Au New Haven, LLC et al v. YKK Corporation

Plaintiff:	Au New Haven, LLC and Trelleborg Coated Systems US, Inc.
Defendant:	YKK Corporation
Case Number:	1:2015cv03411
Filed:	May 1, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	XX Out of State
Presiding Judge:	Gregory H. Woods
Nature of Suit:	Patent
Cause of Action:	35 U.S.C. § 0001
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Date Filed	Document Text
July 13, 2023	Filing 1017 ORDER By letter dated July 13, 2023, the parties have informed the Court that this case has settled. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action be conditionally discontinued without prejudice and without costs; provided, however, that with in thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, the parties may submit to the Court their own Stipulation of Settlement and Dismissal. Otherwise, within such time Plaintiffs may apply by letter for restoration of the action to the active calendar o f this Court in the event that the settlement is not consummated. Upon such application for reinstatement, the parties shall continue to be subject to the Courts jurisdiction, the Court shall promptly reinstate the action to its active docket, and the parties shall be directed to appear before the Court, without the necessity of additional process, on a date within ten (10) days of the application, to schedule remaining pretrial proceedings and/or dispositive motions, as appropriate. This Order shall be deemed a final discontinuance of the action with prejudice in the event that Plaintiffs have not requested restoration of the case to the active calendar within such 30-day period. The Clerk of Court is further directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 7/13/2023) (jca)
July 11, 2023	Filing 1014 ORDER: The parties are directed to file a letter on the docket by no later than July 13, 2023 stating whether they prefer to proceed on Monday and Tuesday, rather than Thursday and Friday of next week. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 7/11/2023) (ate)
July 7, 2023	Filing 1009 ORDER: As discussed at the July 7, 2023 conference, the Court hereby issues the following orders and sets the following deadlines: Resubmission of Materials. The parties are directed to resubmit their proposed jury charge, proposed verdict form, witness lists, exhibit lists, and deposition designation charts by July 14, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. As further set forth by this Order. Additionally, as indicated at the conference, Defendants' motion in limine number twelve, Dkt. No. 642, is denie d as moot. The parties will be given the opportunity to rebrief any issues that were the subject of that motion that will not be captured in the already scheduled briefing on the Abitron decision. The schedule for that briefing is as follows: Defendants' motion: July 12, 2023, Plaintiffs' opposition: July 19, 2023, Defendants' reply: July 24, 2023. Further, or the reasons provided at the conference, Plaintiffs motion in limine at Dkt. No. 637 is GRANTED, Plaintiff s' motion in limine at Dkt. No. 640 is DENIED, and Defendants' motion in limine at Dkt. No. 646 is DENIED. All rulings are subject to the additional comments made at the July 7, 2023 conference. Finally, the Court hereby schedules a conf erence for July 25, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. to take up remaining pretrial issues. The conference will be held by telephone. The parties are directed to the Court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, which are available on the Court' ;s website. Rule 2 of the Court's Individual Rules contains the dial-in number for the conference and other relevant instructions. The parties are specifically directed to comply with Rule 2(B) of the Court's Individual Rules. SO ORDERED. ( Motions due by 7/12/2023., Responses due by 7/19/2023, Replies due by 7/24/2023., Telephone Conference set for 7/25/2023 at 09:00 AM before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 7/7/2023) (tg)
July 5, 2023	Filing 1006 ORDER: As discussed at the June 30, 2023 conference, Defendants' brief concerning the impact of Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. on Plaintiffs' theory of domestic conduct under the Lanham Act is due no later than July 7 , 2023. Plaintiffs' response brief is due no later than July 13, 2023; Defendants' reply, if any, is due no later than July 17, 2023. SO ORDERED. ( Brief due by 7/7/2023., Reply to Response to Brief due by 7/17/2023., Responses to Brief due by 7/13/2023) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 7/5/2023) (rro)
June 29, 2023	Filing 1003 ORDER: With apologies for the short notice, the Court hereby schedules a conference for June 30, 2023 at 4:00 p.m. TI1e conference will be conducted by telephone. The parties are directed to the Court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, which are available on the Court's website. Rule 2 of the Court's Individual Rules contains the dial-in number for the conference and other relevant instructions. The parties are specifically directed to comply with Rule 2(B) of the Court's Individual Rules. SO ORDERED. ( Telephone Conference set for 6/30/2023 at 04:00 PM before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 6/29/2023) (tg)
June 20, 2023	Filing 987 ORDER: The Court thanks the parties for their submissions in advance of the July 31, 2023 trial. See Dkt. Nos. 982984. Through this order, the Court requests the filing of several additional documents and alters the deadline for the submission of o ne set of materials. First, the Court previously ordered the parties to file their "unredacted Daubert moving papers and exhibits, unredacted Daubert opposition papers and exhibits, and unredacted Daubert reply papers and exhibits on ECF as vi ewable only by the parties" by June 30, 2023. Dkt. No. 981. While this order remains in effect, the parties are hereby additionally directed to submit these documents to chambers via email by June 23, 2023. The Court understands that this will not require additional work by the parties because they will be exchanging (or have exchanged) these documents with their adversary by that date. Second, while the parties' pre-trial submissions mostly accorded with the Court's February 10, 2023 pretrial order, see Dkt. No. 945, the Court does not believe that it received "short description of the relevant law." Dkt. No. 945 at 2. The parties are directed to file this short description of the relevant law on the docket b y no later than June 30, 2023, and to send that document in native format to chambers via email the same day. Third, the Court requests that the parties provide proposed voir dire questions for the jury. The parties should propose voir dire questions by letter on the docket and submission in native format to chambers by no later than June 30, 2023. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 6/20/2023) (rro)
May 2, 2023	Filing 975 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re: 920 MOTION to Quash Trial Subpoenas . filed by YKK Vietnam Co., Ltd., YKK (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Dalian YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., YKK Austria GMBH, YKK Korea Co., Ltd., YKK Fastening Products Sal es Inc., YKK Bangladesh Pte. Ltd., YKK France Sarl, YKK Hong Kong Ltd., P.T. YKK Zipper Indonesia, Shanghai YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., Shanghai YKK Trading Co. Ltd., YKK Canada, YKK (U.S.A.) Inc., YKK Metal Ve Plastik Urunleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S., YKK Zipper (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., YKK Taiwan Co., Ltd, YKK Italia S.P.A., OOO YKK a/k/a YKK Russia, YKK (UK) Ltd., YKK Corporation, YKK Canada Inc., YKK Deutschland GMBH. For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff's cross-motion is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 920. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 5/2/2023) (rro)
April 19, 2023	Filing 968 ORDER denying 965 Letter Motion to Seal. Defendants' notification that it intends to file Daubert motions challenging the admissibility of Plaintiffs' experts' opinions at trial. Dkt. No. 966. Though Plaintiffs' date to infor m the Court whether they too intend to file analogous Daubert motions has not yet arrived, the Court finds it appropriate to set the schedule now for the briefing of all such motions (and to set interim deadlines for depositions of experts, as re quested by Defendants) Deadline to conduct expert depositions relating to the parties' supplemental expert reports: May 12, 2023. Deadline for filing of Daubert motions concerning opposing parties' supplemental expert reports: June 2, 202 3. Deadline for filing of oppositions to any Daubert motions: June 16, 2023. Deadline for filing of reply briefs for any Daubert motions: June 23, 2023. Second, concurrent with their notice that they intend to file Daubert motions concerning Plaint iffs' supplemental expert reports, Defendants sent those reports to the Court "for the Court's convenience." Dkt. No. 965 at 2. But Defendants also stated, consistent with the Court's understanding, that "[t]he Court is not required to take any judicial action on those reports at this time," and that it expects that the reports will later be submitted with additional redactions in connection with Defendants' forthcoming Daubert motions. Id. While the Cou rt appreciates Defendants' goal of aiding the convenience of the Court, because the Court need not take any action on these reports at this time and the reports will be submitted later in connection with Defendants' Daubert motions, it (a) will strike the reports from the docket at this time and accordingly (b) deny the motion to seal submitted with the reports. The Clerk of Court is directed to (a) strike Exhibit A and Exhibit B from Dkt. No. 966, (b) strike Exhibit A and Exhibit B from Dkt. No. 967, and (c) terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 965. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 4/19/2023) (rro)
