IP Verse

Afl Telecommunications Llc V. Sterlite Tech Holding, Inc. - 1:23-cv-01202

Explore the details of the Afl Telecommunications Llc V. Sterlite Tech Holding, Inc. case under case number 1:23-cv-01202 involving a cause of action for Patent Infringement. Review key information about the parties involved, the patents in question, and the docket entries.

Case Details

Case Number
1:23-cv-01202
Filing Date
Oct 23, 2023
Cause of Action
Patent Infringement
Status
-
Nature of Suit
Patent

Parties Involved in the Case

The following parties are involved in this case, with their respective legal representatives for the case.

NameRepresented By
Sterlite Technologies Inc. -
AFL Telecommunications LLC -

Patents Involved in the Case

Patents not found - set an alert to get notified when patents are added.

Docket Entries

The Docket Entries section provides a chronological list of all significant filings and court actions in this case.

DateDocket EntryType

Set alerts for critical docket entry

Jan 16, 2024ORAL ORDER: An answer was due to be filed on 1/9/2024 (see D.I. [12), and to date none has been filed. A status letter is due no later than three (3) days from the entry of this Order. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 1/16/2024. (nms) (Entered: 01/16/2024)PACER Document
Jan 22, 2024SO ORDERED, re 15 Unopposed Motion to Extend Time (*Reset Answer Deadlines: Sterlite Tech Holding, Inc. answer due 1/23/2024). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 1/22/2024. (nms)PACER Document
Jan 25, 2024ORAL ORDER: An answer was due to be filed on 1/23/2024 (see D.I. 15 ), and to date none has been filed. A status letter is due no later than three (3) days from the entry of this Order. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 1/25/2024. (nms) (Entered: 01/25/2024)PACER Document
Jan 31, 2024SO ORDERED, re 18 Unopposed Motion to Extend Time (*Reset Answer Deadlines: Sterlite Tech Holding, Inc. answer due 2/20/2024). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 1/31/2023. (nms)PACER Document
Feb 21, 2024ORAL ORDER: An answer was due to be filed on 2/20/2024 (see D.I. 18 ), and to date none has been filed. A status letter is due no later than three (3) days from the entry of this Order. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 2/21/2024. (nms) (Entered: 02/21/2024)PACER Document
Mar 11, 2024Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for Raymond R. Ferrera and Lyndey R.Z. Bryant. ( re 23 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Raymond R. Ferrera and Lyndey R.Z. Bryant )( Payment of $ 100, receipt number ADEDC-4357985).(Farnan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/11/2024)PACER Document
Mar 11, 2024SO ORDERED, re 23 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Raymond R. Ferrera and Lyndey R.Z. Bryant, filed by Sterlite Tech Holding, Inc.. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 3/11/2024. (nms)PACER Document
Mar 12, 2024Pro Hac Vice Attorney Lyndey Bryant for Sterlite Tech Holding, Inc. added for electronic noticing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 (d)., Delaware counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. (oam)PACER Document
Mar 20, 2024ORAL ORDER: The Rule 16(b) Conference scheduled for 3/25/2024, is CANCELED. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 3/20/2024. (nms) (Entered: 03/20/2024)PACER Document
Mar 20, 2024CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon to handle all discovery disputes including any that arise in connection with expert reports. (nms)PACER Document
Mar 27, 2024SO ORDERED, re 29 STIPULATION and Proposed Order to Extend Time to File Protective and ESI Order to April 8, 2024. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 3/27/2024. (nms)PACER Document
Apr 8, 2024SO ORDERED, re 32 STIPULATION and Proposed Order to Extend Time to File Protective and ESI Order to April 12, 2024. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 4/8/2024. (nms)PACER Document
Oct 3, 2024SO ORDERED- re 51 MOTION for Teleconference to Resolve Discovery Dispute. A Discovery Dispute Motion Hearing is set for 10/30/2024 at 03:00 PM before Judge Sherry R. Fallon. In preparation for this teleconference the parties shall follow the Discovery Matters and Disputes procedure as set forth in the Order regarding discovery matters available at www.ded.uscourts.gov/judge/magistrate-judge-sherry-r-fallon. The plaintiff should obtain court reporting services for the conference, with the cost to be shared equally between both sides. No later than 10/29/2024 at 11:00 a.m., the parties shall send a joint email to [email protected] containing (i) the name of the court reporter; (ii) the name of the court reporting agency; and (iii) confirmation that the court reporter has been provided with the court's AT&T dial-in information. The Court may choose to resolve the disputes prior to the telephone conference and will, in that event, cancel the conference. Set Deadlines: (Moving Submission due by no later than 11:00 A.M. on 10/23/2024, Responsive submission due by no later than 11:00 A.M. on 10/24/2024). Signed by Judge Sherry R. Fallon on 10/3/2024. (lih) (Entered: 10/03/2024)PACER Document
Oct 28, 2024Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for Scott A. Cole. ( Payment of $ 50, receipt number ADEDC-4533938).(Connolly, Arthur) (Entered: 10/28/2024)PACER Document
Oct 28, 2024SO ORDERED, re 56 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Scott A. Cole, filed by AFL Telecommunications LLC. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 10/28/2024. (nms)PACER Document
