working with Midas could have supplied the additional products. Midas also must\nprove that it more likely than not had the ability to market and sell these additional products.\n\n\n\nWechsler v. Macke Int\u2019l Trade, Inc., 486 F.3d 1286, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Gargoyles, Inc. v.\nUnited States, 113 F.3d 1572, 1577-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Fonar Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 107 F.3d\n1543, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Kearns v. Chrysler Corp., 32 F.3d 1541, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1994);\nDatascope Corp. v. SMEC, Inc., 879 F.2d 820, 825 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Gyromat Corp. v. Champion\nSpark Plug Co., 735 F.2d 549, 554 (Fed. Cir. 1984).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n        A patent holder is only entitled to lost profits for sales it could have actually made. In\nother words, Midas must show that it had the manufacturing and marketing capability to make\nthe sales it said it lost. This means Midas must prove it is more probable than not that it could\nhave made and sold, or could have had someone else make or sell for it, the additional products it\nsays it could have sold but for the infringement.\n\n\n\nSource: Fonar Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 107 F.3d 1543, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (finding that the\npatent holder, a young company, would have expanded to meet the increased demand created by\nthe success of the patented product); Gyromat Corp. v. Champion Spark Plug Co., 735 F.2d 549,\n554 (Fed. Cir. 1984).\n\n\n\n\n                                                   71\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24     Page 74 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.19    Lost Profits \u2013 Amount of Profit \u2013 Incremental Income Approach\n\n        Midas may calculate the amount of its lost profits by calculating its lost sales and\nsubtracting from that amount any additional costs or expenses that Midas would have had to pay\nto make the lost sales. This might include additional costs for making the products, additional\nsales costs, additional packaging costs, additional shipping costs, etc. Any costs that do not\nchange when more products are made, such as taxes, insurance, rent, and administrative\noverhead, should not be subtracted from the lost sales amount. The amount of lost profits cannot\nbe speculative, but it need not be proven with unerring certainty.\n\n\n\nSensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Oiness v. Walgreen Co.,\n88 F.3d 1025, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Beatrice Foods Co. v. New England Printing &\nLithographing Co., 923 F.2d 1576, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Kalman v. Berlyn Corp., 914\nF.2d1473, 1482-83 (Fed. Cir. 1990); State Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc., 883 F.2d 1573,\n1579-80 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 1428 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Del\nMar Avionics, Inc. v. Quinton Instrument Co., 836 F.2d 1320, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1987); King\nInstrument Corp. v. Otari, 767 F.2d 853, 863-64 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Gyromat Corp. v. Champion\nSpark Plug Co., 735 F.2d 549, 554-55 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Paper Converting Mach. Co. v. Magna-\nGraphics Corp., 745 F.2d 11, 22 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. Nicolet Inst. Corp., 739\nF.2d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Lam, Inc. v. Johns-Manville Corp., 718 F.2d 1056, 1065 (Fed. Cir.\n1983).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n\n                                                   72\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 75 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.20    Lost Profits \u2013 Convoyed Sales\n\n       In this case, Midas contends that its product is ordinarily sold along with other products,\nnamely collateral products. These other products are called \u201ccollateral products.\u201d It is part of\nyour job to determine whether Midas has proven that it is entitled to damages for the lost sales of\nany collateral products.\n\n        To recover lost profits for lost sales of any collateral products, Midas must prove two\nthings. First, Midas must prove that it is more likely than not that it would have sold the\ncollateral products but for the infringement. Second, the collateral products and the product must\nbe so closely related that they effectively act or are used together for a common purpose.\nDamages for lost collateral sales, if any, are calculated in the same way as for calculating lost\nprofits on the product.\n\n\n\nAro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 U.S. 476, 507 (1964); DePuy Spine, Inc.\nv. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Rite-Hite Corp. v.\nKelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1549-51 (Fed. Cir. 1995); State Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc.,\n883 F.2d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Kori Corp. v. Wilco Marsh Buggies & Draglines, Inc., 761\nF.2d 649, 656 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Paper Converting Mach. Co. v. Magna-Graphics Corp., 745 F.2d\n11, 22-23 (Fed. Cir. 1984).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n        {Rhodium objects to Midas\u2019s instruction, which misstates the law (as it does not apply\nWarsaw Orthopedic\u2019s functional relationship test). The Court should not instruct the jury on a\nstandard that is contrary to law. Rhodium addresses this issue at length in its motion to exclude\nthe testimony of J. Duross O\u2019Bryan, Dkt. 154.}\n\n        In this case, in addition to lost profits for the sales of products that infringe its patent,\nMidas is seeking lost profits from sales of unpatented parts of the immersion cooling systems it\nsells (such as piping and fans), which Midas contends it would have sold to Rhodium along with\nthe product it sells that competes with Rhodium\u2019s infringing products. These products sold along\nwith the competitive product are called collateral products. To recover lost profits on sales of\nsuch collateral products, Midas must establish two things. First, Midas must establish it is more\nlikely than not that it would have sold the collateral products but for the infringement. Second, a\ncollateral product and the patented product together must be analogous to components of a single\nassembly or parts of a complete machine, or, in other words, they must constitute a single\nfunctional unit. Recovery for lost profits on sales of collateral products must not include items\nthat can be used independent of the patented device and were sold with the competitive product\nonly as a matter of convenience or business advantage. Midas cannot recover lost profits for the\ncollateral products if the collateral products work as well with a non-infringing system.\n\n\n\n\n                                                     73\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 76 of 93\n\n\n\n\nSource: Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) (denying\nrecovery for lost profits on collateral sales where nonpatented product lacked a functional\nrelationship to the patented product); Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., 778 F.3d 1365,\n1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2015), vacated on other grounds, 136 S. Ct. 893 (2016), reinstated in relevant\npart, 824 F.3d 1344, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (components sold in a single kit with patented\nproduct for use with patented product lacked a functional relationship where those components\nwould work as well with technologies not covered by the patent); see also State Indus., Inc. v.\nMar-Flo Indus., Inc., 883 F.2d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre\nWorks, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1157-58 (6th Cir. 1978).\n\n       3.21    Reasonable Royalty \u2013 Generally\n\n       If you find that Midas has not proven its claim for lost profits, or if you find that Midas\nhas proven its claim for lost profits for only a portion of the infringing sales, then you must\nconsider the issue of a reasonable royalty.\n\n       The amount of damages that Rhodium pays Midas for infringing Midas\u2019s patent must be\nenough to compensate for the infringement, but may not be less than a reasonable royalty for the\nuse of Midas\u2019s invention.\n\n       You must award Midas a reasonable royalty in the amount that Midas has proven it could\nhave earned on any infringing sales for which you have not already awarded lost profit damages.\nA royalty is a payment made to a patent owner by someone else in exchange for the rights to\nmake, use, or sell a patented product.\n\n        The reasonable royalty award must be based on the incremental value that the patented\ninvention adds to the end product. When the infringing products have both patented and\nunpatented features, measuring this value requires a determination of the value added by the\npatented features. The ultimate combination of royalty base and royalty rate must reflect the\nvalue attributable to the infringing features of the product, and no more.\n\n\n\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 284; Exmark Mfg. Co., v. Briggs & Stratton Power Group,         F.3d (Fed. Cir. 2018);\nEricsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2014); VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco\nSys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Apple Inc. v. Motorola Inc., 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed.\nCir. 2014); Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Lucent\nTechs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Fromson v. W. Litho Plate\n& Supply Co., 853 F.2d 1568, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1998) overruled on other grounds; Knorr-Bremse\nSysteme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge v. Dana Corp., 383 F.3d 1337, 1342 (Fed. Cir 2004); Minco, Inc. v.\nCombustion Eng\u2019g, Inc., 95 F.3d 1109, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79\nF.3d 1572, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1554 (Fed. Cir.\n1995) (en banc).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n\n                                                     74\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24       Page 77 of 93\n\n\n\n\n        {Rhodium agrees that an instruction on these topics are appropriate if Midas Green\u2019s\nexpert will be permitted to opine on a reasonably royalty notwithstanding Rhodium\u2019s pending\nDaubert motion, Dkt. 154. Rhodium proposes its own instruction below, but given the overlap in\nthe parties\u2019 proposals, Rhodium anticipates that an agreement can be reached.\n\n       Rhodium notes that, to avoid confusion and counter the implication implicit in Midas\u2019s\nproposal that a prevailing defendant is entitled to a royalty, any final version of this instruction\nshould include the following two sentences:\n\n       \u201cHowever, there is no minimum amount you must award as a reasonable royalty. Midas\n       must prove the amount of the royalty it is entitled to and you must award the royalty that\n       the evidence supports, no more, no less.\u201d\n\n       }\n\n        If you find that a patent claim is infringed and not invalid, Midas is entitled to at least a\nreasonable royalty to compensate it for that infringement. If you find that Midas has not proved\nits claim for lost profits, then you must award it a reasonable royalty for all infringing sales for\nwhich it has not been awarded lost profits damages. However, there is no minimum amount you\nmust award as a reasonable royalty. Midas must prove the amount of the royalty it is entitled to\nand you must award the royalty that the evidence supports, no more, no less.\n\n\n\nSource: Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions (May 2020) \u00a7 B.5, 5.5;\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 284; Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2009)\n(vacating and remanding jury award as excessive); Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. Tritech\nMicroelectronics Int\u2019l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Fromson v. W. Litho Plate & Supply\nCo., 853 F.2d 1568, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Minco, Inc. v. Combustion Eng\u2019g, Inc., 95 F.3d 1109,\n1119-20 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1996);\nRiteHite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc); Lindemann\nMaschinenfabrik Gmbh v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 895 F.2d 1403, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (no\nminimum reasonable royalty); EVS Codec Techs., LLC v. ZTE Corp., Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-\n00385-M, 2020 WL 10847326 at *7-*8 (N.D. Tex. July 21, 2020) (same).\n\n\n\n\n                                                      75\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24     Page 78 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.22    Reasonable Royalty \u2013 Hypothetical Negotiation Method\n\n         A reasonable royalty is the royalty that would have resulted from a hypothetical license\nnegotiation between Midas and Rhodium. Of course, we know that they did not agree to a license\nand royalty payment. But, in order to decide on the amount of reasonable royalty damages, you\nshould assume that the parties did negotiate a license just before the infringement began. This is\nwhy it is called a \u201chypothetical\u201d license negotiation. You should assume that both parties to the\nhypothetical negotiation [understood][believed] that the patent was valid and infringed and both\nwere willing to enter into a license just before the infringement began. You should also presume\nthat the parties had full knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the infringement\nat the time of the hypothetical negotiation.\n\n\n\nApple Inc. v. Motorola Inc., 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014); LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta\nComputer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 75 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d\n1292, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Fujifilm Corp. v. Benun, 605 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010);\nLucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Mahurkar v. C.R.\nBard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc., 86 F.3d 1098, 1109-10\n(Fed. Cir. 1996); Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc);\nWang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 870 (Fed. Cir. 1993).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\nSource: 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 284; Rude v. Westcott, 130 U.S. 152, 165 (1889); Seymour v. McCormick, 57\nU.S. 480, 490\u201391 (1854); Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1333 (Fed. Cir.\n2009); Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, 488 F.3d 973, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley\nCo., 56 F.3d 1538, 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc); 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 284; Power Integrations, Inc. v.\nFairchild Semiconductor Int\u2019l, Inc., 904 F.3d 965, 977\u201379 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Exmark Mfg. Co., v.\nBriggs & Stratton Power Group, 879 F.3d 1332, 1347\u201349 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Ericsson, Inc. v. D-\nLink Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2014); VirnetX, Inc. v. Rhodium Sys., Inc., 767\nF.3d 1308, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Apple Inc. v. Motorola Inc., 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014);\nUniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2011).\n\n\n\n\n                                                   76\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 79 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.23    Reasonable Royalty \u2013 Relevant Factors If Using the Hypothetical Negotiation\n               Method\n\n        In determining the reasonable royalty, you should consider all the facts known and availa-\nble to the parties at the time the infringement began. Some of the kinds of factors that you may\nconsider in making your determination are:\n\n       (1)     The value that the claimed invention contributes to the accused product.\n\n       (2)     The value that factors other than the claimed invention contribute to the accused\nproduct.\n\n        (3)     Comparable license agreements or other transactions, such as those covering the\nuse of the claimed invention or similar technology.\n\n       No one factor is dispositive and you can and should consider the evidence that has been\npresented to you in this case on each of these factors. You may also consider any other factors\nwhich in your mind would have increased or decreased the royalty the alleged infringer would\nhave been willing to pay and the patent holder would have been willing to accept, acting as\nnormally prudent business people.\n\n        In determining the amount of a reasonable royalty, you may consider evidence on any of\nthe following factors, in addition to any other evidence presented by the parties on the economic\nvalue of the patent:\n\n     [LIST ONLY THOSE FACTORS RELEVANT IN THE CASE AND PROPERLY\nSUPPORTED BY ADMITTED EVIDENCE.]\n\n       1.      Any royalties received by the licensor for the licensing of the patent-in-suit,\nproving or tending to prove an established royalty.\n\n       2.      The rates paid by Rhodium to license other patents comparable to the \u2018457 patent.\n\n        3.      The nature and scope of the license, as exclusive or non-exclusive, or as restricted\nor non-restricted in terms of its territory or with respect to whom the manufactured product may\nbe sold.\n\n       4.      The licensor\u2019s established policy and marketing program to maintain its right to\nexclude others from using the patented invention by not licensing others to use the invention, or\nby granting licenses under special conditions designed to preserve that exclusivity.\n\n      5.       The commercial relationship between the licensor and the licensee, such as\nwhether or not they are competitors in the same territory in the same line of business.\n\n        6.      The effect of selling the patented product in promoting other sales of the licensee;\nthe existing value of the invention to the licensor as a generator of sales of its non-patented\nitems; and the extent of such collateral sales.\n\n\n\n                                                     77\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24       Page 80 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       7.      The duration of the \u2018457 patent and the term of the license.\n\n     8.      The established profitability of the product made under the \u2018457 patent; its\ncommercial success; and its popularity.\n\n       9.       The utility and advantages of the patented invention over the old modes or\ndevices, if any, that had been used for achieving similar results.\n\n         10.   The nature of the patented invention; the character of the commercial embodiment\nof it as owned and produced by or for the licensor; and the benefits to those who have used the\ninvention.\n\n        11.    The extent to which Rhodium has made use of the invention; and any evidence\nthat shows the value of that use.\n\n        12.     The portion of the profit or of the selling price that may be customary in the\nparticular business or in comparable businesses to allow for the use of the invention or analogous\ninventions.\n\n        13.      The portion of the profit that arises from the patented invention itself as opposed\nto profit arising from unpatented features, such as the manufacturing process, business risks, or\nsignificant features or improvements added by the accused infringer.\n\n       14.     The opinion testimony of qualified experts.\n\n        15.     The amount that a licensor and a licensee (such as Rhodium) would have agreed\nupon (at the time the infringement began) if both sides had been reasonably and voluntarily\ntrying to reach an agreement; that is, the amount which a prudent licensee\u2014who desired, as a\nbusiness proposition, to obtain a license to manufacture and sell a particular article embodying\nthe patented invention\u2014 would have been willing to pay as a royalty and yet be able to make a\nreasonable profit and which amount would have been acceptable by a patentee who was willing\nto grant a license.\n\n        16.    Any other economic factor that a normally prudent business person would, under\nsimilar circumstances, take into consideration in negotiating the hypothetical license.