March 23, 2023	Filing 958 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 763 MOTION for Sanctions DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. filed by YKK Vietnam Co., Ltd., YKK (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Dalian YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., YKK Austria GMBH, YKK Korea Co., Lt d., YKK Fastening Products Sales Inc., YKK Bangladesh Pte. Ltd., YKK France Sarl, YKK Hong Kong Ltd., P.T. YKK Zipper Indonesia, Shanghai YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., Shanghai YKK Trading Co. Ltd., YKK Canada, YKK (U.S.A.) Inc., YKK M etal Ve Plastik Urunleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S., YKK Zipper (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., YKK Taiwan Co., Ltd, YKK Italia S.P.A., OOO YKK a/k/a YKK Russia, YKK (UK) Ltd., YKK Corporation, YKK Canada Inc., YKK Deutschland GMBH. \For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for sanctions is granted in part. The Court will likely solicit additional briefing regarding the scope of appropriate sanctions as a result of Plaintiffs' violations of their discovery obligations following the Supreme Court's decision in Abitron Austria GmbH, et al. v. Hetronic International, Inc. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 763. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 3/23/2023) (rro)
February 28, 2023	Filing 957 ORDER denying 956 Motion to Strike document 956 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Submission at Docket No. 954. filed by YKK Corporation from the record. The Court is in receipt of the parties' submissions indicating that both parties intend to modify expert reports in advance of trial. See Dkt. Nos. 954955. The Court hereby sets the following schedule for submission of the parties' modified reports: Deadline for submission of Plaintiffs' modified expert rep orts: March 28, 2023. Deadline for submission of Defendants' modified expert reports and modified rebuttal reports (if necessary): April 18, 2023. Deadline for submission of Plaintiffs' modified rebuttal reports (if necessary): May 2, 2023. 2The Court further notes that, because of the uncertainty concerning the Lanham Act's scope in advance of Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hectronic Int'l, Inc., Dkt. No. 21-1043, the parties' modified expert reports should, as possible, accoun t for the full range of possible legal standards that could emerge from a decision in that case.Finally, Defendants' motion to strike, Dkt. No. 956, is denied. The Court, however, will not consider any arguments in that Plaintiffs' letter, Dkt. No. 954, that were nonresponsive to theCourt's request concerning an intent to file modified expert reports. See Dkt. No. 945.The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 956. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 2/28/2023) (rro)
February 23, 2023	Filing 952 ORDER: The Court has received the parties' letters concerning trial availability in late summer and fall of 2023. See Dkt. No. 947; Dkt. No. 948. The Court recognizes that counsel have other commitments and is pleased to accommodate those comm itments where possible. However, the Court cannot fully accommodate Plaintiffs' proposed August 7, 2023 start date for trial in this case. The Court, however, will move the first day of this trial to July 31, 2023 to, as best as possible, acc ount for counsels' availability. The other dates pretrial dates listed in the Court's prior order on this topic, Dkt. No. 945, will remain unchanged. The Court thanks counsel for their understanding. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 2/23/2023) (rro)
February 13, 2023	Filing 946 ORDER: In light of the Court's February 10, 2023 Order and the adjournment of the trial date, the parties are directed to contact Courtroom Deputy Rachel Slusher by email at Rachel_Slusher@nysd.uscourts.gov to schedule a settlement co nference if it would be productive at this time. Due to the Court's busy calendar, settlement conferences must generally be scheduled at least four to six weeks in advance. The Court will likely be unable to accommodate last-minute requests for settlement conferences, and the parties should not anticipate that litigation deadlines will be adjourned in response to late requests for settlement conferences. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 2/13/2023) (ras)
January 30, 2023	Filing 917 ORDER: As discussed with the parties on January 30, 2023, the parties are hereby ORDERED to submit separate letters, no greater than three pages in length, outlining their views of how they expect the definition of "high end outerwear" re ached by the jury at the just-closed trial will impact the admissibility of expert testimony at the March 6, 2023 trial. In the same letter, the parties may (but need not) raise other issues regarding scheduling for the March 6, 2023 trial. The letters should be filed no later than February 6, 2023. The Court anticipates holding a conference during the week of February 6, 2023 to discuss issues raised in the letters. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/30/2023) (rro)
January 23, 2023	Filing 913 ORDER terminating 886 Motion to Address Admissibility Issues with Certain of Plaintiffs' Exhibits for the High End Outerwear Trial re: 886 MOTION to Address Admissibility Issues with Certain of Plaintiffs' Exhibits for the High End Outerwear Trial ., 905 MOTION for Reconsideration of the 1/13/23, Ruling on YKK's New Definition of "High End Outerwear"., 912 MOTION on the Inadmissibility of Certain Portions of Michael Blunt' ;s Deposition Testimony . ; denying 905 Motion for Reconsideration re 886 MOTION to Address Admissibility Issues with Certain of Plaintiffs' Exhibits for the High End Outerwear Trial . filed by YKK Vietnam Co., Lt d., YKK (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Dalian YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., YKK Austria GMBH, YKK Korea Co., Ltd., YKK Fastening Products Sales Inc., YKK Bangladesh Pte. Ltd., YKK France Sarl, YKK Hong Kong Ltd., P.T. YKK Zipper Indonesia, Shangha i YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., Shanghai YKK Trading Co. Ltd., YKK Canada, YKK (U.S.A.) Inc., YKK Metal Ve Plastik Urunleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S., YKK Zipper (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., YKK Taiwan Co., Ltd, YKK Italia S.P.A., OOO YKK a/k/a YKK Rus sia, YKK (UK) Ltd., YKK Corporation, YKK Canada Inc., YKK Deutschland GMBH, 905 MOTION for Reconsideration of the 1/13/23, Ruling on YKK's New Definition of "High End Outerwear". filed by Trelleborg Coated Sys tems US, Inc., Au New Haven, LLC, 912 MOTION on the Inadmissibility of Certain Portions of Michael Blunt's Deposition Testimony . filed by YKK Vietnam Co., Ltd., YKK (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Dalian YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., YK K Austria GMBH, YKK Korea Co., Ltd., YKK Bangladesh Pte. Ltd., YKK Fastening Products Sales Inc., YKK France Sarl, YKK Hong Kong Ltd., P.T. YKK Zipper Indonesia, YKK Canada, Shanghai YKK Trading Co. Ltd., Shanghai YKK Zipper Co., Lt d., YKK (U.S.A.) Inc., YKK Metal Ve Plastik Urunleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S., YKK Zipper (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., YKK Taiwan Co., Ltd, YKK Italia S.P.A., OOO YKK a/k/a YKK Russia, YKK (UK) Ltd., YKK Corporation, YKK Canada Inc., YKK D eutschland GMBH ; denying 912 Motion re: 886 MOTION to Address Admissibility Issues with Certain of Plaintiffs' Exhibits for the High End Outerwear Trial ., 905 MOTION for Reconsideration of the 1/13/23, Ruling on YKK's New Definition of "High End Outerwear"., 912 MOTION on the Inadmissibility of Certain Portions of Michael Blunt's Deposition Testimony . Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the Court's ruling concerning Defendants' definition of high end outerwear, see Dkt. No. 905, is denied, and (2) Defendants' motion concerning the inadmissibility of certain portions of Mr. Blunt's testimony, see Dkt. No. 912, is denied. Further , the Court hereby orders Plaintiffs to include the part of Mr. Press's testimony identified by Defendants in the letter at Dkt. No. 911 as part of Plaintiffs' case-in-chief video presentation. Finally, the motion pending at Dkt. No. 886 is terminated; as the Court has begun to do and will do throughout trial, the Court will continue to resolve the admissibility of the exhibits mentioned in this document individually. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at Dkt. Nos. 886, 905, and 912. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/23/23) (yv)