Oct 29, 2024ORAL ORDER- re 51 Motion for Teleconference to Resolve Discovery Dispute. As in all proceedings on discovery disputes, the court has considered Plaintiff's motion to compel pursuant to the relevance and proportionality standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). Having reviewed the parties' discovery dispute letter submissions (D.I. 53; D.I. 54), IT IS ORDERED that: (A) Plaintiff's motion to compel the production of documents responsive to Plaintiff's April 1, 2024 requests for production is GRANTED-IN-PART. The motion is GRANTED with respect to the production of records from ESI custodians Szymanski and Atkinson, which Defendant has agreed to produce. (D.I. 54 at 3; D.I. 53, Ex. 13 at 2) Defendant shall complete the production on or before November 21, 2024. The motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice in all other respects. Defendant made a production of approximately 86,000 documents on October 23, 2024, two days after Plaintiff filed its opening discovery dispute letter. (D.I. 54 at 2) Consequently, Plaintiff has had no opportunity to weigh in on the sufficiency of this production. Nonetheless, going forward, the parties shall avoid unreasonable delays in responding to discovery requests. (B) Plaintiff's motion to compel the production of responsive, non-privileged documents from custodian Ankit Agarwal is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff represents that Agarwal, as CEO of Defendant's Optical Network business, is likely to have responsive information regarding "decision-making regarding the importation and sales of Sterlite's accused fiber optic cable into the United States, any decision to cease importation, and any future plans for importation of the accused products or any similar products." (D.I. 53 at 3) But Plaintiff does not address Defendant's position that discovery from Agarwal is likely to be cumulative of potentially responsive records the Defendant has been ordered to produce from custodians Szymanski and Atkinson. (D.I. 54 at 4) Defendant invokes the apex doctrine, which generally applies only to limit the depositions of senior executives and does not usually extend to the addition of senior executives as document custodians. See, e.g., Affinity Credit Union v. Apple Inc., 2024 WL 3859802, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2024) ("The apex doctrine loses relevance in the context of document production because documents may be produced with no or minimal involvement of the apex witness."). Nonetheless, the amount of damages at stake, as noted by the Defendant, Defendant's recent production of documents, and the forthcoming ESI production from two custodians, which have yet to be fully reviewed by the Plaintiff, persuade the court on this record that the burden and expense of the production may not be proportional to the needs of the case under Rule 26(b). This ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiff to renew the request after reviewing Defendant's production and complying with the court's discovery dispute procedures. (C) Plaintiff's motion to compel supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4 is GRANTED. The challenged interrogatories are contention interrogatories seeking the legal and factual basis for Defendant's third and fourth affirmative defenses. (D.I. 53, Ex. 18 at 3-4) Defendant argues that these interrogatories are premature due to the limited amount of discovery that has taken place. (D.I. 54 at 3) In this district, parties are generally encouraged to serve and respond to contention interrogatories early in the case to narrow and define issues for trial and to focus the balance of fact discovery. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Intl, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 2d 671, 690 (D. Del. 2010); see also Integra Lifesciences Corp. v. Hyperbranch Med. Tech., Inc., C.A. No. 15-819-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 11558096, at *7 (D. Del. Dec. 11, 2017). Here, Defendant "requests until the end of November" to supplement its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4, with the understanding that those responses will likely be subject to further supplementation as discovery progresses. (D.I. 54 at 4) Consequently, Defendant shall supplement its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4 on or before November 21, 2024. (D) Plaintiff's motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff raises this issue in a single sentence in the conclusion of its letter brief without describing the basis for the request and omits the requested relief from its proposed form of order. Rule 37(a)(5)(A) is inapplicable here because Plaintiff's motion to compel was granted only in part. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). Based on the record before the court, the extreme remedy of sanctions is not warranted at this time. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the discovery dispute teleconference set for October 30, 2024 at 3:00 p.m. is CANCELLED. Ordered by Judge Sherry R. Fallon on 10/29/2024. (lih) (Entered: 10/29/2024)PACER Document
Oct 29, 2024Pro Hac Vice Attorney Scott A. Cole for AFL Telecommunications LLC added for electronic noticing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 (d)., Delaware counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. (cdd)PACER Document
Nov 22, 2024ORAL ORDER: The Markman Hearing scheduled for 12/19/2024, is CANCELED (see D.I. 59 ). Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 11/22/2024. (nms) (Entered: 11/22/2024)PACER Document
Feb 20, 2025SO ORDERED, re 62 STIPULATION and Proposed Order to Extend Time to substantially complete document production by March 24, 2025. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 2/20/2025. (nms)PACER Document
May 22, 2025ORAL ORDER: The Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Extend Certain Scheduling Order Deadlines (D.I. 75 ) is DENIED. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 5/22/2025. (nms) (Entered: 05/22/2025)PACER Document