STIPULATION AND ORDER TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES

(FIRST REQUEST)

GEORGE W. FOLEY, Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1, 16.1-3, and 26-4, Plaintiff GLOBAL CASH ACCESS, INC. ("Plaintiff" or "GCA"), and Defendants NRT TECHNOLOGY CORP. and NRT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ("Defendants" or "NRT") submit the following stipulation and proposed order to amend the deadlines in the current scheduling order (Dkt. # 38).

A. BACKGROUND

GCA filed its complaint for patent infringement and federal and state unfair competition and tort claims on May 1, 2015. (Dkt. # 1.) An investigation pending before the International Trade Commission (ITC) entitled In the Matter of Certain Automated Teller Machines and Point of Sale Devices and Associated Software Thereof, Case No. Inv. No. 337-TA-958, and a petition for Covered Business Method review of U.S. Patent No. 6,081,792 (CBM 2015 00167) filed with the Patent and Trial Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office both involve the same patent-in-suit for this matter and, in the case of the ITC investigation, certain of the unfair competition claims. On June 22, 2015, NRT filed a motion to dismiss challenging the existence of statutory subject matter in the asserted patent. (Dkt. # 5.)

B. ITC PROCEEDINGS

In the original scheduling order, both the parties and the Court anticipated that the parties' claim construction briefing in this case would follow the issuance of the ITC claim construction order and that any claim construction hearing in this case would occur after the evidentiary hearing for the ITC then scheduled for March 2016. (See Dkt. # 38, Scheduling Order § G.)

On December 22, 2015, the ITC Administrative Law Judge issued a claim construction order finding the term "processor" indefinite and declining to construe the remaining disputed claim terms.

On December 29, 2015, Everi Payments, Inc. (the new name/successor entity to GCA) filed a motion for reconsideration or, alternatively, for certification for interlocutory appeal to the Commission.

The evidentiary hearing previously scheduled for March 2016 has, in light of the aforementioned claim construction, been stayed pending further motion practice at the Commission.

C. NEW PROPOSED DISCOVERY DEADLINES

1) Completed Discovery

The parties exchanged initial disclosures on September 11, 2015. Plaintiff served its infringement contentions on September 11, 2015. Defendants served their noninfringement and invalidity contentions on October 23, 2015. Plaintiff served its response to Defendants' noninfringement and invalidity contentions on November 6, 2015. The parties exchanged lists of proposed terms for claim construction on December 1, 2015.

2) Discovery That Remains to Be Completed

The parties have yet to exchange proposed claim constructions with supporting intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. The parties have not yet filed a joint claim construction and prehearing statement, nor have they engaged in claim construction briefing. Phase II discovery has not yet been initiated.

3) Reasons for Extending the Time Limits Set by the Original Discovery Plan

The parties submit that in the interests of efficiency and a conservation of resources by both the parties and the Court, further claim construction exchanges and briefing should occur after motions regarding the ITC claim construction order have been decided.

4) Proposed Schedule for Completing All Remaining Discovery

The parties propose that all remaining deadlines in the current scheduling order be extended to accommodate motion practice before the ITC relating to claim construction. The parties note that they may seek to further extend the claim construction and other deadlines pending the outcome of the events at the ITC, including review by the Commission, by way of status reports filed every 90 days or within 5 court days of any order issued by the ITC. For now, the parties propose the following schedule:

a. Claim Construction and Protective Order

b. Local Rule 16-19(e)(3) — Expert Disclosures

c. Local Rule 26-1(e)(4) — Dispositive Motions

The parties propose that the deadline for filing dispositive motions remain 45 days after the close of expert discovery. The parties propose that the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order remain 60 days after the deadline for filing dispositive motions or 60 days after the Court's decision on dispositive motion(s), whichever is later. Pursuant to LR 26-1(e)(6), the disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) and any objections thereto shall be included in the pretrial order.

d. Settlement Conferences

IT IS SO ORDERED.