\n\n\n\nEricsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1230-32 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Apple Inc. v.\nMotorola Inc., 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014); LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,\n694 F.3d 51, 60 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Wordtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc.,\n609F.3d 1308, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010); ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 869-73\n(Fed. Cir. 2010); Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, 488 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Maxwell v. J.\nBaker, Inc., 86 F.3d 1098, 1108-10 (Fed. Cir. 1996); TWM Mfg. Co. v. Dura Corp., 789 F.2d 895,\n898-\n\n900 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116\n(S.D.N.Y. 1970).\n\n\n                                                     78\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 81 of 93\n\n\n\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n        {The parties are in broad agreement on this instruction. Rhodium believes that the\nintroductory list of factors will assist in situating the jury and indicating that the Georgia-Pacific\nfactors are non-exclusive and not exhaustive.}\n\nSource: Apple Inc. v. Motorola Inc., 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014); LaserDynamics, Inc. v.\nQuanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 75 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,\n632 F.3d 1292, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Fujifilm Corp. v. Benun, 605 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir.\n2010); Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1324\u201325 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Maxwell v.\nJ. Baker, Inc., 86 F.3d 1098, 1109\u201310 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d\n1538, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc); Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 870\n(Fed. Cir. 1993); LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 60 (Fed. Cir.\n2012); Wordtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Networks Sols., Inc., 609 F.3d 1308, 1319 (Fed. Cir.\n2010); ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 869\u201373 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Monsanto Co. v.\nMcFarling, 488 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc., 86 F.3d 1098, 1108\u201310\n(Fed. Cir. 1996); TWM Mfg. Co. v. Dura Corp., 789 F.2d 895, 898\u2013900 (Fed. Cir. 1986);\nGeorgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).\n\n\n\n\n                                                      79\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 82 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.24    Reasonable Royalty \u2013 Attribution / Apportionment\n\n        The amount you find as damages must be based on the value attributable to the patented\ntechnology, as distinct from other, unpatented features of the accused product, or other factors\nsuch as marketing or advertising, or Rhodium\u2019s size or market position. In determining the\nappropriate royalty base and the appropriate royalty rate, the ultimate combination of both the\nroyalty rate and the royalty base must reflect the value attributable to the patented technology. In\nother words, the royalty base must be closely tied to the invention. It is not sufficient to use a\nroyalty base that is too high and then adjust the damages downward by applying a lower royalty\nrate. Similarly, it is not appropriate to select a royalty base that is too low and then adjust it\nupward by applying a higher royalty rate. Rather, you must determine an appropriate royalty rate\nand an appropriate royalty base that reflect the value attributable to the patented invention alone.\n\n\n\nExmark Mfg. Co., v. Briggs & Stratton Power Group,F.3d (Fed. Cir. 2018): AstraZeneca AB v.\nApotex Corp., 782 F.3d 1324, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., 773 F.3d\n1201, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2014);\nVirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP\nAm., Inc., 717 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2013); LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc. et al,\n694 F.3d 51, 60 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1317 (Fed.\nCir. 2011); ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Lucent Techs.,\nInc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Imonex Svcs. Inc. v. W.H.\nMunzprufer Dietmar Trenner GMBH, 408 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n        The amount you find as damages must be based on the value attributable to the patented\ninvention, as distinct from unpatented features of the accused product or other factors such as\nmarketing or advertising, or Midas\u2019s size or market position. A royalty compensating the patent\nholder for damages must reflect the value attributable to the infringing features of the product,\nand no more. Unless you find that the claimed invention is the sole driving factor for customers\u2019\ndemand for the accused product, Midas may not use the value of the entire product to calculate a\nreasonable royalty. The process of separating the value of the allegedly infringing features from\nthe value of all other features is called apportionment. When the accused infringing products\nhave both patented and unpatented features, your award must be apportioned so that it is based\nonly on the value of the patented features, and not on the value of features that the patent does\nnot cover.\n\n\n\nSource:        Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int\u2019l, Inc., 904 F.3d 965,\n977\u201379 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Exmark Mfg. Co., v. Briggs & Stratton Power Grp., 879 F.3d 1332,\n1347\u201349 (Fed. Cir. 2018); AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex Corp., 782 F.3d 1324, 1339 (Fed. Cir.\n2015); Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., 773 F.3d 1201, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Apple Inc. v.\nMotorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2014); VirnetX, Inc. v. Rhodium Sys., Inc., 767\n\n\n                                                    80\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 83 of 93\n\n\n\n\nF.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 717 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir.\n2013); Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2011); ResQNet.com,\nInc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580\nF.3d 1301, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009).\n\n        {Rhodium\u2019s proposal economizes and is a clearer, better explanation of the governing\nlaw. Midas\u2019s does not discuss the \u201csole driving factor\u201d requirement of the entire market value\nrule, and yet Midas does not propose a separate instruction on the entire market value rule.}\n\n\n\n\n                                                   81\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 84 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.25    Reasonable Royalty \u2013 Timing\n\n        Damages are not based on a hindsight evaluation of what happened, but on what the\nparties to the hypothetical license negotiations would have agreed upon. Nevertheless, evidence\nrelevant to the negotiation is not necessarily limited to facts that occurred on or before the date of\nthe hypothetical negotiation. You may also consider information the parties would have foreseen\nor estimated during the hypothetical negotiation, which may under certain circumstances include\nevidence of usage after infringement started, license agreements entered into by the parties\nshortly after the date of the hypothetical negotiation, profits earned by the infringer, and non-\ninfringing alternatives.\n\n\n\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 284; Sinclair Ref. Co. v. Jenkins Petroleum Process Co., 289 U.S. 689, 698 (1933);\nAqua Shield v. Inter Pool Cover Team, et al., 774 F.3d 766, 770-773 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Lucent\nTechs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1324-25, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Riles v. Shell\nExploration & Prod. Co., 298 F.3d 1302, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Interactive Pictures Corp. v.\nInfinite Pictures Corp., 274 F.3d 1371, 1384-85 (2001); Studiengesellschaft Kohle, mbH v. Dart\nIndus., Inc., 862 F.2d 1564, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Fromson v. Western Litho Plate & Supply\nCo., 853 F.2d 1568, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1988); TWM Mfg. Co. v. Dura Corp., 789 F.2d 895, 898-900\n(Fed. Cir. 1986).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n\n                                                     82\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24     Page 85 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.26    Reasonable Royalty \u2013 Availability of Non-Infringing Substitutes\n\n        In determining a reasonable royalty, you may also consider evidence concerning the\navailability and cost of acceptable non-infringing substitutes to the patented invention. An\nacceptable substitute must be a product that is licensed under the patent or that does not infringe\nthe patent.\n\n\n\nPrism Techs. LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 849 F.3d 1360, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Uniloc\nUSA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Mars, Inc. v. Coin\nAcceptors, Inc., 527 F.3d 1359, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Zygo Corp. v. Wyko Corp., 79 F.3d\n1563, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1996).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n        {Substantively, the parties\u2019 proposed instructions are similar. But on the whole,\nRhodium\u2019s instruction explains the concepts more clearly, including because Midas\u2019s instruction\ndoes not include the separate sentence, at the end of Rhodium\u2019s instructions, regarding the\ndefinition of a non-infringing substitute. }\n\n        In determining a reasonable royalty, you may also consider evidence concerning the\navailability and cost of acceptable non-infringing substitutes to the patented invention. An\nacceptable substitute must be a product/method that is licensed under the patent or that does not\ninfringe the patent. To be an acceptable, non-infringing alternative, a product must have had one\nor more of the advantages of the patented invention that were important to the purchasers of the\ninfring-ing product. A non-infringing substitute may be one that involved the modification of the\nin-fringing product to avoid infringement or the removal of at least one feature of the invention\nfrom the product.\n\n\n\nSource: MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-00308-ADA (W.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2020);\nPersonalized Media Communications, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:19-cv-90-JRG (E.D.Tex. Nov.\n6, 2020); DataTreasury Corp. v. Well Fargo & Co., No. 2:06- cv-72, 2011 WL 8810604, at *13\n(E.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2011); SSL Servs., LLC v. Citrix Sys., Inc., No. 2:08-cv-158-JRG, 2012 WL\n1995514, at *2 (E.D. Tex. June 4, 2012), related appeal, 769 F.3d 1073, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir.\n2014); Smart Skins, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. C15-554-MJP, 2016 WL 4148091, at *2-3\n(W.D. Wash. July 1, 2016); Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc., 527 F.3d 1359, 1373 (Fed. Cir.\n2008), modified on other grounds, 557 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2009); SynQor, Inc. v. Aresyn Techs.,\nInc., 709 F.3d 1365, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2013); DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,\n567 F.3d 1314, 1331-32 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Am. Seating Co. v. USSC Grp., Inc., 514 F.3d 1262,\n(Fed. Cir. 2008); Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prods. Co., 185 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed.\nCir. 1999); Gargoyles, Inc. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1572, 1577-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Uniroyal,\nInc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 939 F.2d 1540, 1545-46 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Standard Havens Prods.,\nInc. v. Gencor Indus., 953 F.2d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Kaufman Co. v. Lantech, Inc., 926\n\n\n                                                    83\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA        Document 182-8       Filed 04/03/24     Page 86 of 93\n\n\n\n\nF.2d 1136, 1142-43, 1143 n.17 (Fed. Cir. 1991); SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Lab.\nCorp., 926 F.2d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 1991); TWM Mfg. Co. v. Dura Corp., 789 F.2d 895, 901-\n02 (Fed. Cir. 1986); AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions, 2018.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 84\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 87 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.27    Reasonable Royalty \u2013 Use of Comparable License Agreements\n\n       When determining a reasonable royalty, you may consider evidence concerning the\namounts that other parties have paid for rights to the patent in question, or for rights to similar\ntechnologies. A license agreement need not be perfectly comparable to a hypothetical license that\nwould be negotiated between Midas and Rhodium in order for you to consider it.\n\n        However, if you choose to rely upon evidence from any other license agreements, you\nmust account for any differences between those licenses and the hypothetically negotiated\nlicense between Midas and Rhodium, in terms of the technologies and economic circumstances\nof the contracting parties, when you make your reasonable royalty determination.\n\n\n\nEricsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1227-28 (Fed. Cir. 2014); VirnetX, Inc. v.\nCisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1330-31 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Apple Inc. v. Motorola Inc., 757 F.3d\n1286, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2014); LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 77-\n81 (Fed. Cir. 2012); ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2010);\nLucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n\n                                                    85\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 88 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.28    Doubts Resolved Against Infringer\n\n       Any doubts that you may have on the issue of damages due to Rhodium\u2019s failure to keep\nproper records should be decided in favor of Midas. Any confusion or difficulties caused by\nRhodium\u2019s records also should be held against Rhodium, not Midas.\n\n\n\nSensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1572-73 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Lam, Inc. v. Johns-\nManville Corp., 718 F.2d 1056, 1065 (Fed. Cir. 1983).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n        {Rhodium objects that this instruction is unnecessary and prejudicial. Midas Green has\nnot identified any facts that would make it appropriate (there are none), and absent a showing\nthat evidence is missing, the jury should not hear an instruction that might lead them to suspect\nthat materials are missing without any basis. The Court should decline to give this instruction.}\n\n\n\n\n                                                    86\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 89 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.29    Willful Infringement\n\n        If you find that it is more likely than not that Rhodium infringed a valid claim of Midas\u2019s\npatent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, then you must also determine whether\nor not Rhodium\u2019s infringement was willful.\n\n        To show that Rhodium\u2019s infringement was willful, Midas must prove by a preponderance\nof the evidence that Rhodium knew of Midas\u2019s patent and intentionally infringed at least one\nasserted claim of the patent. For example, you may consider whether Rhodium\u2019s behavior was\nmalicious, wanton, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or in bad faith. However, you may\nnot find that Rhodium\u2019s infringement was willful merely because Rhodium knew about the\npatent, without more. In determining whether Midas has proven that Rhodium\u2019s infringement\nwas willful, you must consider all of the circumstances and assess Rhodium\u2019s knowledge at the\ntime the challenged conduct occurred.\n\n        If you determine that any infringement was willful, you may not allow that decision to\naffect the amount of any damages award you give for infringement.\n\n\n\nHalo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016); WesternGeco L.L.C. v. Ion\nGeophysical Corp., No. 2013-1527 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2016); WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., No.\n2015-1038, 2016 WL 3902668, at *15 (Fed. Cir. July 19, 2016).\n\nSource: 2018 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions\n\n\n\n\n                                                    87\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 90 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.30    Bias \u2013 Corporate Party Involved\n\n        Do not let bias, prejudice or sympathy play any part in your deliberations. A corporation\nand all other persons are equal before the law and must be treated as equals in a court of justice.\n\n\n\nSource: Pattern Jury Instructions 2020\n\n\n\n\n                                                    88\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 91 of 93\n\n\n\n\n       3.31    Duty to Deliberate; Notes\n\n        It is now your duty to deliberate and to consult with one another in an effort to reach a\nverdict. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but only after an impartial consideration\nof the evidence with your fellow jurors. During your deliberations, do not hesitate to re- examine\nyour own opinions and change your mind if you are convinced that you were wrong. But do not\ngive up on your honest beliefs because the other jurors think differently, or just to \ufb01nish the case.\n\n        Remember at all times, you are the judges of the facts. You have been allowed to take\nnotes during this trial. Any notes that you took during this trial are only aids to memory. If your\nmemory differs from your notes, you should rely on your memory and not on the notes. The\nnotes are not evidence. If you did not take notes, rely on your independent recollection of the\nevidence and do not be unduly in\ufb02uenced by the notes of other jurors. Notes are not entitled to\ngreater weight than the recollection or impression of each juror about the testimony.\n\n       When you go into the jury room to deliberate, you may take with you a copy of this\ncharge, the exhibits that I have admitted into evidence, and your notes. You must select a jury\nforeperson to guide you in your deliberations and to speak for you here in the courtroom.\n\n         Your verdict must be unanimous. After you have reached a unanimous verdict, your jury\nforeperson must \ufb01ll out the answers to the writ- ten questions on the verdict form and sign and\ndate it. After you have concluded your service and I have discharged the jury, you are not\nrequired to talk with anyone about the case.\n\n       If you need to communicate with me during your deliberations, the jury foreperson\nshould write the inquiry and give it to the court security of\ufb01cer. After consulting with the\nattorneys, I will respond either in writing or by meeting with you in the courtroom. Keep in\nmind, however, that you must never disclose to anyone, not even to me, your numerical division\non any question.\n\n       You may now proceed to the jury room to begin your deliberations.\n\n\n\nSource: Pattern Jury Instructions 2020\n\n\n\n\n                                                     89\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 182-8        Filed 04/03/24      Page 92 of 93\n\n\n\n\nProposed Special Instruction No. 1:\n\n\nIf an accused product is designed to be altered or assembled before operation, a defendant\naccused of infringement may be held liable for infringement if the accused product, as altered or\nassembled, infringes a valid patent as long as the components of the accused product are ready\nfor assembly and serve no useful noninfringing purpose.