January 11, 2023	Filing 895 ORDER: This order responds to Plaintiffs' letter filed at Dkt. No. 892. The document posted at Dkt. No. 890 granted in part Plaintiffs motion at Dkt. No. 889, insofar as the Court agreed to take that motion up at the conference scheduled for January 13, 2023. It took no action with respect to the motion filed at Dkt. No. 886, which was already set to be a subject of that conference. All of that is evident from the face of the actual order linked at that docket number. The text on the docket at Dkt. No. 890, which was attached to the entry by the office of the Clerk of Court and reflects that the motion at Dkt. No. 886 was granted and denied in part, was in error. Counsel is directed to review the Court's ECF Rules, in part icular Rule 4.3, which states the following: "All Filing and Receiving Users have an obligation to review the Court's actual order, decree, or judgment, as available on ECF, and should not rely on the description of such order, decree or judgment in the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) alone." The Clerk is directed to correct the docket text attached to Dkt. No. 890 to reflect that Dkt. No. 890 granted in part Dkt. No. 889 (but took no action with respect to Dkt. No. 886). (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/11/2023) (rro)
January 9, 2023	Filing 890 MEMO ENDORSEMENT re: 889 LETTER addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Brian P. Daniels dated January 9, 2023 re: YKK's legally impermissible definition of "high end outerwear" (ECF 884); granting in part and denying in part 886 Motion re: 886 MOTION to Address Admissibility Issues with Certain of Plaintiffs' Exhibits for the High End Outerwear Trial . ENDORSEMENT: Application granted in part. The Court will take up this issue at the conference scheduled for January 13, 2023. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/9/2023) (tg)
January 6, 2023	Filing 885 ORDER: A conference is hereby scheduled in this case for January 13, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. The conference will be conducted by telephone. The parties are directed to use the conference call dialin information and access code noted in the Court' s Emergency Rules in Light of COVID-19, available on the Court's website, and are specifically directed to comply with Emergency Rule 2(C). At the conference, the Court expects to take up issues raised by the parties concerning stipulation s of fact, see Dkt. Nos. 874, 878, the issue raised by Defendants concerning two of Plaintiffs' exhibits, see Dkt. Nos. 879880, and some of the issues raised in Plaintiffs' motion on cross-cutting evidentiary issues, Dkt. No. 875. (Telephone Conference set for 1/13/2023 at 02:00 PM before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/6/2023) (rro)
December 29, 2022	Filing 873 ORDER: This order concerns four topics. First, for the reasons stated at the December 29, 2022 conference, if Defendants' witnesses Akinobu Shibata and Masayuki Sarumaru testify in either upcoming trial in this case, they must do so through a Japanese interpreter. Second, for the reasons given at the same conference, Defendants' motion in limine number 17, Dkt. No. 652, is granted in part; Plaintiffs' exhibit 77 is excluded from the high end outerwear (HEO) trial but is not excluded from the second trial while Plaintiffs' exhibit 80 is excluded from both trials. Third, for the reasons given at the same conference, Defendants' motion in limine number 18, Dkt. No. 654, is denied. Finally, for the reaso ns given at the same conference, the Court expects to adopt Defendants' proposals concerning the timing for exchange of notices of witnesses and exhibits when it enters a final pretrial order in this case. See Dkt. No. 840 at 13. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 12/29/2022) (rro)
December 15, 2022	Filing 863 ORDER denying 846 Motion for Sanctions; denying in part 859 Motion to Strike document 846 MOTION for Sanctions . filed by Au New Haven, LLC, Trelleborg Coated Systems US, Inc., 859 MOTION to Strike Document No. 849 . filed by YKK Vietnam Co., Ltd., YKK (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Dalian YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., YKK Austria GMBH, YKK Korea Co., Ltd., YKK Fastening Products Sales Inc., YKK Bangladesh Pte. Ltd., YKK France Sarl, YKK Hong Kong Ltd., P.T. YKK Zipper Indonesia, Shanghai YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., Shanghai YKK Trading Co. Ltd., YKK Canada, YKK (U.S.A.) Inc., YKK Metal Ve Plastik Urunleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S., YKK Zipper (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., YKK Taiwan Co., Ltd, YKK Italia S.P.A., OOO YKK a/k/a YKK Russia, YKK (UK) Ltd., YKK Corporation, YKK Canada Inc., YKK Deutschland GMBH from the record. This order concerns three subjects. First, for the reasons described at the December 15,2022 conference, Defen dants' motion in limine number 19, Dkt. No. 775, is denied. Second, for the reasons described at the December 15, 2022 conference, Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions, Dkt. No. 846, is denied. Finally, given the Court's discussion at th e December 15, 2022 conference involving supplemental materials submitted by both parties, Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiffs' pre-conference statement, Dkt. No. 859, is denied in part; the Court will consider both parties' sub missions in advance of the December 21, 2022 conference and in preparing for trial. See Dkt. No. 849 (Plaintiffs' submission); Dkt. No. 860-1 (Defendants' submission). Neither party should submit additional briefing on this topic without advance leave of court. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at Dkt. No. 846 and Dkt. No. 859. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 12/15/2022) (rro)
November 28, 2022	Filing 848 ORDER: To fully prepare for the parties' Final Pretrial Conferences, the Court hereby orders the parties to jointly provide two items to the Court no later than December 5, 2022: 1. A document listing, for each of the parties' will-call o r may-call witnesses (see Dkt. No. 840 Ex. 2-A, B), an estimate of the time that the parties expect they will need for both direct and cross-examination of the witnesses; 2. A proposed brief, mutually acceptable overview of the applicable law, to be read to the jury as part of the Court's initial instructions prior to opening statements. (Brief due by 12/5/2022.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 11/28/2022) (rro)
November 22, 2022	Filing 845 ORDER: As discussed at the November 22, 2022 pre-motion conference, Plaintiffs' request to file a motion for sanctions, see Dkt. No. 842, is granted. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file and serve their motion is November 28, 2022. Defendants must file and serve their opposition no later than December 5, 2022; Plaintiffs' reply, if any, must be filed and served no later than 9:00 a.m. EST on December 8, 2022. Additionally, the parties are directed to submit to the court transcript s of the depositions that are relevant to this motion, as well as transcripts of the depositions that were identified in the parties' deposition designation and trial exhibit list spreadsheet. The parties are directed to contact the Courtroom Deputy for instructions on how to submit these documents through the Court's electronic filing system. The Deputy's contact information can be found on the Court's website. The parties are ordered to submit these documents no later than one week from the date of this order. Finally, as mentioned on the November 22, 2022 call, the Court anticipates that additional time will be needed to fully address the disputes raised by the parties at the final pretrial conference. Accor dingly, a second date and time for that conference is hereby scheduled for December 21, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. EST. This time supplements, but does not replace, the first date and time (December 15, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.) for the final pretrial conference already scheduled by the Court. The conference will be held at: Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. (Motions due by 11/28/2022., Responses due by 12/5/2022, Replies due by 12/8/2022., Final Pretrial Conference set for 12/21/2022 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 11/22/2022) (rro)
November 21, 2022	Filing 843 ORDER Plaintiff's request for a pre-motion conference, Dkt. No. 842, is granted. The conference will be held on November 22, 2022 at 4:00 p.m. The parties are directed to use the conference call dial-in information and access code noted in th e Court's Emergency Rules in Light of COVID-19, available on the Court's website, and are directed to comply with Emergency Rule 2(C). Additionally, the parties are directed to email to the court, at WoodsNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.g ov, the documents contained in Dkt. No. 840 Exhibits 3-A, 3-B, 3-C, 3-D, 3-E, 3-F, 4-A, and 4-B in their native formats. SO ORDERED. (Telephone Conference set for 11/22/2022 at 04:00 PM before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 11/21/2022) (jca)