\n\n\n\n\nSource:\n\n\n[I]f a device is designed to be altered or assembled before operation, the manufacturer may be\nheld liable for infringement if the device, as altered or assembled, infringes a valid patent.\" Mass\nEngineered Design, Inc. v. Ergotron, Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 361, 377 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2009);\nHigh Tech Med. Instrumentation, Inc. v. New Image Indus., Inc., 49 F.3d 1551, 1556 (Fed. Cir.\n1995); see also Paper Converting Mach. Co. v. Magna-Graphics Corp., 745 F.2d 11, 19 (Fed.\nCir. 1984) (components of a machine held to infringe when components are ready for assembly\nand serve \"no useful noninfringing purpose\").\n\n\n        {Rhodium objects to Midas\u2019s proposed \u201cspecial instruction No. 1.\u201d It misstates the law of\ndirect infringement, which requires a complete device or system. 35 U.S.C. S. 271(a); Deepsouth\nPacking Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518, 527-28 (1972); Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v.\nDropbox, Inc., 987 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (\u201c\u2019[O]ne may not be held liable under \u00a7\n271(a) for \u2018making\u2019 or \u2018selling\u2019 less than a complete invention.\u2019\u201d) (quoting Rotec Indus., Inc. v.\nMitsubishi Corp., 215 F.3d 1246, 1252 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). It also misconstrues and misapplies\nthe cited Mass Engineered Design case, which has no applicability here. See High Tech Med.\nInstrumentation, Inc. v. New Image Industries, Inc., 49 F.3d 1551, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1995)\n(rejecting the proposition that a device infringes if it can merely be altered without undue\ndifficulty to operate in an infringing manner, and holding that rather, the claim must read on the\ndevice as made and sold).}\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-8         Filed 04/03/24      Page 93 of 93\n\n\n\n\nProposed Special Instruction 2:\n\nDirect infringement by use of a system claim requires a party to use each and every element of a\nclaimed system. To use a system for purposes of infringement, a party must put the invention\ninto service, i.e., control the system as a whole and obtain benefit from it. Use does not require a\nparty to exercise physical or direct control over each individual element of the system.\n\nSource:\n\nGeorgetown Rail Equip. Co. v. Holland L.P., 867 F.3d 1229, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Centillion\nData Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc'ns Int'l, Inc., 631 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2011)\n\n        {Rhodium objects to Midas\u2019s proposed \u201cspecial instruction no. 2\u201d: The first sentence is\nduplicative and unnecessary in light of the other instructions. The remaining sentences are\nirrelevant, confusing, and potentially prejudicial, including because the alleged infringement\ndoes not involve systems maintained or operated by multiple parties or in multiple places. There\nis thus no need or basis for an instruction on the \u201cput into service\u201d requirement, and the proposed\nlanguage might be read to suggest, incorrectly, that Rhodium may be found to directly infringe\nbased on use of a system it does not possess or control. Nor is the proposed instruction (in any\nform) warranted based upon indirect infringement, which Midas does not allege.}\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T11:49:42.956124-08:00","document_number":"182","attachment_number":8,"pacer_doc_id":"181031929089","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit H","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/427868692/","id":427868692,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/182/9/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2025-01-22T10:50:32.582216-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-23T02:51:22.558496-08:00","sha1":"60e7d41e67bad7af8b3965d1add619ed774de50f","page_count":3,"file_size":153447,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.9.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.9.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-9   Filed 04/03/24   Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n                      EXHIBIT I\n                 PLAINTIFF'S VOIR DIRE\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA       Document 182-9   Filed 04/03/24   Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\n                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                        FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                 WACO DIVISION\n\n\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC,\n\n      Plaintiff,                            Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-00050-ADA\n\n              - vs. -                       Jury Trial Demanded\n\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc.;\nRhodium Technologies LLC;\nRhodium 10mw LLC;\nRhodium 2.0 LLC;\nRhodium 30mw LLC;\nRhodium Encore LLC;\nRhodium Renewables LLC;\n\n      Defendants.\n\n\n                         PLAINTIFF\u2019S PROPOSED VOIR DIRE\n\n\n\n\n                                        1\n#420864v1\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA               Document 182-9     Filed 04/03/24       Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\nPlaintiff Midas Green Technologies, LLC hereby submits the following voir dire\n\nquestions that may be used in regard to jury selection:\n\n   1.) Do you have any negative feelings about small companies or large companies? If so,\n\n       please explain.\n\n   2.) Have you ever filed a lawsuit or had a dispute with a company? If so, please explain.\n\n   3.) Have you or someone close to you ever had any dealings with the United States Patent\n\n       and Trademark Office? If so, please explain.\n\n   4.) Have you or anyone close to you ever invented or designed a product? If so, please\n\n       explain.\n\n   5.) Have you or someone close to you ever invented created or developed something and had\n\n       that idea taken from you? If so, please explain.\n\n   6.) Have you or someone close to you or your employer ever been involved in a dispute over\n\n       a patent? If so, please explain.\n\n   7.) Have you or anyone close to you had any legal training or ever worked in the legal\n\n       profession including any judge, lawyer, or law firm? If so, please explain.\n\n   8.) Have you ever worked for the government? If so, please explain.\n\n   9.) Do you or anyone in your immediate family own any crypto currency? If so, please\n\n       explain.\n\n   10.)       Do you have any negative opinions on crypto currency? If so, please explain if\n\n       this would that influence your ability to be a fair and impartial juror in this case?\n\n\n\n\n                                                 2\n#420864v1\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T11:49:43.363364-08:00","document_number":"182","attachment_number":9,"pacer_doc_id":"181031929090","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit I","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/427868693/","id":427868693,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/182/10/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2025-01-22T10:50:32.599622-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-23T02:51:29.851700-08:00","sha1":"99d38b198cb6a760ae094a8bde1ecd3450ccd2e8","page_count":7,"file_size":231941,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.10.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.10.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-10   Filed 04/03/24   Page 1 of 7\n\n\n\n\n                      EXHIBIT J\n                DEFENDANTS' VOIR DIRE\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA       Document 182-10   Filed 04/03/24   Page 2 of 7\n\n\n\n\n                   IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                    FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                              WACO DIVISION\n\n\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC,         )\n                                       )\n                           Plaintiff,  )\n                                       )\n      v.                               ) Civil Action No. 6:22-CV-00050-ADA\n                                       )\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc.;             )\nRhodium Technologies LLC;              )\nRhodium 10MW LLC;                      ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\nRhodium 2.0 LLC;                       )\nRhodium 30MW LLC;                      )\nRhodium Encore LLC;                    )\nRhodium Renewables LLC;                )\nRhodium Renewables Sub LLC; and        )\nRhodium Ready Ventures LLC,            )\n                                       )\n                           Defendants. )\n_______________________________________)\n\n\n\n                     DEFENDANTS\u2019 PROPOSED VOIR DIRE\n                   QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED BY THE COURT\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA             Document 182-10         Filed 04/03/24       Page 3 of 7\n\n\n\n\n        Defendants Rhodium Enterprises, Inc., Rhodium Technologies LLC, Rhodium 10MW\n\nLLC, Rhodium 2.0 LLC, Rhodium 30MW LLC, Rhodium Encore LLC, Rhodium Renewables\n\nLLC, Rhodium Renewables Sub LLC, and Rhodium Ready Ventures LLC (\u201cRhodium\u201d) hereby\n\nsubmit the following proposed questions to be asked by the Court during voir dire. Defendants\n\nreserve the right to amend or supplement these proposed questions as necessary to conform to\n\nthe evidence and ultimate issues at trial, to conform to the results of the pretrial conference, and\n\nin response to any future Court filings or orders.\n\n        1.     In the trial of this case, the parties are entitled to have a fair, unbiased, and\n\nunprejudiced jury. If there is any reason why you might be biased or prejudiced in any way, you\n\nmust disclose such reason when you are asked to do so. It is your duty to make this disclosure.\n\n        2.     Have you served on a jury in a civil or criminal case or as a member of a grand\n\njury within the last fifteen years?\n\n        3.     Is there any reason, such as poor vision, difficulty hearing, or difficulty\n\nunderstanding spoken or written English, that would make it difficult for you to serve on this\n\njury?\n\n        4.     Do you recognize any members of the Court staff; that is, any of the folks along\n\nthe wall, myself, or anyone sitting at the table in front of me?\n\n        5.     Do you recognize any of the lawyers who are in the courtroom today?\n\n        6.     Do you know anyone with any affiliation whatsoever to any of the law firms\n\nassociated with this case, including:\n\n                   a. Thomas Whitelaw & Kolegraff LLP\n\n                   b. K&L Gates LLP\n\n                   c. Scheef & Stone LLP\n\n\n\n                                                   2\n\fCase 6:22-cv-00050-ADA       Document 182-10        Filed 04/03/24      Page 4 of 7\n\n\n\n\n          d. Stris & Maher LLP\n\n          e. Kirkland & Ellis LLP\n\n          f. Gillam & Smith LLP\n\n 7.    Do you happen to know anyone else on the jury panel?\n\n 8.    Have you read or heard anything, from any source, about this case, or have\n\n       knowledge of it in any way? Have you done any internet research or other\n\n       searching for information about either Midas Green Technologies, LLC, Rhodium\n\n       Enterprises, LLC, or any other defendant? If so, what research have you done?\n\n 9.    Have you heard of or been otherwise acquainted with, related to, done business\n\n       with, been employed by, or had any dealings with any of the parties, attorneys, or\n\n       witnesses, including but not limited to:\n\n          a. Christopher L. Boyd\n\n          b. James P. Koen\n\n          c. David Christopher Laguna\n\n          d. Thomas R. Turner\n\n          e. Kenneth D. Swinden\n\n          f. Mario Conti Garcia\n\n          g. John Charles Tribou\n\n          h. Kenneth Tooke\n\n          i. Francisco Conti\n\n          j. Christiaan Best\n\n          k. Michael Rainone\n\n          l. Chase Blackmon\n\n\n\n                                         3\n\fCase 6:22-cv-00050-ADA        Document 182-10         Filed 04/03/24      Page 5 of 7\n\n\n\n\n           m. Cameron Blackmon\n\n           n. Nathan Nichols\n\n           o. Marshall Long\n\n           p. Nicholas Cerasuolo\n\n           q. Dr. Himanshu Pokharna\n\n           r. Dr. James Lee\n\n           s. J. Duross O\u2019Bryan\n\n           t. Dr. Alfonso Ortega\n\n           u. Juli Saitz\n\n    10. Do you have any belief or feeling toward any of the parties, the attorneys, or the\n\n       witnesses, that might be regarded as a bias or prejudice for or against any of\n\n       them?\n\n    11. Do you own stock in any of the parties or have any interest, financial or\n\n       otherwise, in the outcome of this case?\n\n    12. Have you, or any member of your family or close friends, to your knowledge,\n\n       ever filed a lawsuit against anyone or had a lawsuit filed against you, or appeared\n\n       as a witness in any civil or criminal case, excluding a divorce case?\n\n           a. If so, did the lawsuit terminate satisfactorily as far as you were concerned?\n\n    13. Have you or any member of your immediate family ever been employed by or had\n\n       any dealings with a lawyer or the court system?\n\n    14. Do you have a strong opinion, positive or negative, about lawsuits or the justice\n\n       system in general?\n\n    15. Do you have a strong opinion, either positive or negative, about the amount of\n\n\n\n                                         4\n\fCase 6:22-cv-00050-ADA        Document 182-10        Filed 04/03/24     Page 6 of 7\n\n\n\n\n       money awarded by juries in civil cases?\n\n    16. Have you or any member of your immediate family ever been employed by, or\n\n       had any dealings with, the United States Patent and Trademark Office?\n\n    17. Other than military service, have you ever worked for the United States\n\n       government?\n\n    18. Have your or an immediate family member ever owned a business?\n\n    19. Have you invented or deployed any technology yourself, whether as part of your\n\n       employment or on your own, or do you know someone who has?\n\n    20. Have you or any member of your immediate family ever applied for, or obtained,\n\n       a United States or foreign patent?\n\n           a. If so, in what field?\n\n           b. Was the patent issued?\n\n    21. Do you have any familiarity with how the United States patent system works?\n\n    22. Do you have any opinions about patents, patent rights, or the United States Patent\n\n       and Trademark Office that might make it difficult for you to be a fair and\n\n       impartial juror in this case?\n\n    23. Do you or does your employer rely on patented technology as part of its business?\n\n    24. Do you, your immediate family members, or persons close to you have any\n\n       experience with licensing or royalty agreements for intellectual property, such as\n\n       patents, copyrights, or trademarks?\n\n    25. Have you ever worked for a company that was involved in a patent or other\n\n       intellectual property dispute?\n\n    26. Have you ever had a negative experience of any type with any party to this case?\n\n\n\n                                         5\n\fCase 6:22-cv-00050-ADA        Document 182-10         Filed 04/03/24       Page 7 of 7\n\n\n\n\n    27. Do you have any familiarity with cryptocurrency, including for example Bitcoin?\n\n    28. Do you have any opinions about cryptocurrency that might make it difficult for\n\n       you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case?\n\n    29. Do you have any familiarity with the industrial-scale cooling of electronic\n\n       equipment?\n\n    30. Do you have a degree or training in science, engineering, computers, or heating,\n\n       ventilation, and air conditioning? Have you taken any classes related to\n\n       engineering or heating, ventilation, and air conditioning?\n\n    31. Have you, or any member of your family or any of your close friends, ever\n\n       worked for any of the parties to the case?\n\n    32. Are you a member of, or do you hold leadership positions in, any social, political,\n\n       civic, or religious organizations, clubs, or groups? If so, please identify those\n\n       organizations, clubs, or groups?\n\n    33. Do you feel that that it is simply not your place to have to decide whether a patent\n\n       is infringed or not?\n\n    34. Have you ever served in a focus group or as a mock juror?\n\n           a. If so, when, and how many times?\n\n           b. Did the exercise involve patents? Technology?\n\n\n\n\n                                          6\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T11:49:43.814625-08:00","document_number":"182","attachment_number":10,"pacer_doc_id":"181031929091","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit J","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/427868694/","id":427868694,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/182/11/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2025-01-22T10:50:32.610537-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-23T02:51:22.499006-08:00","sha1":"40d4b793f03a3dbd2978ca9f07908c818ea2b5f5","page_count":5,"file_size":155776,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.11.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.11.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-11   Filed 04/03/24   Page 1 of 5\n\n\n\n\n                     EXHIBIT K\n                    JOINT JUROR\n                   QUESTIONNAIRE\n\f       Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-11    Filed 04/03/24    Page 2 of 5\n\n\n\n\n                             Parties\u2019 Proposed Juror Questionnaire\n\n       The parties propose the following juror questionnaire, which is modeled on the sample\navailable on the Court\u2019s website. Any questions requested only by Midas, or Midas position\nstatements, are in red. Any questions requested only by Rhodium, or Rhodium position\nstatements, are in blue.\n\nName:\n\nAge:\n\nGender:\n\nAddress:\n\nBirthplace:\n\nEducation:\n\n                 Highest grade/degree completed:\n\n                 College or Vocational School:\n\n                 Major or Area(s) of Study:\n\nOccupation:\n\n        Job Title:\n\n        Employer (current or most recent):\n\n        Describe Job Duties:\n\n\n\n        Immediate Prior Job (if any):\n\n        Have you ever worked in a position in which you supervised others? ___ Yes ___No\n\nHave you ever served in the military? ___ Yes ___No\n\n        If yes, what branch, and what was the highest rank you achieved?\n\nMarital Status\n\n        Spouse/Partner\u2019s Occupation\n\n        Occupations of other adults in your household\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-11           Filed 04/03/24    Page 3 of 5\n\n\n\n\n       Number of Children                    Ages of Children\n\n       Occupations of Adult Children\n\nPlease list any clubs, groups, churches, unions, fellowships or other religious or civic\norganizations to which you belong, as well as any leadership positions you have held there.\n\n\n\n\nWhere do you get most of your news?\n\n       Television\n\n       Magazines\n\n       Newspapers\n\n       Radio\n\n       Websites\n\n       Social Media\n\nFor the news source listed above, please indicate the network, publication, station or website:\n\n\n\nDo you have any special knowledge, training, education, or work experience in any of the\nfollowing areas?\n\n        Law, law firms,                           Patents, copyrights,\n        court system                              or trademarks\n        Computer                                  Software\n        hardware                                  development\n        Electrical                                Licensing\n        engineering\n        Mechanical                                Car repair\n        engineering\n        Heating/cooling                           Control systems\n        systems\n        Metal work or                             Construction\n        welding\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-11        Filed 04/03/24      Page 4 of 5\n\n\n\n\nHave you ever heard of or are you familiar with:\n\n       Midas Green Technologies\n\n       Rhodium Enterprises, Inc.\n\n       Rhodium Technologies LLC\n\n       Rhodium 10MW LLC\n\n       Rhodium 2.0 LLC\n\n       Rhodium 30MW LLC\n\n       Rhodium Encore LLC\n\n       Rhodium Renewables LLC\n\n       Rhodium Renewables Sub LLC\n\n       Rhodium Ready Ventures LLC\n\nHave you or any of your family ever filed for a patent? ___ Yes ___No\n\n       If \u201cyes,\u201d please describe what was covered by the patent and whether a patent was\n       granted.