October 24, 2022	Filing 835 ORDER: The Court has reviewed the parties' joint letter regarding the upcoming trials in this case, Dkt. No. 833, and hereby sets the following dates for the upcoming trial on the meaning of high end outerwear (the HEO trial): December 15, 2 022, at 9:00 a.m. (Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY10007): Final pretrial conference. January 23, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. (Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007):HEO trial begins. March 6, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. (Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007): Second trial begins. To fully address the dispute between the parties, however, the Court hereby orders the parties to write a letter to the Court no later than October 27, 2022, addressing two issues: Whether, as suming that only Defendants' witnesses will require interpretation services, it is Defendants' position that Plaintiffs must retain their own interpreter for crossexamination, or whether Defendants' position is instead that Defendant s' chosen interpreter will be made available for cross-examination, and Whether the parties believe, given the anticipated number of witnesses in need of Japanese-to-English interpretive services, and given the anticipated length of those witne sses' testimony, that one interpreter would be sufficient, or whether it would be advisable to have two interpreters. (Final Pretrial Conference set for 12/15/2022 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Gregory H. Woods., Jury Trial set for 1/23/2023 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Gregory H. Woods., Jury Trial set for 3/6/2023 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 10/24/2022) (rro) Modified on 10/25/2022 (rro).
October 17, 2022	Filing 832 ORDER: This Court has ordered that trial is this case be bifurcated so that the definition of the phrase "high end outerwear" as used in the parties' licensing agreement be determined in an initial jury trial. Dkt. No. 831. The Co urt recognizes that this may require the parties to modify litigation strategy, which in turn may require additional time. Accordingly, the Court is prepared to adjourn the trial currently scheduled for December 5, 2022, Dkt. No. 803, to January 23 , 2023, and to conduct the trial on the meaning of "high end outerwear" starting on that date. In that case, the Court would propose to begin the second trial on March 6, 2023 (and will hold that date open accordingly). If, however, the parties believe it would be possible and beneficial to conduct the first trial sometime within the three-week window that the Court previously held open for trial (December 523, 2022), the Court invites the parties to inform the Court of that concl usion, and the Court would be pleased to do so (understanding that it would not likely take the full three weeks). Accordingly, the Court requests that the parties submit a joint letter no later than October 21, 2022, stating their views on trial d ates in light of the Court's proposals. In addition, that letter should contain the parties' views on proposed timing for completion of revised jury charges for the first trial, proposed timing for submission of other pretrial materials f or the first trial, and which motions in limine must be resolved in advance of the first trial. Upon receipt of that letter, the Court will finalize the dates for trial and the final pretrial conference, as well as the deadlines for receipt of pretrial materials in this case. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 10/17/2022) (rro)
June 9, 2022	Filing 814 ORDER: As stated on the record during the conference held on June 9, 2022, to the extent that Defendants wish to file a motion for summary judgment with respect to the meaning of the term "high end outerwear" in the Exclusive License Agreement, Defendants are directed to file and serve a request for leave to file such a motion by no later than June 23, 2022. Plaintiffs' opposition is due within fourteen days after service of Defendants request. Defendants' reply, if any, is due within seven days after service of Plaintiffs' opposition. As stated on the record during the conference held on June 9, 2022, to the extent that Defendants wish to request that the Court schedule two separate jury trials, Defendan ts are directed to file a motion pursuant to Rule 42 no later than June 23, 2022. Plaintiffs' opposition is due within fourteen days after service of Defendants' motion. Defendants' reply, if any, is due within seven days after service of Plaintiffs' opposition. SO ORDERED. ( Motions due by 6/23/2022.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 6/9/2022) (va)
April 14, 2022	Filing 803 ORDER: The jury trial currently scheduled to begin on Monday, August 29, 2022 is adjourned to Monday, December 5, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. As the Court previously advised the parties, there is limited availability of trial dates resulting from the COVI D-19 pandemic and the Court must modify its trial calendar to accommodate a criminal trial. Accordingly, the final pretrial conference is also adjourned. The Court will hold a final pretrial conference in this case on Wednesday, November 9, 2022 a t 10:00 a.m. Both the final pretrial conference and the jury trial will be held in Courtroom 12C of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007. The parties are directed to submit the following materials no later than September 28, 2022: (1) the joint pretrial order and other submissions permitted or required under Rule 5 of the Court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, (2) a proposed brief, mutually acceptable description of the case, to be read to the venire, and (3) a proposed brief, mutually acceptable overview of the applicable law, to be read to the jury as part of the Court's initial instructi ons prior to opening statements. SO ORDERED. (Pretrial Order due by 9/28/2022., Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/9/2022 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Gregory H. Woods., Jury Trial set for 12/5/2022 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 4/14/2022) (jca)
February 26, 2022	Filing 794 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 656 MOTION Motion to Determine the Ambiguity of the Term "High-End Outerwear" filed by YKK Vietnam Co., Ltd., YKK (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Dalian YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., YKK Austria GMBH, Y KK Korea Co., Ltd., YKK Fastening Products Sales Inc., YKK Bangladesh Pte. Ltd., YKK France Sarl, YKK Hong Kong Ltd., P.T. YKK Zipper Indonesia, Shanghai YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., Shanghai YKK Trading Co. Ltd., YKK Canada, YKK (U.S.A.) Inc., YKK Metal Ve Plastik Urunleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S., YKK Zipper (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., YKK Taiwan Co., Ltd, YKK Italia S.P.A., OOO YKK a/k/a YKK Russia, YKK (UK) Ltd., YKK Corporation, YKK Canada Inc., YKK Deutschland GMBH. For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that the term "high end outerwear" as used in the ELA is ambiguous. The meaning of the term is to be determined by a finder of fact looking to extrinsic evidence of the parties' intentions at the time of contract formation. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 656. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 2/26/2022) (va)
September 27, 2021	Filing 789 ORDER terminating 634 Motion to Amend/Correct 634 MOTION to Amend/Correct Trial Exhibits and to Add Deposition Entries., 640 MOTION in Limine ., 642 MOTION in Limine No. 12 re extraterritorial application o f the Lanham Act., 644 MOTION in Limine No. 13 to preclude Plaintiffs from presenting evidence or argument that Plaintiffs' foreign patents are relevant to willful infringment., 646 MOTION in Limine No. 14 to exclude evidence and argument regarding claims resolved on Summary Judgment., 648 MOTION in Limine No. 15 to limit testimony of Expert James Donohue Before the Jury., 650 MOTION in Limine No. 16 to limit Plaintiffs' Damages A llegations According to the Issuance Date of the Japanese Patent at Issue., 652 MOTION in Limine No. 17 to Preclude Certain of Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibits., 654 MOTION in Limine No. 18 to Preclude Plaintiffs from Prese nting Deposition Testimony Non-Sequentially., 747 JOINT MOTION Entry of Pretrial Scheduling Order re: 639 Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings, ., 775 MOTION in Limine No. 19 to Preclude Plaintiffs from Referring to Plaintiff "Au New Have, LLC" as "Uretek.". ; terminating 640 Motion in Limine; terminating 642 Motion in Limine; terminating 644 Motion in Limine; terminating 646 Motion in Limine; terminating 648 Motion in Limine; termin ating 650 Motion in Limine; terminating 652 Motion in Limine; terminating 654 Motion in Limine; terminating 747 Motion re: 634 MOTION to Amend/Correct Trial Exhibits and to Add Deposition Entries., 640 MOTION in L imine ., 642 MOTION in Limine No. 12 re extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act., 644 MOTION in Limine No. 13 to preclude Plaintiffs from presenting evidence or argument that Plaintiffs' foreign patents are relevant to willful infringment., 646 MOTION in Limine No. 14 to exclude evidence and argument regarding claims resolved on Summary Judgment., 648 MOTION in Limine No. 15 to limit testimony of Expert James Donohue Before t he Jury., 650 MOTION in Limine No. 16 to limit Plaintiffs' Damages Allegations According to the Issuance Date of the Japanese Patent at Issue., 652 MOTION in Limine No. 17 to Preclude Certain of Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibits., 654 MOTION in Limine No. 18 to Preclude Plaintiffs from Presenting Deposition Testimony Non-Sequentially., 747 JOINT MOTION Entry of Pretrial Scheduling Order re: 639 Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings, ., 775 MOTION in Limine No. 19 to Preclude Plaintiffs from Referring to Plaintiff "Au New Have, LLC" as "Uretek.". ; terminating 775 Motion in LimineThe Court has reviewed the parties' September 26, 2021 letter s regarding trial dates. A jury trial in this matter will begin on Monday, August 29, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. The Court will hold a final pretrial conference in this case on Monday, July 25, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. Both the final pretrial conference and the jur y trial will be held in Courtroom 12C of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007. Given the new trial dates, the Court is also termi nating the pre-trial motions currently pending, which it will resolve prior to the final pretrial conference. The parties are directed to submit the following materials no later than June 3, 2022: (1) the joint pretrial order and other submissions pe rmitted or required under Rule 5 of the Court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, (2) a proposed brief, mutually acceptable description of the case, to be read to the venire, and (3) a proposed brief, mutually acceptable overview o f the applicable law, to be read to the jury as part of the Court's initial instructions prior to opening statements. The Clerk of Court is ordered to terminate the motions currently pending at Dkt. Nos. 634, 640, 642, 644, 646, 648, 650, 652, 654, 747, and 775. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 9/26/2021) (rro)
September 25, 2021	Filing 787 MEMO ENDORSEMENT denying 657 Motion to Seal. ENDORSEMENT: Application denied. The only justification provided for the sealing of this document is the fact that it was designated as "Highly Confidential" by Plaintiffs. See Dkt. No. 658. That fact, by itself, is insufficient to overcome the presumption of public access that applies to judicial documents. Plaintiffs did not elect to present any other justification for sealing or redaction. As a result, the motion to file t hese documents under seal is denied. Defendants are directed to file them in unredacted form on the public docket no later than October 5, 2021. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 657. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 9/25/2021) (rro)
August 2, 2021	Filing 749 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER: A settlement conference is scheduled for Wednesday, August 11, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. and will be held telephonically. The Court will provide dial-in information by email before the conference. The parties are directed to review and comply with the Procedures for Cases Referred for Settlement to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, a copy of which is available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-netburn. The parties are strongly encouraged to engage in good-faith settlement negotiations before the settlement conference and preferably before the submission to the Court of the Ex Parte Settlement Letters and Acknowledgment Forms, which are to be submitted by Friday, August 6, 2021, by e-mail to Netburn_NYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov. Should the parties resolve the litigation before the conference date, they must notify the Court in writing immediately. (Settlement Conference set for 8/11/2021 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 8/2/2021) (ras)
June 16, 2021	Filing 746 ORDER: In light of Judge Gregory H. Woods's June 15, 2021 Order regarding the currently-scheduled trial date, the parties are directed to contact Courtroom Deputy Rachel Slusher via email at Rachel_Slusher@nysd.uscourts.gov with three (3) mutually convenient dates, to schedule a settlement if it would be productive at this time. The parties are advised that settlement conferences must generally be scheduled at least four to six weeks in advance. The Court will likely be unable to accommodate last-minute requests for settlement conferences, and the parties should not anticipate that litigation deadlines will be adjourned in response to late requests for settlement conferences. The parties should assume that the settlement conference will be conducted by telephone using a platform that will allow the Court to hold confidential conversations with counsel and the party representative(s) for each side. (ras)
June 15, 2021	Filing 745 ORDER: On January 22, 2021, the Court informed the parties that it intended this matter to go to trial on November 29, 2021. Dkt. No. 735. As the Court informed the parties in its order, the likelihood of this case going forward on that date was contingent on, among other things, the Court's internal processes for the allocation of trial dates. The Court advises the parties that a criminal trial has been scheduled for the same date as this case; because such trials enjoy priority u nder the Court's internal processes, the parties should prepare for the possibility that this case may be tried at another date. At this time, the Court will not disturb the schedule set in its January 22 order. The Court will inform the parties should there be any relevant developments. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 6/15/2021) (rro)
January 22, 2021	Filing 735 ORDER: The Court has reviewed the parties' January 21, 2021 letter regarding the jury trial in this matter. The jury trial scheduled for May 17, 2021 is adjourned. The Court intends that a jury trial in this matter will begin on November 29, 202 1 at 9:00 a.m. However, the parties should be aware that this trial date is subject to the Southern District of New York's jury trial schedule. The deadline for the parties to submit the pretrial materials described in the Court's October 6 , 2020 order, Dkt. No. 639, is extended to September 7, 2021. The final pretrial conference scheduled for April 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. is adjourned to November 2, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. Both the final pretrial conference and the jury trial will be held in Courtroom 12C of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007. (Pretrial Order due by 9/7/2021. Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/2/20 21 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Gregory H. Woods. Jury Trial set for 11/29/2021 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/22/2021) (jwh)
January 7, 2021	Filing 729 ORDER denying without prejudice 711 Motion. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' motion is denied without prejudice. B y reading additional limitations into the Court's comments during the September 21, 2020 h earing, Plaintiffs effectively seek to have the Court reconsider its prior ruling. The Court declines t o do so. If D efendants seek to introduce Mr. Blunt's deposit i on at trial and Plaintiffs feel that such use would be in violation of Rule 32, they are invited to renew their motion at that time. T he Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 711. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/7/2021) (rro)
October 6, 2020	Filing 639 ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' motions at Dkt. Nos. 634 and 637. First, to clarify, as stated on the record during the September 21, 2020 conference, and as ordered by the Court at Dkt. Nos. 632 and 633, the parties w ere directed to confer regarding, and Plaintiffs were directed to submit to Defendants, the "very, very small number" of new deposition materials discussed during the September 21, 2020 conference by no later than September 30, 202 0. September 21, 2020 Hearing Tr. at 79:21-82:6; Dkt. Nos. 632, 633. This deadline did not affect the deadlines for the larger exchanges of the revised designations, counter-designations, objections, and joint chart described in th e Court's September 14, 2020 order. Dkt. No. 625. The schedule described in the Court's September 14, 2020 order remains in place. Furthermore, to the extent Defendants wish to respond to Plaintiffs' motions at Dkt. Nos. 634 and 637, those responses are due no later than October 19, 2020. Plaintiffs' replies, if any, are due no later than October 26, 2020. Furthermore, the Court intends that a jury trial in this matter will begin on May 17, 202 1 at 9:00 a.m. However, the parties should be aware that this trial date is subject to the Southern District of New York's jury trial schedule. The Court will hold a final pretrial conference in this case on April 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Bo th the final pretrial conference and the jury trial will be held in Courtroom 12C of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 100 07. The parties are directed to submit revised versions of the following materials no later than April 2, 2021: (1) the joint pretrial order required under Rule 5 of the Court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, and (2) a proposed brief, mutually acceptable description of the case, to be read to the venire. The parties are directed to limit their changes to those giving effect to the Court's July 30, 2020 summary judgment decision, Dkt. No. 6 11. The parties are further directed to submit a proposed brief, mutually acceptable overview of the applicable law, to be read to the jury as part of the Court's initial instructions prior to opening statements. ( Pretrial Order due b y 4/2/2021., Responses due by 10/19/2020, Replies due by 10/26/2020., Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/23/2021 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Gregory H. Woods., Jury Trial set for 5/17/2021 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 10/6/2020) (mro)
September 14, 2020	Filing 625 ORDER: The Court has reviewed the parties' September 11, 2020 submission regarding the processes for resolving certain pretrial issues. Dkt. No. 624. The Court adopts the parties' proposed deadlines and orders the following schedule for the parties' submissions: Issues Related to the Potential Ambiguity of the Term "High End Outerwear." Briefs are due by no later than October 9, 2020. Oppositions are due by no later than October 23, 2020. Replies, if any, are due by no l ater than October 30, 2020. Plaintiffs' application to add new deposition designations during this process is denied. Supplementary Motions in Limine. Any supplementary motions in limine arising from the Court's July 30, 2020 summary judgme nt decision, Dkt. No. 611, are due by no later than October 9, 2020. Oppositions are due by no later than October 30, 2020. Replies, if any, are due by no later than November 13, 2020. Any objections regarding the scope of these motions and their con nection to the Court's summary judgment decision shall be raised in the parties' opposition briefs. Issues Related to Foreign Law. The parties are directed to submit materials on any outstanding foreign law issues, including proposed supple mental jury charges, supporting memoranda of law from each party, expert information regarding the proposed charges, and English translations of the law the Court is being asked to consider, by no later than November 2, 2020. Any oppositions are due by no later than November 23, 2020. Replies, if any, are due by no later than November 30, 2020. Furthermore, the Court will hold a teleconference in this matter on September 21, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. The parties are directed to use the conference call dial-in information and access codenoted in the Court's Emergency Rules in Light of COVID-19, available on the Court's website, and are specifically directed to comply with Emergency Rule 2(C). And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED., ( Motions due by 10/9/2020., Responses due by 10/30/2020, Replies due by 11/13/2020., Telephone Conference set for 9/21/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 9/14/2020) (ama)
September 8, 2020	Filing 623 ORDER granting 461 Motion to Quash; granting in part and denying in part 466 Motion in Limine; granting 467 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 471 Motion in Limine; denying without prejudice 474 Motion in Limine; g ranting 477 Motion in Limine; granting 482 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 485 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 488 Motion in Limine; terminating 490 Motion in Limine; granting in part and d enying in part 495 Motion in Limine; terminating 500 Motion in Limine; denying without prejudice 503 Motion in Limine. For the reasons stated on the record during that conference, the Court issued the following rulings: Plaintiffs&# 039; patent-related motion in limine, Dkt. No. 466, is granted in part and denied in part; Plaintiffs' non-patent-related motion in limine, Dkt. No. 495, is granted in part and denied in part, and Sections IV and XI are reserved for judgm ent at a later date; Defendants' motion in limine at Dkt. No. 467 is granted; Defendants' motion in limine at Dkt. No. 471 is granted in part; Defendants' motion in limine at Dkt. No. 474 is denied without prejudice; De fendants' motion in limine at Dkt. No. 477 is granted; Defendants' motion in limine at Dkt. No. 482 is granted. To the extent Plaintiffs wish to introduce any such evidence for impeachment purposes, they are directed to identify the evidence no later than two weeks prior to the witness's testimony; Defendants' motion in limine at Dkt. No. 485 is granted in part and denied in part; Defendants' motion in limine at Dkt. No. 488 is granted in part and denied in part; Defendants' motion in limine at Dkt. No. 503 is denied without prejudice, and Sections I, IV, and V are reserved for judgment at a later date; and Defendants' motion to quash the subpoena of Ms. Anstett, Dkt. No. 461, is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at Dkt. Nos. 466, 467, 471, 474, 477, 482, 485, 488, 490, 495, 500, and 503. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 9/8/2020) (va)
August 18, 2020	Filing 617 PARTIAL JUDGMENT: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff AU New Haven, LLC and against Defendants YKK Corporation et al. on the claim for breach of contract described in paragraph 69 of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Dkt. 90) in the amount of $768,052.00. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 8/18/2020) (Attachments: # 1 Appeal Package) (mro)
July 30, 2020	Filing 611 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 564 MOTION for Summary Judgment and for Entry of Judgement filed by YKK Vietnam Co., Ltd., YKK (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Dalian YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., YKK Austria GMBH, YKK Korea Co., Ltd., YKK Fastening Products Sales Inc., YKK Bangladesh Pte. Ltd., YKK France Sarl, YKK Hong Kong Ltd., P.T. YKK Zipper Indonesia, Shanghai YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., Shanghai YKK Trading Co. Ltd., YKK Canada, YKK (U.S.A.) Inc., YKK Metal Ve Plast ik Urunleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S., YKK Zipper (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., YKK Taiwan Co., Ltd, YKK Italia S.P.A., OOO YKK a/k/a YKK Russia, YKK (UK) Ltd., YKK Corporation, YKK Canada Inc., YKK Deutschland GMBH. For the reasons discusse d above, YKK's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' CUTPA and breach of contract claims and GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as to their Lanham Act claim. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 564. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 7/30/2020) (mro)
March 13, 2020	Filing 603 ORDER: The settlement conference currently scheduled for Tuesday, April 28, 2020, at 11:00 a.m., is RESCHEDULED for Friday, April 3, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 219, Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. The part ies are directed to review and comply with the Procedures for Cases Referred for Settlement to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, a copy of which is available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-netburn. The parties are strongly encouraged to engage in good-faith settlement negotiations before the settlement conference and preferably before the submission to the Court of the Ex Parte Settlement Letters and Acknowledgment Forms, which are to be submitted by Friday, March 27, 2020. Should the parties resolve the litigation before the conference date, they must notify the Court in writing immediately. (Settlement Conference set for 4/3/2020 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 219, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 3/13/2020) (ras)
February 24, 2020	Filing 600 ORDER: A full-day settlement conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 28, 2020, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 219, Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer to discuss whether a set tlement conference would be productive considering the June 15, 2020 trial date. By March 2, 2020, the parties shall file either a request for an adjournment if they do not believe a settlement conference would be productive, or a request for a dif ferent date in advance of the scheduled trial. (Settlement Conference set for 4/28/2020 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 219, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 2/24/2020) (ras)
December 20, 2019	Filing 562 ORDER with respect to 500 Motion in Limine; with respect to 507 Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the jury trial currently scheduled to proceed on January 13, 2020 is adjourned to June 15, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The final pre-trial conference current ly scheduled for January 3, 2020 is adjourned to May 28, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. Defendants are granted leave to present the arguments raised by their Motion in Limine No. 10 and Rule 16 Motion, as well as any arguments regarding the extraterritorial appl ication of the Lanham Act or CUTPA, in the form of a renewed motion for summary judgment by no later than January 8, 2020. If Defendants file such a motion, Plaintiffs opposition is due no later than January 24, 2020. Defendants' reply is due no later than January 31, 2020. These motions must fully comply with all of the requirements for a standard Rule 56 motion. The Court intends to resolve Defendants motion as promptly as is practicable after it is fully submitted so as not to necessitat e any further delays of the trial date. Accordingly, the Court does not expect to entertain any requests for an extension of this briefing schedule absent a significant justification. To the extent that issues of foreign law remain in this case follo wing the Court's resolution of Defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment, the Court expects that it will require the parties to submit memoranda of law setting forth their views of the applicable foreign law, together with English tra nslations of the foreign legal precedent that supports their positions, as well as proposed jury instructions for any charges that involve issues of foreign law. The parties are directed to write the Court jointly within one week of the Courts decisi on on Defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment setting forth their respective positions regarding the foreign law issues remaining in the case. The Court expects that it will schedule a conference shortly after resolution of the summary judgment motion to discuss any remaining scheduling issues to be addressed before trial. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 12/20/2019) (kv)