\n\n\n\nHave you ever owned a business? ___ Yes ___No\n\n       If \u201cyes,\u201d please indicate the type of business and years it was owned.\n\n\n\nHave you or anyone in your immediate family ever invented something you/they did not get\ncredit for? ___ Yes ___No\n\nHave you or anyone in your immediate family ever heard of or invested in cryptocurrency?\n___ Yes ___No\n\nHave you ever heard of cryptocurrency? ___ Yes ___No\n\nHave you or anyone in your immediate family ever invested in cryptocurrency? ___ Yes ___No\n\nHave you ever felt that a plaintiff got too much money in a lawsuit? ___ Yes ___No\n\nDo you trust the legal system? ___ Yes ___No\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-11       Filed 04/03/24     Page 5 of 5\n\n\n\n\nHave you ever served as a juror before? ___ Yes ___No\n\n       If \u201cyes,\u201d were you the foreperson? ___ Yes ___No\n\nDo you have an unusual hardship or other personal issue that would affect or prevent your ability\nto serve as a juror in a case scheduled for trial from April 22 to April [26][29], 2024 in Waco?\n___ Yes ___No\n\n       If \u201cyes,\u201d describe hardship:\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T11:49:44.251599-08:00","document_number":"182","attachment_number":11,"pacer_doc_id":"181031929092","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit K","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/427868695/","id":427868695,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/182/12/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2025-01-22T10:50:32.622981-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-23T02:51:26.448662-08:00","sha1":"dba5b84cc8a591b72da9a77de10038a56f3cb845","page_count":11,"file_size":163561,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.12.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.12.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-12   Filed 04/03/24   Page 1 of 11\n\n\n\n\n                     EXHIBIT L\n             PLAINTIFF'S VERDICT FORM\n\f   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA        Document 182-12    Filed 04/03/24   Page 2 of 11\n\n\n\n\n                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                        FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                 WACO DIVISION\n\n\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC,\n\n      Plaintiff,                             Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-00050-ADA\n\n              - vs. -                        Jury Trial Demanded\n\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc.;\nRhodium Technologies LLC;\nRhodium 10mw LLC;\nRhodium 2.0 LLC;\nRhodium 30mw LLC;\nRhodium Encore LLC;\nRhodium Renewables LLC;\n\n      Defendants.\n\n\n                    PLAINTIFF PROPOSED VERDICTS OF TRIAL\n\n\n\n\n                                         1\n#419805v2\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA       Document 182-12       Filed 04/03/24    Page 3 of 11\n\n\n\n\nWe the Jury in the above-entitled case, answer the questions submitted to us as follows:\n\nInfringement\n\nQuestion 1A:\n\n      Has Midas proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Rhodium made, had\n\nmade, or used a product that contains each element of Claim 1 of the \u2018457 Patent?\n\nClaim 1                       Yes ___                       No ___\n\n\n\n      If you answered \u201cYes\u201d, then proceed to Question 1B (immediately below).\n      If you answered \u201cNo\u201d, then proceed to Question 3A.\n\n\n\n\nQuestion 1B:\n\n      Has Midas proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Rhodium made, had\n\nmade, or used a product that contains each element of Claim 5 of the \u2018457 Patent?\n\nClaim 5                       Yes ___                       No ___\n\n\n\n      Proceed to Question 2 (next page).\n\n\n\n\n                                            2\n#419805v2\n\f   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA      Document 182-12     Filed 04/03/24   Page 4 of 11\n\n\n\n\nQuestion 2:\n\n      Has Midas proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Rhodium\u2019s\n\ninfringement was willful?\n\nClaim 1                     Yes ___                    No ___\n\nClaim 5                     Yes ___                    No ___\n\n\n\n      Proceed to Question 3A (next page).\n\n\n\n\n                                            3\n#419805v2\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA       Document 182-12      Filed 04/03/24   Page 5 of 11\n\n\n\n\nInvalidity & Enforceability\n\nQuestion 3A:\n\n      Has Rhodium proven by clear and convincing evidence that Claim 1 of the \u2018457\n\nPatent was \u201canticipated\u201d or, in other words, not \u201cnew\u201d?\n\nClaim 1                       Yes ___                      No ___\n\n\n\n      If you Answered \u201cYes\u201d, then proceed to Question 3B (immediately below).\n      If you Answer \u201cNo\u201d then proceed Question 4 (next page).\n\n\n\n\nQuestion 3B:\n\n      Has Rhodium proven by clear and convincing evidence that Claim 5 of the \u2018457\n\nPatent was \u201canticipated\u201d or, in other words, not \u201cnew\u201d?\n\n\n\nClaim 5                       Yes ___                      No ___\n\n\n\nIf you Answered \u201cYes\u201d, then proceed to page 10 of this verdict form.\nIf you Answer \u201cNo\u201d, then proceed Question 4 (next page).\n\n\n\n\n                                            4\n#419805v2\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 182-12    Filed 04/03/24    Page 6 of 11\n\n\n\n\nInequitable Conduct\n\nQuestion 4:\n\n      Has Rhodium proven by clear and convincing evidence that the applicants for the\n\n\u2018457 Patent withheld material information or submitted materially false information or\n\nstatements to the Patent Office?\n\nYes ___                       No ___\n\n\n\n      Proceed to Question 5 (next page).\n\n\n\n\n                                            5\n#419805v2\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA       Document 182-12      Filed 04/03/24    Page 7 of 11\n\n\n\n\nQuestion 5:\n\n      Has Rhodium proven by clear and convincing evidence that the applicants for the\n\n\u2018457 Patent knowingly failed to disclose material information and/or false or misleading\n\nstatements with an intent to deceive the Examiner?\n\nYes ___                      No ___\n\n\n\n      Proceed to Question 6A (next page)\n\n\n\n\n                                            6\n#419805v2\n\f   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA      Document 182-12      Filed 04/03/24     Page 8 of 11\n\n\n\n\nDamages\n\nQuestion 6A:\n\n      Does Rhodium owe Midas Lost Profit Damages?\n\nYes ___        No ___\n\n\n\n      If you answered \u201cYes\u201d, then proceed to Question 6B (immediately below).\n\n      If you answered \u201cNo\u201d, then proceed to Question 7A (next page).\n\n\n\nQuestion 6B:\n\n      What is the amount of Lost Profits that Rhodium owes Midas?\n\n$ ___________________\n\n      Proceed to Question 7A (next page).\n\n\n\n\n                                            7\n#419805v2\n\f   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA       Document 182-12     Filed 04/03/24    Page 9 of 11\n\n\n\n\nQuestion 7A:\n\n      Does Rhodium owe Midas Reasonable Royalty Damages?\n\nYes ___        No ___\n\n\n\n      If you answered \u201cYes\u201d, then proceed to Question 7B (immediately below).\n\n      If you answered \u201cNo\u201d, then proceed to Question 8 (next page).\n\n\n\n\nQuestion 7B:\n\n      What is the amount of Reasonable Royalty that Rhodium owes Midas?\n\n$ ___________________\n\n\n\n      Proceed to Question 8 (next page).\n\n\n\n\n                                           8\n#419805v2\n\f   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA       Document 182-12     Filed 04/03/24   Page 10 of 11\n\n\n\n\nQuestion 8:\n\n      What is the total amount that Midas is owed from Rhodium? Enter the larger of the\n\namounts you entered in response to Questions 6B and 7B. If the amounts are the same in\n\n6B and 7B, then enter that amount.\n\n$ ___________________\n\n\n\n      Proceed to page 10 of the verdict form.\n\n\n\n\n                                           9\n#419805v2\n\f   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA       Document 182-12       Filed 04/03/24    Page 11 of 11\n\n\n\n\n      You have now reached the end of the verdict form and should review it to ensure\n\nthat it accurately reflects your unanimous determinations. The jury foreperson should\n\nsign and date the verdict form below and notify the Court that you have reached a verdict.\n\n\n\nDated:_________________\n\n\n\nSigned by Jury Foreperson:____________________________\n\n\n\n\n                                           10\n#419805v2\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T11:49:44.626655-08:00","document_number":"182","attachment_number":12,"pacer_doc_id":"181031929093","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit L","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/427868696/","id":427868696,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/182/13/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2025-01-22T10:50:32.635425-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-23T02:51:24.136158-08:00","sha1":"3c462005ab85569849721f23bc01069ded5e5128","page_count":9,"file_size":238398,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.13.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.13.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-13   Filed 04/03/24   Page 1 of 9\n\n\n\n\n                       EXHIBIT M\n                     DEFENDANTS'\n                     VERDICT FORM\n\f   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA        Document 182-13   Filed 04/03/24   Page 2 of 9\n\n\n\n\n                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                        FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                 WACO DIVISION\n\n\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC,\n\n      Plaintiff,                            Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-00050-ADA\n\n              - vs. -                       Jury Trial Demanded\n\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc.;\nRhodium Technologies LLC;\nRhodium 10mw LLC;\nRhodium 2.0 LLC;\nRhodium 30mw LLC;\nRhodium Encore LLC;\nRhodium Renewables LLC;\n\n      Defendants.\n\n\n                    DEFENDANTS\u2019 [PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM\n\f   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-13   Filed 04/03/24   Page 3 of 9\n\n\n\n\nIT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED IN\n                        THIS VERDICT FORM\n\n\n\n\nREAD THEM CAREFULLY AND ENSURE THAT YOUR VERDICT COMPLIES WITH\n                            THEM\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-13        Filed 04/03/24      Page 4 of 9\n\n\n\n\n        We, the jury, unanimously agree to the following answers and return them as our verdict\n\nin this case.\n\n                                 Question 1: Direct Infringement\n\nDirections: In answering Question 1 below, please select one (1) option for each listed claim.\nYou must answer as to both claims.\n\nQuestion 1.           Has Midas Green proven by a preponderance of the evidence that\n                      Rhodium literally, directly infringed the following asserted claims of U.S.\n                      Patent No. 10,405,405? (\u201cYes\u201d is a finding for Midas Green. \u201cNo\u201d is a\n                      finding for Rhodium.)\n\n                      Claim 1:\n\n                      \uf0a3 Yes, as to Temple only (finding for Midas Green)\n\n                      \uf0a3 Yes, as to Rockdale only (finding for Midas Green)\n\n                      \uf0a3 Yes, as to both Temple and Rockdale (finding for Midas Green)\n\n                      \uf0a3 No (finding for Rhodium)\n\n\n\n                      Claim 5:\n\n                      \uf0a3 Yes, as to Temple only (finding for Midas Green)\n\n                      \uf0a3 Yes, as to Rockdale only (finding for Midas Green)\n\n                      \uf0a3 Yes, as to both Temple and Rockdale (finding for Midas Green)\n\n                      \uf0a3 No (finding for Rhodium)\n\nPlease proceed to Question 2.\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-13        Filed 04/03/24     Page 5 of 9\n\n\n\n\n                                     Question 2: Invalidity\n\nDirections: In answering Question 2 below, please select one (1) option for each listed claim.\nYou must answer as to both claims.\n\nQuestion 2.           Has Rhodium proven by clear and convincing evidence that the following\n                      claims of the \u2018457 Patent are invalid? (Please answer \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno\u201d for\n                      each claim. \u201cYes\u201d is a finding for Rhodium. \u201cNo\u201d is a finding for Midas\n                      Green.)\n\n                      Claim 1:\n\n                      \uf0a3 Yes (finding for Rhodium)\n\n                      \uf0a3 No (finding for Midas Green)\n\n\n\n                      Claim 5:\n\n                      \uf0a3 Yes (finding for Rhodium)\n\n                      \uf0a3 No (finding for Midas Green)\n\nPlease proceed to the next page.\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 182-13        Filed 04/03/24   Page 6 of 9\n\n\n\n\nIf you have reached this point in the verdict form, you should have answered Questions 1\n\nand 2. If you have not answered Question 1 and 2, please go back and answer them before\n\nproceeding.\n\n\n\nIf you answered \u201cyes\u201d as to any claim(s) in response to Question 1, and \u201cno\u201d as to the same\n\nclaim(s) in response to Question 2, please proceed to answer Questions 3\u20135.\n\n\n\nOtherwise, your deliberations are complete. Do not answer any further questions. Proceed\n\nto the last page, have your Jury Foreperson sign and date this Verdict Form, and deliver it\n\nto the Court Security Officer. You should not pay attention to any other instructions between\n\nthis point and the signature page found at the end of this verdict form.\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 182-13         Filed 04/03/24      Page 7 of 9\n\n\n\n\n                                Questions 3 and 4: Damages\n\nDirections: Please answer the question below. Answer on both lines. Your answers should be the\nsame.\n\nQuestion 3.          What is the total dollar amount, if any, that you find adequately\n                     compensates Midas Green for Rhodium\u2019s infringement?\n\n\n\n                     $\n\n                     (amount in figures)\n\n\n\n\n                     (amount in words)\n\n\n\nPlease proceed to Question 4.\n\n\n\nDirections: Please answer the question below.\n\nQuestion 4.          Does the amount you award in Question 3 represent (1) lost profits or\n                     (2) a reasonable royalty?\n\n                     \uf0a3 Lost Profits\n\n                     \uf0a3 Reasonable Royalty\n\nPlease proceed to Question 5.\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-13        Filed 04/03/24     Page 8 of 9\n\n\n\n\n                                    Question 5: Willfulness\n\nDirections: In answering Question 5 below, please select one (1) option for each listed claim.\nYou must answer as to both claims.\n\nQuestion 5.           Has Midas Green proven by a preponderance of the evidence that\n                      Rhodium\u2019s infringement of each of the following claims, in connection\n                      with each of the following tank systems and facilities, as willful? (Please\n                      answer \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno\u201d for each claim, tank, and facility. \u201cYes\u201d is a finding\n                      for Midas Green. \u201cNo\u201d is a finding for Rhodium.)\n\n                      Claim 1:\n\n                      \uf0a3 Yes (finding for Midas Green)\n\n                      \uf0a3 No (finding for Rhodium)\n\n\n\n                      Claim 5:\n\n                      \uf0a3 Yes (finding for Midas Green)\n\n                      \uf0a3 No (finding for Rhodium)\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-13         Filed 04/03/24     Page 9 of 9\n\n\n\n\n                                 Final Page of the Jury Verdict\n\n       You have now reached the end of the Verdict Form and should review it to ensure that it\n\naccurately reflects your unanimous determinations. The Jury Foreperson should then sign and\n\ndate the Verdict Form in the spaces below. Once this is done, notify the Court Security Officer\n\nthat you have reached a verdict. The Jury Foreperson should keep the Verdict Form and bring it\n\nwhen the jury is brought back into the courtroom.\n\n\n\nSigned this            date of                      , 2023\n\n\n\n\n                              Jury Foreperson\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T11:49:45.138786-08:00","document_number":"182","attachment_number":13,"pacer_doc_id":"181031929094","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit M","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/427868697/","id":427868697,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/182/14/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2025-01-22T10:50:32.649381-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-23T02:51:23.834824-08:00","sha1":"bc9bb90eb59f2de0e2594096500a7a5cba6042a2","page_count":30,"file_size":427155,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.14.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.14.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-14   Filed 04/03/24   Page 1 of 30\n\n\n\n\n                 EXHIBIT N\n       PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE\n\n                N- 1: Obviousness\n                N-2: Hearsay\n                N-3: No Advice of Counsel\n                N-4: No Design Around\n                N-5: Written Description\n\fCase 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-14   Filed 04/03/24   Page 2 of 30\n\n\n\n\n                         EXHIBIT N-1\n\f  Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA        Document 182-14   Filed 04/03/24   Page 3 of 30\n\n\n\n\n                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                        FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                 WACO DIVISION\n\n\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC,\n\n      Plaintiff,                           Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-00050-ADA\n\n              - vs. -                      Jury Trial Demanded\n\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc.;\nRhodium Technologies LLC;\nRhodium 10mw LLC;\nRhodium 2.0 LLC;\nRhodium 30mw LLC;\nRhodium Encore LLC;\nRhodium Renewables LLC;\n\n      Defendants.\n\n\n                        PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4\n\n                             REGARDING OBVIOUSNESS\n\f      Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-14         Filed 04/03/24      Page 4 of 30\n\n\n\n\nI.    RHODIUM HAS PRESENTED NO SPECIFIC COMBINATIONS OF ART SO IS\n\n      PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING AN OBVIOUSNESS DEFENSE AT TRIAL\n\n          This Court has a standing Motion in Limine No. 4 that excludes a party from presenting\n\n  an obviousness defense to the jury unless specific combinations or prior art references have been\n\n  previously identified.\n\n          Court MIL No. 4: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,\n          or argument regarding prior art that is not disclosed in a specific combination set forth\n          in any party\u2019s expert report or invalidity contentions. (OGP Version 4.4 at 22)\n\n          Rhodium has never presented any specific combination regarding obviousness in either\n\n its Expert\u2019s Invalidity Report or in its Final Invalidity Contentions. Instead, Rhodium repeatedly\n\n asserts that all cited references can be combined to render Claim 1 of \u2018457 Patent obvious. These\n\n  opinions and testimony are irrelevant and will only serve to confuse the jury. As a result, Midas\n\n  has no idea what combinations Rhodium might try to assert at trial.\n\n          A. Rhodium\u2019s Expert Report on Invalidity Discloses No Specific Combinations\n\n          In Rhodium\u2019s Expert Report on Invalidity, Dr. Ortega merely submits blunderbuss\n\n  combinations of the nine 1 separate pieces of prior art, and never identifies even one specific\n\n combination. Instead of identifying a specific combination, Dr. Ortega incorporates by reference\n\n over 2000 pages of claim charts, each chart having all nine references. Dr. Ortega\u2019s opinions are\n\n nothing more than a list of all nine prior art references and a general claim that a person skilled\n\n in the art would somehow have been motivated to combine them. The only opinions regarding\n\n obviousness in Dr. Ortega\u2019s report are stated in paragraph 52. (Ex. A, Ortega Report). Each new\n\n opinion is simply a reordering of the same prior art references. These opinions are duplicated\n\n below.