July 8, 2019	Filing 454 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims is GRANTED; Defendants motion for reconsideration is DENIED; and Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at Dkt. Nos. 431 and 433. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 7/8/2019) (jca) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
March 31, 2019	Filing 425 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: In sum, Plaintiffs' and Defendants' cross motions for summary judgment are granted in part and denied in part. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 362 and 414. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 3/31/2019) (mro)
March 19, 2019	Filing 419 OPINION AND ORDER re: 359 MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF RANDY MEIROWITZ, filed by Au New Haven, LLC, 366 MOTION to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiffs' Experts, filed by YKK Vietnam Co., Ltd., YKK (Thailand) Co. , Ltd., Dalian YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., YKK Austria GMBH, YKK Korea Co., Ltd., YKK Fastening Products Sales Inc., YKK Bangladesh Pte. Ltd., YKK France Sarl, YKK Hong Kong Ltd., P.T. YKK Zipper Indonesia, Shanghai YKK Trading Co. Ltd., YKK Canada, YKK (U.S.A.) Inc., YKK Metal Ve Plastik Urunleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S., YKK Taiwan Co., Ltd, YKK Zipper (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., YKK Italia S.P.A., OOO YKK a/k/a YKK Russia, YKK (UK) Ltd., YKK Corporation, YKK Deutschlan d GMBH, 401 MOTION for Oral Argument Re: Daubert Motions [Dkt. Nos. 359, 361 & 366], filed by Trelleborg Coated Systems US, Inc., Au New Haven, LLC, 361 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony, filed by Trelleborg Coated S ystems US, Inc., Au New Haven, LLC. Both Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Daubert motions are granted in part and denied in part. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 359, 361, 366, and 401. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 03/19/2019) (ras)
May 8, 2018	Filing 356 OPINION AND ORDER: re: 327 MOTION Enjoin Defendant YKK Corporation From Maintaining Its Declaratory Judgment Action In Japan, filed by Au New Haven, LLC, Trelleborg Coated Systems US, Inc. For the reasons stated above, Plaint iffs' motion for a preliminary anti-suit injunction is GRANTED. Defendants are hereby ENJOINED from maintaining their declaratory judgment action in Japan during the pendency of the present action. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 327, and as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 5/8/2018) (ap)
October 24, 2017	Filing 287 OPINION AND ORDER: This is the third time the Court has conducted an in camera review of documents withheld by Defendants. Although some of the exemplars in this latest set are privileged, Defendants largely failed to provide adequate descriptions of the documents in their Fifth Log as required by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 26.2. Moreover, Defendants have belatedly sought to claim attorney-client privilege for several of the exemplars, even though the Fifth Log does not assert the documents are covered by that privilege. Defendants have waived those claims. The Court concludes that Defendants improperly withheld or inadequately described all but one of the exemplars submitted for in camera review. Defendants may withhold Document 9548, but they are ordered to produce the other 19 documents in full and unredacted form. Defendants are further ordered to review immediately the Fifth Log and all of the other documents they have withheld and produce additional documents in accordance with this Order by November 3, 2017. To assist Defendants in this endeavor, the Court summarizes the Order's principal conclusions as follows: (1) the Fifth Log controls with respect to all outs tanding privilege claims; (2) Defendants are not permitted to assert new claims of privilege or further revise their privilege log to correct the numerous deficiencies; (3) Defendants must produce all documents that are listed in the Fifth Log as predating January 1, 2015, except to the extent the Fifth Log adequately asserts attorney-client privilege with respect to those documents; (4) subject to specific challenges by Plaintiffs, Defendants may presumptively withhold any documents that are listed in the Fifth Log as dated on or after January 1, 2015, and that are identified as covered by work product immunity in the Fifth Log; (5) in-house counsel's communications concerning the negotiation of a contract generally fall in t he category of business advice and are not protected by the attorney-client privilege; and (6) Defendants must produce all documents for which the descriptions in the Fifth Log fail to comply with the requirements of Local Civil Rule 26.2, includ ing those for which the descriptions fail to describe the subject matter with specificity or omit reference to a specific attorney or specific member of the legal department. Finally, Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a motion for sanctions in t he form of an award of attorneys' fees incurred in reviewing and litigating issues related to Defendants' Fifth Log. Plaintiffs may file such motion, supported by a memorandum of law not to exceed 10 double-spaced pages and an attorney affidavit with exhibits, by no later than Friday, November 3, 2017. Defendants' opposition shall be filed no later than Friday, November 10, 2017, by memorandum of law not to exceed 10 double-spaced pages. No reply brief is requested. (Motions due by 11/3/2017. Responses due by 11/10/2017) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 10/24/2017) (ap)
November 22, 2016	Filing 180 OPINION AND ORDER. In sum, the Court finds no basis to depart from the general rule that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning. The patentee did not act as his own lexicographer to support a construction that equates wa ter resistance with the AATCC 35 Test. Nor did the patentee disavow resistance to wetting as way of achieving the water resistance of the layer on said second surfaces. Here, the meaning of "water resistant" as it appears in the disputed term is "readily apparent even to lay judges," and is readily apparent to this Court. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Therefore, "claim construction in [this] case[ ] involves little more than the application of the widely accepted mean ing of commonly understood words." Id. Accordingly, the Court construes "a water resistant layer on said second surfaces" to mean just that: a water resistant layer on said second surfaces. The parties are reminded that fact discove ry must be completed no later than 45 days from date of this opinion and are directed to review the Court's March 15, 2016, order, Dkt. No. 99, for the subsequent expert discovery and motion practice deadlines. (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 11/22/2016) (lmb)
November 18, 2016	Filing 178 OPINION AND ORDER: Following in camera review of the selected log entries, plaintiffs and defendants are both ordered to produce the documents or portions of documents described in this order as non-privileged. They are further ordered to review the ir privilege logs to produce additional documents in accordance with this Order. To assist the parties in this endeavor, the Court summarizes the Order's principal conclusions as follows: (1) the common interest doctrine protects otherwise privi leged communications between Uretek and Trelleborg that were reasonably related to this litigation, such as Document 198, but not documents preceding this "ongoing legal enterprise," such as Document 130; (2) the common interest doctrine pr otects otherwise privileged communications between counsel at YCA and employees at YKK, despite the fact that YCA and YKK are separate corporate entities; (3) in light of the need for language interpretation within YKK, privilege is not waived by the presence of Japanese non-attorney advisors on Defendants' email chains and extends to legal communications by such non-attorneys that were prepared under the direction or supervision of an attorney; and (4) neither party may withhold entire documents on the ground that a portion of the document is privileged, and must instead redact only the actually privileged information in each document. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 11/18/2016) (cla)
September 28, 2016	Filing 171 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 49 MOTION to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss Trelleborg Coated Systems US, Inc. for Lack of Standing, filed by YKK Corporation. For the reasons outlined above, Defendants' motion to dismiss Trelleborg's patent infringement claim is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 49. (As further set forth in this Opinion) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 9/28/2016) (kl)