\n\n\n  1\n   Dr. Ortega has 11 in his list, but after he completed his report the parties agreed to drop\n  Krajewski \u2018511 and Gryzhin \u2018013 as references.\n                                                   1\n  #420651v1\n\f   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 182-14         Filed 04/03/24      Page 5 of 30\n\n\n\n\n         1. Best \u2018463 alone or in combination with the general knowledge and common sense\n         of those skilled in the art and/or the teachings of one or more of the Best Tank, the\n         Best Publication, Best \u2018914, Oktay \u2018244, Krajewski \u2018511, the Pfahnl Publication,\n         Gryzhin \u2018013, JP \u2018758, Rolfson \u2018298, Attlesey \u2018419, and Quon \u2018108.\n\n         2. The Best Publication alone or in combination with the general knowledge and\n         common sense of those skilled in the art and/or the teachings of one or more of the\n         Best Tank, Best \u2018463, Best \u2018914, Oktay \u2018244, Krajewski \u2018511, the Pfahnl Publication,\n         Gryzhin \u2018013, JP \u2018758, Rolfson \u2018298, Attlesey \u2018419, and Quon \u2018108.\n\n         3. The Best Tank alone or in combination with the general knowledge and common\n         sense of those skilled in the art and/or the teachings of one or more of the Best\n         Publication, Best \u2018463, Best \u2018914, Oktay \u2018244, Krajewski \u2018511, the Pfahnl\n         Publication, Gryzhin \u2018013, JP \u2018758, Rolfson \u2018298, Attlesey \u2018419, and Quon \u2018108.\n\n         4. Krajewski \u2018511 alone or in combination with the general knowledge and common\n         sense of those skilled in the art and/or the teachings of one or more of the Best Tank,\n         the Best Publication, Best \u2018463, Best \u2018914, Oktay \u2018244, the Pfahnl Publication,\n         Gryzhin \u2018013, JP \u2018758, Rolfson \u2018298, Attlesey \u2018419, and Quon \u2018108.\n\n         5. The Pfahnl Publication alone or in combination with the general knowledge and\n         common sense of those skilled in the art and/or the teachings of one or more of the\n         Best Tank, the Best Publication, Best \u2018463, Best \u2018914, Oktay \u2018244, Krajewski \u2018511,\n         Gryzhin \u2018013, JP \u2018758, Rolfson \u2018298, Attlesey \u2018419, and Quon \u2018108.\n\n         6. Gryzhin \u2018013 alone or in combination with the general knowledge and common\n         sense of those skilled in the art and/or the teachings of one or more of the Best Tank,\n         the Best Publication, Best \u2018463, Best \u2018914, Oktay \u2018244, Krajewski \u2018511, the Pfahnl\n         Publication, JP \u2018758, Rolfson \u2018298, Attlesey \u2018419, and Quon \u2018108.\n\n         7. Oktay \u2018244 alone or in combination with the general knowledge and common\n         sense of those skilled in the art and/or the teachings of one or more of the Best Tank,\n         the Best Publication, Best \u2018463, Best \u2018914, Krajewski \u2018511, the Pfahnl Publication,\n         Gryzhin \u2018013, JP \u2018758, Rolfson \u2018298, Attlesey \u2018419, and Quon \u2018108.\n\n         8. JP \u2018758 alone or in combination with the general knowledge and common sense\n         of those skilled in the art and/or the teachings of one or more of the Best Tank, the\n         Best Publication, Best \u2018463, Best \u2018914, Oktay \u2018244, Krajewski \u2018511, the Pfahnl\n         Publication, Gryzhin \u2018013, Rolfson \u2018298, Attlesey \u2018419, and Quon \u2018108.\n\n         9. Best \u2018914 alone or in combination with the general knowledge and common sense\n         of those skilled in the art and/or the teachings of one or more of the Best Tank, the\n         Best Publication, Oktay \u2018244, Krajewski \u2018511, the Pfahnl Publication, Gryzhin \u2018013,\n         JP \u2018758, Rolfson \u2018298, Attlesey \u2018419, and Quon \u2018108.\n\n\n\n\n                                              2\n#420651v1\n\f      Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-14         Filed 04/03/24      Page 6 of 30\n\n\n\n\n          Dr. Ortega attaches nine claim charts, one for each of the nine blunderbuss lists of\n\nreferences identified above. (One exemplary chart D-1 is attached as Exhibit B). None of the\n\nclaim charts identify any specific combination, but just lump all nine references together. In one\n\nexample, Dr. Ortega just summarily says: \u201cIt would have been obvious to combine the Best \u2018463\n\nwith these references at least because they all relate to systems for cooling electronic\n\ncomponents, and predominantly to liquid cooling systems.\u201d There are no other opinions in any\n\nclaim chart which identify a motivation to combine the pieces of cited prior art.\n\n          B. Rhodium\u2019s Final Invalidity Contentions Disclose No Specific Combinations\n\n          Rhodium\u2019s Final Invalidity Contentions are similar, and merely repeat long lists of\n\nreferences with no specific combinations identified. Two of the nine lists of references are\n\nshown below. (Ex. C, Final Invalidity Contentions, at 51).\n\n          \u2022 The Best Tank alone or in combination with any one or more of the Best Publication,\n          Best \u2019463 Patent, Best \u2019914 Patent, Oktay \u2019244, Krajewski \u2019511, the Pfahnl\n          Publication, Gryzhin \u2019013, JP \u2019758, Rolfson \u2019298, Attlesey \u2019419, Attlesey \u2019392, the\n          Attlesey Publication, and Quon \u2019108.\n\n          \u2022 The Best Publication alone or in combination with any one or more of the Best Tank,\n          Best \u2019463 Patent, Best \u2019914 Patent, Oktay \u2019244, Krajewski \u2019511, the Pfahnl\n          Publication, Gryzhin \u2019013, JP \u2019758, Rolfson \u2019298, Attlesey \u2019419, Attlesey \u2019392, the\n          Attlesey Publication, and Quon \u2019108. 2\n\n          This case is nearly identical to the case Tech Pharm. Servs., LLC v. Alixa Rx LLC, 2017\n\nWL 3283324, *8-9 (E.D. Tex 2017). \u201cNowhere does [the expert] offer a specific combination of\n\nprior art to support a finding of obviousness. And like the expert reports in ActiveVideo and\n\nInnogenetics, [the expert] does not offer any reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art\n\nwould have been motivated to combine the single reference cited\u2026 to render the asserted claims\n\nobvious.\u201d Id. citing ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communs., Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1328\n\n\n2\n    Seven other lists are not shown to save space, see pg. 51 of Ex. C.\n\n                                                   3\n#420651v1\n\f        Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-14           Filed 04/03/24      Page 7 of 30\n\n\n\n\n   (Fed. Cir. 2012). This reasoning applies to this case. Dr. Ortega generally lists elements in prior\n\n   art references. He then summarily concludes \u201can POSITA would have been motivated to\n\n   combine these pieces of prior art.\u201d However, \u201ca patent composed of several elements is not\n\n   proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in\n\n   the prior art.\u201d KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). If Ortega testified at trial\n\n   with regard to obviousness, his testimony would not be \"helpful to a lay jury in avoiding the\n\n   pitfalls of hindsight that belie a determination of obviousness.\" Tech Pharm. Servs., LLC, at * 9;\n\n   Innogenetics, 512 F.3d at 1373.\n\nII.     CONCLUSION\n\n           Midas respectfully requests that the Court preclude Rhodium and its expert from\n\n   introducing evidence, testimony, or argument regarding obviousness as no specific combinations\n\n   of prior art were set forth in Rhodium\u2019s expert report or invalidity contentions.\n\n      DATED: March 27, 2024                               Respectfully Submitted,\n\n                                                          /s/ Joseph E. Thomas\n\n                                                          Joseph E. Thomas (admitted p.h.v.)\n                                                          William J. Kolegraff (admitted p.h.v.)\n                                                          Grant J. Thomas (admitted p.h.v.)\n                                                          THOMAS WHITELAW & KOLEGRAFF LLP\n                                                          18101 Von Karman Ave., Suite 230\n                                                          Irvine, CA 92612\n                                                          949-679-6400\n                                                          jthomas@twtlaw.com\n                                                          bkolegraff@twtlaw.com\n                                                          gthomas@twtlaw.com\n                                                          Attorneys for Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies\n                                                          LLC\n\n\n\n\n                                                      4\n   #420651v1\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 182-14        Filed 04/03/24     Page 8 of 30\n\n\n\n\n                            CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE\n\n       The parties held a meet and confer on March 27, 2024 and Defendants plan to oppose this\n\nmotion.\n\n\n                                         By /s/ Joseph E. Thomas\n                                            Joseph E. Thomas\n\n\n\n\n                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n       I hereby certify that counsel of record who have appeared electronically in this case are\n\nbeing served with this document on March 27, 2024 by way of the primary email address that said\n\ncounsel supplied to the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system.\n\n\n                                            /s/ Tierra Mendiola\n\n\n\n\n                                               5\n#420651v1\n\fCase 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-14   Filed 04/03/24   Page 9 of 30\n\n\n\n\n                         EXHIBIT N-2\n\f  Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA        Document 182-14   Filed 04/03/24   Page 10 of 30\n\n\n\n\n                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                        FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                 WACO DIVISION\n\n\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC,\n\n      Plaintiff,                            Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-00050-ADA\n\n              - vs. -                       Jury Trial Demanded\n\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc.;\nRhodium Technologies LLC;\nRhodium 10mw LLC;\nRhodium 2.0 LLC;\nRhodium 30mw LLC;\nRhodium Encore LLC;\nRhodium Renewables LLC;\n\n      Defendants.\n\n\n                        PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION IN LIMINE NO.__\n  TO EXCLUDE HEARSAY TESTIMONY REGARDING CFD SIMULATIONS\n\f   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA             Document 182-14         Filed 04/03/24       Page 11 of 30\n\n\n\n\n          I.   INTRODUCTION\n\n       Rhodium\u2019s non-infringement expert, Dr. Ortega, relied on a Computation Fluid\n\nDynamics (\u201cCFD\u201d) simulation performed by a graduate student Victor Martinez. This CFD\n\nsimulation has never been produced. The inputs into the CFD simulation have never been\n\nproduced. Martinez\u2019s resume has never been produced. No communications between Dr. Ortega\n\nand Martinez have been produced. What was modeled in the simulation is unknown. Dr. Ortega\n\ntestified that he believes that the CFD should have modeled Rhodium\u2019s CAD drawings of its\n\ntanks. But there is no evidence to confirm this beyond Dr. Ortega\u2019s testimony regarding\n\nMartinez\u2019s out of court assertions.\n\n       Dr. Ortega references the CFD simulation repeatedly throughout his Report, as well as in\n\nhis deposition. His attorneys had Martinez extract a limited output file from the full CFD\n\nsimulation, and his attorneys sent the output file to Dr. Ortega, as well as produced it to Midas.\n\nAs the output file is just a small extraction from the full simulation, it too is hearsay.\n\n         II.   STATEMENT OF LAW\n\n       Federal Rule of Evidence 801 prohibits evidence of out of court statements submitted for\n\nthe truth of the matter asserted. \u201c[T]he analyses and testimony of experts not called at trial\n\nshould be excluded. These statements are hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence (\"FRE\") 801.\u201d\n\nFractus, S.A. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 2019 WL 4805910, *10 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 30, 2019). Federal\n\nRule of Evidence 703 allows experts to reasonably rely on certain hearsay documents, such as\n\ntext books or peer reviewed studies, to form the basis for their opinions. However, Rule 703 only\n\npermits the proponent of an expert's opinion to disclose the underlying material to a jury if\n\n\"experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on\" the underlying material and \"if [the\n\nunderlying material's] probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially\n\n\n\n\n                                                   1\n#420670v1\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-14          Filed 04/03/24      Page 12 of 30\n\n\n\n\noutweighs [its] prejudicial effect.\" Wi-Lan Inc. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 992 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed.\n\nCir. 2021); citing Fed. R. Evid. 703. 1 An analysis prepare specifically for litigation is not a\n\ndocument upon which experts normally rely. Instead, it is hearsay to which an exception does\n\nnot apply.\n\n        III.   ANALYSIS\n\n                   A. Martinez\u2019s CFD Analysis is Hearsay and Should Be Excluded\n\n       Rhodium is attempting to circumvent the rules of evidence by trying to introduce\n\nevidence of the CFD simulation that was not properly disclosed or introduced in this case. Dr.\n\nOrtega\u2019s expert report relies on Martinez\u2019s hearsay CFD analysis to formulate several opinions.\n\nThis is per se improper because this hearsay document does not meet any of the exceptions or\n\nexclusions of the Federal Rules of Evidence Section 801 et seq. Reliance on documents prepared\n\nsolely in anticipation of litigation is improper. see Soden v. Freightliner Corporation, 714 F.2d\n\n498, 503-05 (5th Cir. 1983) (affirming exclusion of opinion testimony based on accident\n\nstatistics prepared strictly in anticipation of litigation by a sister company, memorialized only in\n\nan informal letter, without any indication of the method for deriving the statistics; opposing party\n\nhad introduced evidence casting serious doubt on exactly what the statistics represented, and the\n\nparty proffering the statistics-based testimony failed to provide the opposing party with the\n\nstatistical information until trial despite repeated discovery requests; expert had not even\n\nexamined the statistics himself, but instead relied on a summary); see also United States v. Tran\n\n\n1\n  \u201cRule 703 does not make admissible otherwise inadmissible evidence.\" 4 Weinstein's Federal\nEvidence \u00a7 703.05 n.12. That is because \"Rule 703 is not, itself, an exception to or exclusion\nfrom the hearsay rule or any other evidence rule that makes the underlying information\ninadmissible.\" Id. \u00a7 703.05. Rule 703 does not authorize admitting inadmissible evidence \"on the\npretense that it is the basis for expert opinion when, in fact, the expert adds nothing to the\n[inadmissible evidence] other than transmitting [it] to the jury.\" 29 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur\nR. Miller & Victor J. Gold, Federal Practice and Procedure \u00a7 6274 (2d ed. 2020). Wi-Lan Inc. v.\nSharp Elecs. Corp., 992 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2021).\n\n\n                                                  2\n#420670v1\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-14          Filed 04/03/24      Page 13 of 30\n\n\n\n\nTrong Cuong, 18 F.3d 1132, 1143 (4th Cir. 1994) (\"reports specifically prepared for purposes of\n\nlitigation are not, by definition, of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular\n\nfield.\").\n\n        Martinez\u2019s full CFD simulation is hearsay, as well as the output file extracted from it.\n\nThe evidence was created solely in anticipation of litigation. Further, there is absolutely no\n\nindiciation of reliability beyond the recitation of Martinez\u2019s out of court statements during Dr.\n\nOrtega\u2019s testimony. This should not be admissible to form the basis of Dr. Ortega\u2019s opinions.\n\nFurther, CFD simulations and the output file should not be admissible for any other purpose,\n\nincluding impeachment.\n\n            IV.   CONCLUSION\n\n        Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801, Midas respectfully requests that the Court\n\npreclude Rhodium and its experts from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument regarding\n\nany CFD simulation or results therefrom.\n\n\n\n DATED: March 27, 2024                                Respectfully Submitted,\n\n                                                      /s/ Joseph E. Thomas\n\n                                                      Joseph E. Thomas (admitted p.h.v.)\n                                                      William J. Kolegraff (admitted p.h.v.)\n                                                      Grant J. Thomas (admitted p.h.v.)\n                                                      THOMAS WHITELAW & KOLEGRAFF LLP\n                                                      18101 Von Karman Ave., Suite 230\n                                                      Irvine, CA 92612\n                                                      949-679-6400\n                                                      jthomas@twtlaw.com\n                                                      bkolegraff@twtlaw.com\n                                                      gthomas@twtlaw.com\n                                                      Attorneys for Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies\n                                                      LLC\n\n\n\n\n                                                  3\n#420670v1\n\f   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 182-14        Filed 04/03/24     Page 14 of 30\n\n\n\n\n                            CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE\n\n       The parties held a meet and confer on March 27, 2024 and Defendants plan to oppose this\n\nmotion.\n\n\n                                         By /s/ Joseph E. Thomas\n                                            Joseph E. Thomas\n\n                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n       I hereby certify that counsel of record who have appeared electronically in this case are\n\nbeing served with this document on March 27, 2024 by way of the primary email address that said\n\ncounsel supplied to the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system.\n\n\n                                            /s/ Tierra Mendiola\n\n\n\n\n                                               4\n#420670v1\n\fCase 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-14   Filed 04/03/24   Page 15 of 30\n\n\n\n\n                          EXHIBIT N-3\n\f  Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA        Document 182-14   Filed 04/03/24   Page 16 of 30\n\n\n\n\n                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                        FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                 WACO DIVISION\n\n\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC,\n\n      Plaintiff,                            Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-00050-ADA\n\n              - vs. -                       Jury Trial Demanded\n\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc.;\nRhodium Technologies LLC;\nRhodium 10mw LLC;\nRhodium 2.0 LLC;\nRhodium 30mw LLC;\nRhodium Encore LLC;\nRhodium Renewables LLC;\n\n      Defendants.\n\n\n                         PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION IN LIMINE NO.\n\n              TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF ADVICE OF COUNSEL\n\f   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA             Document 182-14       Filed 04/03/24      Page 17 of 30\n\n\n\n\n          I.    INTRODUCTION\n\n        Rhodium has never asserted any advice-of-counsel defense, so they cannot use that as a\n\nreason for not attempting any design-arounds, or as a defense against their willful infringement.\n\nRhodium has not presented any evidence it relied on counsel for its belief that it did not infringe\n\nthe patents or that the patents are invalid.\n\n         II.    STATEMENT OF LAW\n\n        Opinions of counsel may be helpful for an accused infringer to show it believed its\n\nactions were not infringing. Varta Microbattery GmbH v. Audio Partnership LLC, 2023 U.S.\n\nDist. LEXIS 148400, *5-7 (E.D. Tex Aug. 22, 2023). Thus, before considering \"the exculpatory\n\nvalue of an opinion of counsel, the legal advice contained therein must be found on the totality of\n\nthe circumstances to be competent such that the client was reasonable in relying upon it.\"\n\nComark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1191 (Fed. Cir. 1998). \"[W]hen\n\nan alleged infringer asserts its advice-of-counsel defense regarding willful infringement of a\n\nparticular patent, it waives its immunity for any document or opinion that embodies or discusses\n\na communication to or from it concerning whether that patent is valid, enforceable, and infringed\n\nby the accused [product].\" In Re EchoStar Communication Corporation, 448 F.3d 1294,1304\n\n(Fed. Cir. 2006).\n\n        III.    ARGUMENT\n\n            A. Rhodium Has Not Produced Evidence Rhodium Acted on Advice as Counsel\n\n        Rhodium has not presented any evidence that it relied on advice of counsel when it\n\ncontinued to make allegedly infringing systems after this lawsuit was filed. Rhodium did not\n\nplead that it relied on advice of counsel in its answer to the Third Amended Complaint. Rhodium\n\ndid not disclose it intended to rely on an advice of counsel defense in its Rule 26 disclosures.\n\n\n                                                 1\n#420688v1\n\f   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 182-14          Filed 04/03/24     Page 18 of 30\n\n\n\n\nRhodium\u2019s witnesses never disclosed that they relied on advice of counsel when determining\n\nwhether or not Rhodium infringed the \u2018457 Patent. As a result, Rhodium has never asserted any\n\nadvice of counsel for any purpose. As such, Midas respectfully requests that the Court limit any\n\nintroduction of evidence or testimony at trial that Rhodium relied on advice of counsel.\n\n       IV.     CONCLUSION\n\n       Midas respectfully requests that the Court preclude Rhodium and its experts from\n\nintroducing evidence, testimony, or argument regarding any advice-of-counsel defense.\n\n DATED: March 27, 2024                              Respectfully Submitted,\n\n                                                    /s/ Joseph E. Thomas\n\n                                                    Joseph E. Thomas (admitted p.h.v.)\n                                                    William J. Kolegraff (admitted p.h.v.)\n                                                    Grant J. Thomas (admitted p.h.v.)\n                                                    THOMAS WHITELAW & KOLEGRAFF LLP\n                                                    18101 Von Karman Ave., Suite 230\n                                                    Irvine, CA 92612\n                                                    949-679-6400\n                                                    jthomas@twtlaw.com\n                                                    bkolegraff@twtlaw.com\n                                                    gthomas@twtlaw.com\n                                                    Attorneys for Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies\n                                                    LLC\n\n\n\n\n                                                2\n#420688v1\n\f   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 182-14        Filed 04/03/24     Page 19 of 30\n\n\n\n\n                            CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE\n\n       The parties held a meet and confer on March 27, 2024 and Defendants plan to oppose this\n\nmotion.\n\n\n                                         By /s/ Joseph E. Thomas\n                                            Joseph E. Thomas\n\n                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n       I hereby certify that counsel of record who have appeared electronically in this case are\n\nbeing served with this document on March 27, 2024 by way of the primary email address that said\n\ncounsel supplied to the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system.\n\n\n                                            /s/ Tierra Mendiola\n\n\n\n\n                                               3\n#420688v1\n\fCase 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-14   Filed 04/03/24   Page 20 of 30\n\n\n\n\n                         EXHIBIT N-4\n\f  Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA        Document 182-14   Filed 04/03/24   Page 21 of 30\n\n\n\n\n                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                        FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                 WACO DIVISION\n\n\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC,\n\n      Plaintiff,                            Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-00050-ADA\n\n              - vs. -                       Jury Trial Demanded\n\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc.;\nRhodium Technologies LLC;\nRhodium 10mw LLC;\nRhodium 2.0 LLC;\nRhodium 30mw LLC;\nRhodium Encore LLC;\nRhodium Renewables LLC;\n\n      Defendants.\n\n\n                        PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION IN LIMINE NO.__\n\n                   TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF A DESIGN-AROUND\n\f    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-14         Filed 04/03/24        Page 22 of 30\n\n\n\n\n          I.       INTRODUCTION\n\n        In making, using, and installing its infringing immersion systems, Rhodium never even\n\nattempted to design around the \u2018457 Patent. This fact was confirmed by Rhodium\u2019s CEO, Chase\n\nBlackmon, and by Rhodium\u2019s invalidity expert, Dr. Ortega. Now, despite all this, in his Report\n\nDr. Ortega makes the unsupportable assertion that easy design-arounds were available to\n\nRhodium at the time of their infringement, and these phantom design-arounds act as a non-\n\ninfringing market substitute to defeat Midas\u2019 lost profits request. These suggested examples of\n\ndesign-arounds were not even Dr. Ortega\u2019s, they were given to him by his counsel, and Dr.\n\nOrtega did no evaluation as to their viability. Dr. Ortega\u2019s report is the first time that Midas\n\nlearned that Rhodium was using design-arounds as a defense.\n\n         II.       ARGUMENT\n\n            A. Rhodium Has Not Produced Evidence of any Design Around the \u2018457 Patent\n\n        During the Deposition of Chase Blackmon in his capacity as 30(b)(6), Mr. Blackmon\n\ntestified that he was not aware of any attempts that Rhodium made to design around the patent.\n\n(Ex. A, Blackmon Dep. 15:5-9 & 237:14-19).\n\nQ. You have been designated to testify on behalf of topic 20, any efforts by Rhodium to design\n    around the asserted patents at any of the three facilities. Is that correct?\nA. I believe so.\nQ. Are you aware of any efforts by Rhodium to design around the asserted patents by Midas?\nA. I am not aware of any attempts by Rhodium to \u2013\n            B. The Design-Around Suggestions Came From Counsel\n\n        In his invalidity report, Dr. Ortega lists out several modifications to the Rhodium\n\ninstallations that he would consider available design-arounds to the \u2018457 Patent. However, these\n\nsuggested examples did not come from Rhodium, they came from Rhodium\u2019s attorneys. Dr.\n\nOrtega did no analysis to assess cost or viability for the suggested examples.\n\n\n                                                  1\n#420665v1\n\f   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-14         Filed 04/03/24      Page 23 of 30\n\n\n\n\nFirst Example Suggested by Counsel (Ex. B, Ortega Dep. 202:3-203:2)\n\n    Q. What is your basis for saying that this could go on the short wall. Did someone at\n       Rhodium tell you that? Did your counsel tell you that? Is that something you read? Did\n       you design it yourself? I just want to understand what your basis is for saying that\n       putting the weir on the short wall was an alternative.\n    A. So in discussion with counsel, counsel clearly explained to me what noninfringing\n       alternatives were and may have suggested examples.\n    Q. So the idea of putting the weir on the short wall was a suggestion that came from\n       counsel?\n    A. It may have been. I don't recall exactly. It was -- it may have been part of a conversation\n       in which we were talking about noninfringing alternatives.\n    Q. Did you ever evaluate the cost of doing that change?\n    A. No.\n    Q. Did you ever evaluate the effectiveness in cooling by doing that change?\n    A. I did think about the effectiveness of the flow traversing the long direction of the tank,\n       and I did give some thought to its effectiveness.\n    Q. Is that in your report?\n    A. No.\n\nSecond Example Suggested by Counsel (Ex. B, Ortega Dep. 203:14-204:10)\n\n    Q. It says, It could also or alternatively having given the weir an uneven height so that there\n       would not be substantially uniform recovery of the dielectric fluid. Again, same question:\n       What is the basis for that statement?\n    A. Again, it might have been in a discussion with counsel over examples of noncompeting\n       alternatives.\n    Q. Did you evaluate the cost of doing that?\n    A. No.\n    Q. Did you evaluate the cooling effectiveness if you did such a change?\n    A. No.\nThird Example Suggested by Counsel ((Ex. B, Ortega Dep. 205:9-205:24)\n\n    Q. It could also, or alternatively, removed the coarse filter holes from the portions of the\n       weir adjacent some but all -- not all of the appliance slots.\n    A. Yes.\n    Q. Again, was that -- is the basis having spoken to clients -- to counsel?\n    A. It was probably from a meeting with counsel discussing examples of noncompeting\n       alternatives.\n    Q. Did you do any evaluation of the cost of doing that?\n    A. No.\n    Q. Did you do any evaluation of the cooling effectiveness if you made that change?\n    A. No.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 2\n#420665v1\n\f   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 182-14             Filed 04/03/24     Page 24 of 30\n\n\n\n\n       Rhodium has never designed around the \u2018457 Patent. Rhodium did not offer evidence of\n\ndesign-arounds. Counsel suggested design-arounds to Dr. Ortega, and he listed them in his\n\nreport, but he did no analysis as costs, effectiveness, or viability of any suggestion. As a result,\n\nMidas is facing the unfair prospect of having to defend against phantom design-arounds with no\n\ninformation about them. Midas is highly prejudiced as Rhodium is using the suggested design-\n\narounds as a basis to defeat Midas\u2019s lost profits.\n\n\n        III.   CONCLUSION\n\n       Midas respectfully requests that the Court preclude Rhodium and its experts from\n\nintroducing evidence, testimony, or argument regarding any design-arounds to the \u2018457 Patent.\n\n\n\n DATED: March 27, 2024                                   Respectfully Submitted,\n\n                                                         /s/ Joseph E. Thomas\n\n                                                         Joseph E. Thomas (admitted p.h.v.)\n                                                         William J. Kolegraff (admitted p.h.v.)\n                                                         Grant J. Thomas (admitted p.h.v.)\n                                                         THOMAS WHITELAW & KOLEGRAFF LLP\n                                                         18101 Von Karman Ave., Suite 230\n                                                         Irvine, CA 92612\n                                                         949-679-6400\n                                                         jthomas@twtlaw.com\n                                                         bkolegraff@twtlaw.com\n                                                         gthomas@twtlaw.com\n                                                         Attorneys for Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies\n                                                         LLC\n\n\n\n\n                                                     3\n#420665v1\n\f   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 182-14        Filed 04/03/24     Page 25 of 30\n\n\n\n\n                            CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE\n\n       The parties held a meet and confer on March 27, 2024 and Defendants plan to oppose this\n\nmotion.\n\n\n                                         By /s/ Joseph E. Thomas\n                                            Joseph E. Thomas\n\n                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n       I hereby certify that counsel of record who have appeared electronically in this case are\n\nbeing served with this document on March 27, 2024 by way of the primary email address that said\n\ncounsel supplied to the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system.\n\n\n                                            /s/ Tierra Mendiola\n\n\n\n\n                                               4\n#420665v1\n\fCase 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-14   Filed 04/03/24   Page 26 of 30\n\n\n\n\n                         EXHIBIT N-5\n\f  Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA        Document 182-14   Filed 04/03/24   Page 27 of 30\n\n\n\n\n                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                        FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                 WACO DIVISION\n\n\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC,\n\n      Plaintiff,                            Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-00050-ADA\n\n              - vs. -                       Jury Trial Demanded\n\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc.;\nRhodium Technologies LLC;\nRhodium 10mw LLC;\nRhodium 2.0 LLC;\nRhodium 30mw LLC;\nRhodium Encore LLC;\nRhodium Renewables LLC;\n\n      Defendants.\n\n\n                        PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 23\n\nTO EXCLUDE OPINIONS ON WRITTEN DESCRIPTION AND ENABLEMENT\n\f   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-14         Filed 04/03/24      Page 28 of 30\n\n\n\n\n            I.   INTRODUCTION\n\n        Pursuant to the Court\u2019s standing MIL 23, Midas hereby moves this Court to exclude Dr.\n\nOrtega from rendering opinions regarding written description and enablement.\n\n        Court MIL No. 23: No expert witness may testify to expert opinions outside the\n\nestablished parameters of her/his expert report, and counsel shall not raise such an\n\nobjection for strategic or other non-meritorious purposes. (OGP Version 4.4 at 24)\n\n        Dr. Ortega\u2019s expert report plainly stated that he has not been asked to provide opinions on\n\nwritten description or enablement. Midas respectfully requests that the Court exclude any\n\nopinions on written description and enablement based on Dr. Ortega\u2019s assertion.\n\n         II.     STATEMENT OF LAW\n\n        Under Rule 26(a)(2), a party must disclose, as directed by the court, its expert witnesses\n\nand a report that \"contain[s] a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis\n\nand reasons therefor.\" O2 Micro Int'l, Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., 467 F.3d 1355, 1368-1369\n\n(Fed. Cir. 2006). If a theory was not disclosed in these expert reports, as required by Fed. R. Civ.\n\nP. 26(a)(2), the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. P.\n\n37(c)(1).\n\n        III.     ARGUMENT\n\n        In Dr. Ortega\u2019s Expert Report on Invalidity Dr. Ortega states:\n\n        \u201cI have not been asked to provide an opinion on the ultimate question of whether the\n\nAsserted Claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid for failure to provide an adequate written\n\ndescription or for lack of enablement. I have been asked to provide opinions about the patents\u2019\n\ndisclosures that are relevant to these determinations.\u201d(Ex. A, Expert Report of A. Ortega at\n\n411).\n\n\n\n\n                                                 1\n\f   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 182-14         Filed 04/03/24     Page 29 of 30\n\n\n\n\n       At Deposition Dr. Ortega confirmed he has no opinion on written description and\n\nenablement.\n\n    Q. I want to be sure I\u2019m very clear on this. So you\u2019re not giving an opinion on the ultimate\n\n       question of whether the asserted claims of the asserted patents are invalid for failure to\n\n       provide adequate written description; is that correct?...\n\n   A. That\u2019s right.\u201d (Ex. B, Ortega Dep. at 55:24-56:9).\n\n       Dr. Ortega\u2019s Invalidity Report has no opinion finding the \u2018457 Patent invalid due to\n\nfailure to meet the written description and enablement requirements of \u00a7112. As a result, Dr.\n\nOrtega cannot give any such opinion at trial.\n\n       IV.     CONCLUSION\n\n       Midas respectfully requests that the Court preclude Rhodium and its experts from\n\nintroducing evidence, testimony, or argument regarding the written description and enablement\n\ndefenses.\n\n DATED: March 27, 2024                              Respectfully Submitted,\n\n                                                    /s/ Joseph E. Thomas\n\n                                                    Joseph E. Thomas (admitted p.h.v.)\n                                                    William J. Kolegraff (admitted p.h.v.)\n                                                    Grant J. Thomas (admitted p.h.v.)\n                                                    THOMAS WHITELAW & KOLEGRAFF LLP\n                                                    18101 Von Karman Ave., Suite 230\n                                                    Irvine, CA 92612\n                                                    949-679-6400\n                                                    jthomas@twtlaw.com\n                                                    bkolegraff@twtlaw.com\n                                                    gthomas@twtlaw.com\n                                                    Attorneys for Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies\n                                                    LLC\n\n\n\n\n                                                2\n\f   Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 182-14        Filed 04/03/24     Page 30 of 30\n\n\n\n\n                            CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE\n\n       The parties held a meet and confer on March 27, 2024 and Defendants plan to oppose this\n\nmotion.\n\n\n                                         By /s/ Joseph E. Thomas\n                                            Joseph E. Thomas\n\n\n\n                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n       I hereby certify that counsel of record who have appeared electronically in this case are\n\nbeing served with this document on March 27, 2024 by way of the primary email address that said\n\ncounsel supplied to the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system.\n\n\n                                            /s/ Tierra Mendiola\n\n\n\n\n                                               3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T11:49:46.977409-08:00","document_number":"182","attachment_number":14,"pacer_doc_id":"181031929095","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit N","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/427868698/","id":427868698,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/182/15/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2025-01-22T10:50:32.661623-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-23T02:51:32.272687-08:00","sha1":"61dfb297d50d48039a92a4e9e19a2706273ef311","page_count":6,"file_size":279771,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.15.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.182.15.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 182-15   Filed 04/03/24   Page 1 of 6\n\n\n\n\n                    EXHIBIT O\n              DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN\n                   LIMINE NO. 1\n\f    Case\n       Case\n         6:22-cv-00050-ADA\n            6:22-cv-00050-ADADocument\n                              Document182-15\n                                        172 Filed\n                                               Filed\n                                                   03/27/24\n                                                     04/03/24Page\n                                                                Page\n                                                                  1 of25of 6\n\n\n\n\n                   IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                    FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                              WACO DIVISION\n\n\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC,         )\n                                       )\n                           Plaintiff,  )\n                                       )\n      v.                               ) Civil Action No. 6:22-CV-00050-ADA\n                                       )\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc.;             )\nRhodium Technologies LLC;              )\nRhodium 10MW LLC;                      ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\nRhodium 2.0 LLC;                       )\nRhodium 30MW LLC;                      )\nRhodium Encore LLC;                    )\nRhodium Renewables LLC;                )\nRhodium Renewables Sub LLC; and        )\nRhodium Ready Ventures LLC.            )\n                                       )\n                           Defendants. )\n_______________________________________)\n\n\n\n    DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCES TO\n              \u201cINFRINGEMENT\u201d BY IMMERSION SYSTEMS\n\f     Case\n        Case\n          6:22-cv-00050-ADA\n             6:22-cv-00050-ADADocument\n                               Document182-15\n                                         172 Filed\n                                                Filed\n                                                    03/27/24\n                                                      04/03/24Page\n                                                                 Page\n                                                                   2 of35of 6\n\n\n\n\n       Defendants Rhodium Enterprises, Inc., Rhodium Technologies LLC, Rhodium 10MW\n\nLLC, Rhodium 2.0 LLC, Rhodium 30MW LLC, Rhodium Encore LLC, Rhodium Renewables\n\nLLC, Rhodium Renewables Sub LLC, and Rhodium Ready Ventures LLC (\u201cRhodium\u201d) move in\n\nlimine to exclude any references to \u201cinfringement\u201d of any Midas patent, including the asserted\n\n\u2019457 Patent by Immersion Systems LLC (\u201cImmersion Systems\u201d). Midas contends and plans to tell\n\nthe jury that Rhodium\u2019s infringement was willful because Immersion Systems, a prior company\n\nrun by certain Rhodium principals, also infringed. But although Midas previously filed suit against\n\nImmersion Systems, there was never any finding of infringement. Nor will Midas be able to prove\n\nthat Immersion Systems infringed in this trial. Accordingly, the Court should preclude Midas from\n\nstating or suggesting that Immersion Systems \u201cinfringed\u201d the \u2019457 Patent or any other Midas patent\n\npursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403.1\n\n       1.      Midas makes the following allegations: Immersion Systems was founded by Chase\n\nBlackmon, Cameron Blackmon, and Nathan Nichols in 2018 to develop and sell liquid immersion\n\ncooling systems for use in Bitcoin mining. Dkt. 106 (\u201cTAC\u201d) \u00b6 43. On February 7, 2020, Midas\n\nsent Immersion Systems a letter alleging infringement. Id. \u00b6 50. On May 29, 2020, Midas sued\n\nImmersion Systems for infringing the \u2019457 Patent in the Northern District of Texas. Id. \u00b6 51; Midas\n\nGreen Technologies, LLC v. Immersion Systems LLC, N.D. Tex. Case No. 4:20-cv-00555-O.\n\n       On March 5, 2022, Midas voluntarily dismissed that litigation with prejudice. N.D. Tex.\n\nCase No. 4:20-cv-00555-O, Dkt. 96. At no point prior to dismissal did the Court or jury find\n\ninfringement of any claim of any Midas patent.\n\n\n\n1\n To be clear: Rhodium does not argue that Midas may not use its correspondence with Immersion\nSystems in an attempt to demonstrate that certain Rhodium principals were aware of the \u2019457\nPatent. Rhodium\u2019s argument is only that Midas may not argue or suggest to the jury that Immersion\nSystems infringed that patent, or that there has been a finding to that effect.\n\n                                                 1\n\f     Case\n        Case\n          6:22-cv-00050-ADA\n             6:22-cv-00050-ADADocument\n                               Document182-15\n                                         172 Filed\n                                                Filed\n                                                    03/27/24\n                                                      04/03/24Page\n                                                                 Page\n                                                                   3 of45of 6\n\n\n\n\n        2.      Although there has never been a finding that Immersion Systems infringed Midas\u2019s\n\npatents, it is clear that Midas seeks to prove that any infringement here was willful by telling the\n\njury (a) that Immersion Systems was aware of the Patent, (b) that Immersion Systems infringed\n\nthe Patent, and (c) that Immersion Systems\u2019 principals brought infringing designs from Immersion\n\nSystems to Rhodium. TAC \u00b6 52 (alleging that Immersion Systems was closed because its\n\nprincipals \u201cknew that their particular immersion cooling systems infringed the \u2019457 Patent\u201d); Dkt.\n\n164 at 3\u20134.\n\n        The Court should not let Midas make the prejudicial and incorrect statement or insinuation\n\nthat Immersion Systems was found to infringe any of Midas\u2019s patents. It would be extraordinarily\n\nand unfairly prejudicial to permit Midas to tell the jury about a supposed liability determination\n\nthat does not exist.\n\n        3.      Moreover, Midas should be barred from arguing that the evidence in this trial will\n\nshow that Immersion Systems infringed. While Midas said in an interrogatory response that it\n\nplanned to offer an expert on willfulness, it chose not to do so (and it is too late now). It did not\n\ndisclose any expert on the operation of Immersion Systems\u2019 technology, and will not be able to\n\nprove infringement of each limitation on the record it has made. What\u2019s more, any attempt to prove\n\nImmersion Systems\u2019 infringement would take hours of jury time. The Court should not permit\n\nMidas to sidetrack the trial with extensive litigation of the ancillary issue of whether a non-party\n\ninfringed its patents, especially because Midas will not be able to prove that infringement. Fed. R.\n\nEvid. 403.\n\n                                          *      *       *\n\n        The Court should preclude Midas from arguing that Immersion Systems\u2019 products\n\ninfringed any of Midas\u2019s patents.\n\n\n\n                                                 2\n\f    Case\n       Case\n         6:22-cv-00050-ADA\n            6:22-cv-00050-ADADocument\n                              Document182-15\n                                        172 Filed\n                                               Filed\n                                                   03/27/24\n                                                     04/03/24Page\n                                                                Page\n                                                                  4 of55of 6\n\n\n\n\nDATED: March 27, 2024                   Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n\n                                        /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n                                        Melissa R. Smith\n                                        Texas Bar No. 24001351\n                                        GILLAM & SMITH, LLP\n                                        303 South Washington Avenue\n                                        Marshall, Texas 75670\n                                        Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n                                        Facsimile: (903) 934-9257\n                                        melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com\n                                        J. Travis Underwood\n                                        Texas Bar No. 24102587\n                                        GILLAM & SMITH, LLP\n                                        102 North College Avenue, Suite 800\n                                        Marshall, Texas 75670\n                                        Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n                                        Facsimile: (903) 934-9257\n                                        travis@gillamsmithlaw.com\n\n                                        Elizabeth R. Brannen\n                                        Kenneth J. Halpern (Pro Hac Vice)\n                                        Peter J. Brody (Pro Hac Vice)\n                                        Sarah Rahimi (Pro Hac Vice)\n                                        STRIS & MAHER LLP\n                                        777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3850\n                                        Los Angeles, California 90017\n                                        Telephone: (213) 995-6800\n                                        Facsimile: (213) 216-0299\n                                        ebrannen@stris.com\n                                        khalpern@stris.com\n                                        pbrody@stris.com\n                                        srahimi@stris.com\n\n\n                                        Attorneys for Rhodium Defendants\n\n\n\n\n                                       3\n\f     Case\n        Case\n          6:22-cv-00050-ADA\n             6:22-cv-00050-ADADocument\n                               Document182-15\n                                         172 Filed\n                                                Filed\n                                                    03/27/24\n                                                      04/03/24Page\n                                                                 Page\n                                                                   5 of65of 6\n\n\n\n\n                                  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n          The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented\n\nto electronic service are being served today, March 27, 2024, with a copy of this document via the\n\nCourt\u2019s CM/ECF system.\n\n\n                                                     /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n\n\n\n                                  CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE\n\n          On March 27, 2024, counsel for Defendants conferred with opposing counsel concerning\n\nthe relief sought in this Motion, and was advised that opposing counsel opposed the relief sought\n\nherein.\n\n\n\n\n                                                     /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n\n\n\n\n                                                 4\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T11:49:47.751368-08:00","document_number":"182","attachment_number":15,"pacer_doc_id":"181031929096","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit O","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-04-03T22:20:02.945904-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:02.821481-08:00","date_filed":"2024-04-03","time_filed":"23:19:59","entry_number":182,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-04-03.004","pacer_sequence_number":838,"description":"PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by Midas Green Technologies, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O)(Thomas, Joseph) (Entered: 04/03/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/383055679/","id":383055679,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/390907925/","id":390907925,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/181/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-04-03T18:13:29.716934-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:02.722647-08:00","sha1":"aa53ddcc8ce486866871d339c46fa43771f3e83d","page_count":3,"file_size":139821,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.181.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.181.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"      Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 181      Filed 04/03/24     Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                          FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                   WACO DIVISION\n\n\n Midas Green Technologies, LLC,\n\n        Plaintiff,                                Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-00050-ADA\n\n                - vs. -                           Jury Trial Demanded\n\n Rhodium Enterprises, Inc.;\n Rhodium Technologies LLC;\n Rhodium 10mw LLC;\n Rhodium 2.0 LLC;\n Rhodium 30mw LLC;\n Rhodium Encore LLC;\n Rhodium Renewables LLC;\n\n        Defendants.\n\n\n                                 NOTICE OF REQUEST\n             FOR DAILY TRANCRIPTS AND REAL TIME REPORTING\n\n\n\nPLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies, LLC hereby\n\nrequests daily transcripts and real time reporting of the court proceedings during the trial\n\nin this action, scheduled to commence on April 22, 2024. A copy of this request is also\n\nbeing emailed to the Court Reporter, Kristie Davis at kmdaviscsr@yahoo.com\n\n\n\n DATED: April 3, 2024                                     Respectfully submitted,\n                                                          /s/ Joseph E. Thomas\n\n\n                                                          Joseph E. Thomas (admitted p.h.v.)\n                                                          William J. Kolegraff (admitted p.h.v.)\n                                                          Grant J. Thomas (admitted p.h.v.)\n                                                          THOMAS WHITELAW & KOLEGRAFF\n                                                          LLP\n\n\n                                              1\n#415307v1\n\f     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 181   Filed 04/03/24    Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\n                                               18101 Von Karman Ave., Suite 230\n                                               Irvine, California 92612\n                                               Telephone: (949) 679-6400\n                                               Fax: (949) 679-6405\n                                               jthomas@twtlaw.com\n                                               bkolegraff@twtlaw.com\n                                               gthomas@twtlaw.com\n\n                                               Michael C. Smith\n                                               Texas Bar No. 18650410\n                                               michael.smith@solidcounsel.com\n                                               Scheef & Stone, LLP\n                                               113 E. Austin Street\n                                               Marshall, TX 75670\n                                               (903) 938-8900\n\n                                               Attorneys for Plaintiff Midas Green\n                                               Technologies, LLC\n\n\n\n\n                                    2\n#415307v1\n\f      Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 181        Filed 04/03/24     Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n       I hereby certify that counsel of record who have appeared electronically in this case are\n\nbeing served with this document on April 3, 2024 by way of the primary email address that said\n\ncounsel supplied to the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system.\n\n\n                                            /s/ Tierra Mendiola\n\n\n\n\n                                               3\n#415307v1\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T10:52:56.904416-08:00","document_number":"181","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181031928867","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice (Other)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-04-03T18:13:29.702606-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:02.638004-08:00","date_filed":"2024-04-03","time_filed":"19:11:58","entry_number":181,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-04-03.003","pacer_sequence_number":836,"description":"NOTICE of Request for Daily Transcripts and Real Time at Trial by Midas Green Technologies, LLC (Thomas, Joseph) (Entered: 04/03/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/383048780/","id":383048780,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/390899274/","id":390899274,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/180/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-04-03T17:16:40.791084-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:02.484931-08:00","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":"180","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181031928860","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Sealed Document","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-04-03T17:16:40.767642-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:02.395163-08:00","date_filed":"2024-04-03","time_filed":"19:10:30","entry_number":180,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-04-03.002","pacer_sequence_number":833,"description":"Sealed Document: Plaintiff's Opposition of 172 MOTION in Limine NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCES TO INFRINGEMENT BY IMMERSION SYSTEMS by Midas Green Technologies, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Proposed Order) (Thomas, Joseph) (Entered: 04/03/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/383033862/","id":383033862,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/390880919/","id":390880919,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/179/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-04-03T15:07:58.190814-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:02.331338-08:00","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":"179","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181031927488","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Sealed Document","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-04-03T15:07:58.175488-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:02.260377-08:00","date_filed":"2024-04-03","time_filed":"16:34:19","entry_number":179,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-04-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":826,"description":"Sealed Document: OPPOSITION of 174 Sealed Motion In Limine No. 23 To Exclude Opinions on Written Description and Enablement by Midas Green Technologies, LLC, 175 Sealed Motion In Limine No. _ To Exclude Evidence of a Design-Around by Midas Green Technologies, LLC, 176 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Hearsay Testimony, 173 Sealed Motion In Limine No. 4 Regarding Obviousness by Midas Green Technologies, LLC, 177 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Evidence of Advice of Counsel by Rhodium 10mw LLC, Rhodium 2.0 LLC, Rhodium 30mw LLC, Rhodium Encore LLC, Rhodium Enterprises, Inc., Rhodium Ready Ventures LLC, Rhodium Renewables LLC, Rhodium Renewables Sub LLC, Rhodium Technologies, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit P. Brody, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Proposed Order) (Smith, Melissa) (Entered: 04/03/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/382878294/","id":382878294,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/390703932/","id":390703932,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/178/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-04-02T13:24:55.960150-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:02.188952-08:00","sha1":"fa4fc550081b33f40b0443e760d711aea20e038b","page_count":3,"file_size":205684,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.178.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.178.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"       Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA           Document 178        Filed 04/02/24      Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n                       IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                        FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                  WACO DIVISION\n\n\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC,         )\n                                       )\n                           Plaintiff,  )\n                                       )\n      v.                               ) Civil Action No. 6:22-CV-00050-ADA\n                                       )\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc.;             )\nRhodium Technologies LLC;              )\nRhodium 10MW LLC;                      ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\nRhodium 2.0 LLC;                       )\nRhodium 30MW LLC;                      )\nRhodium Encore LLC;                    )\nRhodium Renewables LLC;                )\nRhodium Renewables Sub LLC; and        )\nRhodium Ready Ventures LLC,            )\n                                       )\n                           Defendants. )\n_______________________________________)\n\n                            NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR\n                  DAILY TRANSCRIPTS AND REAL TIME REPORTING\n\n       COME NOW, Defendants Rhodium Enterprises, Inc., Rhodium Technologies LLC,\n\nRhodium 10MW LLC, Rhodium 2.0 LLC, Rhodium 30MW LLC, Rhodium Encore LLC,\n\nRhodium Renewables LLC, Rhodium Renewables Sub LLC, and Rhodium Ready Ventures LLC,\n\nand hereby request daily transcripts and real time reporting of the court proceedings during the\n\ntrial in this action. A copy of this request was also sent via electronic mail to the Court Reporter,\n\nMs. Kristie Davis, at kmdaviscsr@yahoo.com.\n\f      Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA   Document 178    Filed 04/02/24     Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\nDATED: April 2, 2024                  Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n\n                                      /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n                                      Melissa R. Smith\n                                      Texas Bar No. 24001351\n                                      GILLAM & SMITH, LLP\n                                      303 South Washington Avenue\n                                      Marshall, Texas 75670\n                                      Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n                                      Facsimile: (903) 934-9257\n                                      melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com\n                                      J. Travis Underwood\n                                      Texas Bar No. 24102587\n                                      GILLAM & SMITH, LLP\n                                      102 North College Avenue, Suite 800\n                                      Marshall, Texas 75670\n                                      Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n                                      Facsimile: (903) 934-9257\n                                      travis@gillamsmithlaw.com\n\n                                      Elizabeth R. Brannen\n                                      Kenneth J. Halpern (Pro Hac Vice)\n                                      Peter J. Brody (Pro Hac Vice)\n                                      Sarah Rahimi (Pro Hac Vice)\n                                      STRIS & MAHER LLP\n                                      777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3850\n                                      Los Angeles, California 90017\n                                      Telephone: (213) 995-6800\n                                      Facsimile: (213) 216-0299\n                                      ebrannen@stris.com\n                                      khalpern@stris.com\n                                      pbrody@stris.com\n                                      srahimi@stris.com\n\n\n                                      Attorneys for Rhodium Defendants\n\f       Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 178        Filed 04/02/24     Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n                                CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n       I certify that on April 2, 2024, the documents filed with the Clerk of Court via the Court\u2019s\n\nCM/ECF system under seal in the above-captioned case were subsequently served on all counsel\n\nof record by electronic mail.\n\n\n                                                     /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T10:53:38.658936-08:00","document_number":"178","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181031917011","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice (Other)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-04-02T13:24:55.928302-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:02.109622-08:00","date_filed":"2024-04-02","time_filed":"14:55:42","entry_number":178,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-04-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":824,"description":"NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR DAILY TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS AND REAL TIME REPORTING by Rhodium 10mw LLC, Rhodium 2.0 LLC, Rhodium 30mw LLC, Rhodium Encore LLC, Rhodium Enterprises, Inc., Rhodium Ready Ventures LLC, Rhodium Renewables LLC, Rhodium Renewables Sub LLC, Rhodium Technologies, LLC (Smith, Melissa) (Entered: 04/02/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/382371229/","id":382371229,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/390186413/","id":390186413,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/173/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-03-27T19:16:45.237734-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:01.102421-08:00","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":"173","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181031894740","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Sealed Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-03-27T19:16:45.221865-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:01.072867-08:00","date_filed":"2024-03-27","time_filed":"20:38:04","entry_number":173,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-03-27.002","pacer_sequence_number":814,"description":"Sealed Motion In Limine No. 4 Regarding Obviousness by Midas Green Technologies, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Proposed Order) (Thomas, Joseph) (Entered: 03/27/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/382371228/","id":382371228,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/390186412/","id":390186412,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/174/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-03-27T19:16:45.158210-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:01.175289-08:00","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":"174","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181031894748","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Sealed Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-03-27T19:16:45.140852-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:01.131244-08:00","date_filed":"2024-03-27","time_filed":"20:42:02","entry_number":174,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-03-27.003","pacer_sequence_number":816,"description":"Sealed Motion In Limine No. 23 To Exclude Opinions on Written Description and Enablement by Midas Green Technologies, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Proposed Order) (Thomas, Joseph) (Entered: 03/27/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/382371227/","id":382371227,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/390186411/","id":390186411,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/175/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-03-27T19:16:45.077438-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:01.467305-08:00","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":"175","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181031894755","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Sealed Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-03-27T19:16:45.062066-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:01.256361-08:00","date_filed":"2024-03-27","time_filed":"20:44:55","entry_number":175,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-03-27.004","pacer_sequence_number":818,"description":"Sealed Motion In Limine No. _ To Exclude Evidence of a Design-Around by Midas Green Technologies, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Proposed Order) (Thomas, Joseph) (Entered: 03/27/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/382371226/","id":382371226,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/62597135/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/390186410/","id":390186410,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/176/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-03-27T19:16:44.989513-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:01.804077-08:00","sha1":"be733e68f54f34afe687c299188e0e94f70c9a2c","page_count":5,"file_size":248316,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.176.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.176.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"    Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA        Document 176   Filed 03/27/24   Page 1 of 5\n\n\n\n\n                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                        FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                 WACO DIVISION\n\n\nMidas Green Technologies, LLC,\n\n      Plaintiff,                           Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-00050-ADA\n\n              - vs. -                      Jury Trial Demanded\n\nRhodium Enterprises, Inc.;\nRhodium Technologies LLC;\nRhodium 10mw LLC;\nRhodium 2.0 LLC;\nRhodium 30mw LLC;\nRhodium Encore LLC;\nRhodium Renewables LLC;\n\n      Defendants.\n\n\n                        PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION IN LIMINE NO.__\n  TO EXCLUDE HEARSAY TESTIMONY REGARDING CFD SIMULATIONS\n\f       Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 176         Filed 03/27/24      Page 2 of 5\n\n\n\n\n          I.   INTRODUCTION\n\n       Rhodium\u2019s non-infringement expert, Dr. Ortega, relied on a Computation Fluid\n\nDynamics (\u201cCFD\u201d) simulation performed by a graduate student Victor Martinez. This CFD\n\nsimulation has never been produced. The inputs into the CFD simulation have never been\n\nproduced. Martinez\u2019s resume has never been produced. No communications between Dr. Ortega\n\nand Martinez have been produced. What was modeled in the simulation is unknown. Dr. Ortega\n\ntestified that he believes that the CFD should have modeled Rhodium\u2019s CAD drawings of its\n\ntanks. But there is no evidence to confirm this beyond Dr. Ortega\u2019s testimony regarding\n\nMartinez\u2019s out of court assertions.\n\n       Dr. Ortega references the CFD simulation repeatedly throughout his Report, as well as in\n\nhis deposition. His attorneys had Martinez extract a limited output file from the full CFD\n\nsimulation, and his attorneys sent the output file to Dr. Ortega, as well as produced it to Midas.\n\nAs the output file is just a small extraction from the full simulation, it too is hearsay.\n\n         II.   STATEMENT OF LAW\n\n       Federal Rule of Evidence 801 prohibits evidence of out of court statements submitted for\n\nthe truth of the matter asserted. \u201c[T]he analyses and testimony of experts not called at trial\n\nshould be excluded. These statements are hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence (\"FRE\") 801.\u201d\n\nFractus, S.A. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 2019 WL 4805910, *10 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 30, 2019). Federal\n\nRule of Evidence 703 allows experts to reasonably rely on certain hearsay documents, such as\n\ntext books or peer reviewed studies, to form the basis for their opinions. However, Rule 703 only\n\npermits the proponent of an expert's opinion to disclose the underlying material to a jury if\n\n\"experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on\" the underlying material and \"if [the\n\nunderlying material's] probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially\n\n\n\n\n                                                   1\n#420670v1\n\f       Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA            Document 176        Filed 03/27/24       Page 3 of 5\n\n\n\n\noutweighs [its] prejudicial effect.\" Wi-Lan Inc. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 992 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed.\n\nCir. 2021); citing Fed. R. Evid. 703. 1 An analysis prepare specifically for litigation is not a\n\ndocument upon which experts normally rely. Instead, it is hearsay to which an exception does\n\nnot apply.\n\n        III.   ANALYSIS\n\n                   A. Martinez\u2019s CFD Analysis is Hearsay and Should Be Excluded\n\n       Rhodium is attempting to circumvent the rules of evidence by trying to introduce\n\nevidence of the CFD simulation that was not properly disclosed or introduced in this case. Dr.\n\nOrtega\u2019s expert report relies on Martinez\u2019s hearsay CFD analysis to formulate several opinions.\n\nThis is per se improper because this hearsay document does not meet any of the exceptions or\n\nexclusions of the Federal Rules of Evidence Section 801 et seq. Reliance on documents prepared\n\nsolely in anticipation of litigation is improper. see Soden v. Freightliner Corporation, 714 F.2d\n\n498, 503-05 (5th Cir. 1983) (affirming exclusion of opinion testimony based on accident\n\nstatistics prepared strictly in anticipation of litigation by a sister company, memorialized only in\n\nan informal letter, without any indication of the method for deriving the statistics; opposing party\n\nhad introduced evidence casting serious doubt on exactly what the statistics represented, and the\n\nparty proffering the statistics-based testimony failed to provide the opposing party with the\n\nstatistical information until trial despite repeated discovery requests; expert had not even\n\nexamined the statistics himself, but instead relied on a summary); see also United States v. Tran\n\n\n1\n  \u201cRule 703 does not make admissible otherwise inadmissible evidence.\" 4 Weinstein's Federal\nEvidence \u00a7 703.05 n.12. That is because \"Rule 703 is not, itself, an exception to or exclusion\nfrom the hearsay rule or any other evidence rule that makes the underlying information\ninadmissible.\" Id. \u00a7 703.05. Rule 703 does not authorize admitting inadmissible evidence \"on the\npretense that it is the basis for expert opinion when, in fact, the expert adds nothing to the\n[inadmissible evidence] other than transmitting [it] to the jury.\" 29 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur\nR. Miller & Victor J. Gold, Federal Practice and Procedure \u00a7 6274 (2d ed. 2020). Wi-Lan Inc. v.\nSharp Elecs. Corp., 992 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2021).\n\n\n                                                  2\n#420670v1\n\f        Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA          Document 176          Filed 03/27/24     Page 4 of 5\n\n\n\n\nTrong Cuong, 18 F.3d 1132, 1143 (4th Cir. 1994) (\"reports specifically prepared for purposes of\n\nlitigation are not, by definition, of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular\n\nfield.\").\n\n        Martinez\u2019s full CFD simulation is hearsay, as well as the output file extracted from it.\n\nThe evidence was created solely in anticipation of litigation. Further, there is absolutely no\n\nindiciation of reliability beyond the recitation of Martinez\u2019s out of court statements during Dr.\n\nOrtega\u2019s testimony. This should not be admissible to form the basis of Dr. Ortega\u2019s opinions.\n\nFurther, CFD simulations and the output file should not be admissible for any other purpose,\n\nincluding impeachment.\n\n            IV.   CONCLUSION\n\n        Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801, Midas respectfully requests that the Court\n\npreclude Rhodium and its experts from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument regarding\n\nany CFD simulation or results therefrom.\n\n\n\n DATED: March 27, 2024                                Respectfully Submitted,\n\n                                                      /s/ Joseph E. Thomas\n\n                                                      Joseph E. Thomas (admitted p.h.v.)\n                                                      William J. Kolegraff (admitted p.h.v.)\n                                                      Grant J. Thomas (admitted p.h.v.)\n                                                      THOMAS WHITELAW & KOLEGRAFF LLP\n                                                      18101 Von Karman Ave., Suite 230\n                                                      Irvine, CA 92612\n                                                      949-679-6400\n                                                      jthomas@twtlaw.com\n                                                      bkolegraff@twtlaw.com\n                                                      gthomas@twtlaw.com\n                                                      Attorneys for Plaintiff Midas Green Technologies\n                                                      LLC\n\n\n\n\n                                                  3\n#420670v1\n\f      Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA         Document 176        Filed 03/27/24     Page 5 of 5\n\n\n\n\n                            CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE\n\n       The parties held a meet and confer on March 27, 2024 and Defendants plan to oppose this\n\nmotion.\n\n\n                                         By /s/ Joseph E. Thomas\n                                            Joseph E. Thomas\n\n                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n       I hereby certify that counsel of record who have appeared electronically in this case are\n\nbeing served with this document on March 27, 2024 by way of the primary email address that said\n\ncounsel supplied to the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system.\n\n\n                                            /s/ Tierra Mendiola\n\n\n\n\n                                               4\n#420670v1\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T10:54:21.727709-08:00","document_number":"176","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181031894762","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion in Limine","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/427868676/","id":427868676,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/62597135/176/1/midas-green-technologies-llc-v-rhodium-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2025-01-22T10:50:32.061948-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-23T02:50:15.010132-08:00","sha1":"e4bf144b113453047509f1a56c0c7926671a871a","page_count":1,"file_size":167738,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.176.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083/gov.uscourts.txwd.1159083.176.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"     Case 6:22-cv-00050-ADA       Document 176-1     Filed 03/27/24   Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                         FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                  WACO DIVISION\n\n\n Midas Green Technologies, LLC,\n\n       Plaintiff,                             Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-00050-ADA\n\n               - vs. -                        Jury Trial Demanded\n\n Rhodium Enterprises, Inc.;\n Rhodium Technologies LLC;\n Rhodium 10mw LLC;\n Rhodium 2.0 LLC;\n Rhodium 30mw LLC;\n Rhodium Encore LLC;\n Rhodium Renewables LLC;\n Rhodium Encore Sub LLC;\n Rhodium Renewables Sub LLC;\n Rhodium Ready Ventures LLC;\n\n       Defendants.\n\n\n              ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION IN LIMINE\n\n      Having considered the Plaintiff\u2019s Motion in Limine No. _ to Exclude Hearsay\n\nTestimony regarding CFD Simulations, the Court finds that the motion should be\n\nGRANTED.\n\nIT IS SO. ORDERED\n\n\n\nIT IS SO ORDERED this day of\n\n                                                      Alan D. Albright\n                                                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n                                          1\n#418327v1\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-22T10:54:22.257177-08:00","document_number":"176","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"181031894763","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-03-27T19:16:44.972507-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-28T19:06:01.556422-08:00","date_filed":"2024-03-27","time_filed":"20:51:36","entry_number":176,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-03-27.005","pacer_sequence_number":820,"description":"MOTION in Limine To Exclude Hearsay Testimony by Midas Green Technologies, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Thomas, Joseph) (Entered: 03/27/2024)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=62597135&page_size=40"}