July 13, 2023

Filing 1017 ORDER By letter dated July 13, 2023, the parties have informed the Court that this case has settled. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action be conditionally discontinued without prejudice and without costs; provided, however, that with in thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, the parties may submit to the Court their own Stipulation of Settlement and Dismissal. Otherwise, within such time Plaintiffs may apply by letter for restoration of the action to the active calendar o f this Court in the event that the settlement is not consummated. Upon such application for reinstatement, the parties shall continue to be subject to the Courts jurisdiction, the Court shall promptly reinstate the action to its active docket, and the parties shall be directed to appear before the Court, without the necessity of additional process, on a date within ten (10) days of the application, to schedule remaining pretrial proceedings and/or dispositive motions, as appropriate. This Order shall be deemed a final discontinuance of the action with prejudice in the event that Plaintiffs have not requested restoration of the case to the active calendar within such 30-day period. The Clerk of Court is further directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 7/13/2023) (jca)

July 11, 2023

Filing 1014 ORDER: The parties are directed to file a letter on the docket by no later than July 13, 2023 stating whether they prefer to proceed on Monday and Tuesday, rather than Thursday and Friday of next week. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 7/11/2023) (ate)

July 7, 2023

Filing 1009 ORDER: As discussed at the July 7, 2023 conference, the Court hereby issues the following orders and sets the following deadlines: Resubmission of Materials. The parties are directed to resubmit their proposed jury charge, proposed verdict form, witness lists, exhibit lists, and deposition designation charts by July 14, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. As further set forth by this Order. Additionally, as indicated at the conference, Defendants' motion in limine number twelve, Dkt. No. 642, is denie d as moot. The parties will be given the opportunity to rebrief any issues that were the subject of that motion that will not be captured in the already scheduled briefing on the Abitron decision. The schedule for that briefing is as follows: Defendants' motion: July 12, 2023, Plaintiffs' opposition: July 19, 2023, Defendants' reply: July 24, 2023. Further, or the reasons provided at the conference, Plaintiffs motion in limine at Dkt. No. 637 is GRANTED, Plaintiff s' motion in limine at Dkt. No. 640 is DENIED, and Defendants' motion in limine at Dkt. No. 646 is DENIED. All rulings are subject to the additional comments made at the July 7, 2023 conference. Finally, the Court hereby schedules a conf erence for July 25, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. to take up remaining pretrial issues. The conference will be held by telephone. The parties are directed to the Court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, which are available on the Court' ;s website. Rule 2 of the Court's Individual Rules contains the dial-in number for the conference and other relevant instructions. The parties are specifically directed to comply with Rule 2(B) of the Court's Individual Rules. SO ORDERED. ( Motions due by 7/12/2023., Responses due by 7/19/2023, Replies due by 7/24/2023., Telephone Conference set for 7/25/2023 at 09:00 AM before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 7/7/2023) (tg)

July 5, 2023

Filing 1006 ORDER: As discussed at the June 30, 2023 conference, Defendants' brief concerning the impact of Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. on Plaintiffs' theory of domestic conduct under the Lanham Act is due no later than July 7 , 2023. Plaintiffs' response brief is due no later than July 13, 2023; Defendants' reply, if any, is due no later than July 17, 2023. SO ORDERED. ( Brief due by 7/7/2023., Reply to Response to Brief due by 7/17/2023., Responses to Brief due by 7/13/2023) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 7/5/2023) (rro)

June 29, 2023

Filing 1003 ORDER: With apologies for the short notice, the Court hereby schedules a conference for June 30, 2023 at 4:00 p.m. TI1e conference will be conducted by telephone. The parties are directed to the Court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, which are available on the Court's website. Rule 2 of the Court's Individual Rules contains the dial-in number for the conference and other relevant instructions. The parties are specifically directed to comply with Rule 2(B) of the Court's Individual Rules. SO ORDERED. ( Telephone Conference set for 6/30/2023 at 04:00 PM before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 6/29/2023) (tg)

June 20, 2023

Filing 987 ORDER: The Court thanks the parties for their submissions in advance of the July 31, 2023 trial. See Dkt. Nos. 982984. Through this order, the Court requests the filing of several additional documents and alters the deadline for the submission of o ne set of materials. First, the Court previously ordered the parties to file their "unredacted Daubert moving papers and exhibits, unredacted Daubert opposition papers and exhibits, and unredacted Daubert reply papers and exhibits on ECF as vi ewable only by the parties" by June 30, 2023. Dkt. No. 981. While this order remains in effect, the parties are hereby additionally directed to submit these documents to chambers via email by June 23, 2023. The Court understands that this will not require additional work by the parties because they will be exchanging (or have exchanged) these documents with their adversary by that date. Second, while the parties' pre-trial submissions mostly accorded with the Court's February 10, 2023 pretrial order, see Dkt. No. 945, the Court does not believe that it received "short description of the relevant law." Dkt. No. 945 at 2. The parties are directed to file this short description of the relevant law on the docket b y no later than June 30, 2023, and to send that document in native format to chambers via email the same day. Third, the Court requests that the parties provide proposed voir dire questions for the jury. The parties should propose voir dire questions by letter on the docket and submission in native format to chambers by no later than June 30, 2023. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 6/20/2023) (rro)

May 2, 2023

Filing 975 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re: 920 MOTION to Quash Trial Subpoenas . filed by YKK Vietnam Co., Ltd., YKK (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Dalian YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., YKK Austria GMBH, YKK Korea Co., Ltd., YKK Fastening Products Sal es Inc., YKK Bangladesh Pte. Ltd., YKK France Sarl, YKK Hong Kong Ltd., P.T. YKK Zipper Indonesia, Shanghai YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., Shanghai YKK Trading Co. Ltd., YKK Canada, YKK (U.S.A.) Inc., YKK Metal Ve Plastik Urunleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S., YKK Zipper (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., YKK Taiwan Co., Ltd, YKK Italia S.P.A., OOO YKK a/k/a YKK Russia, YKK (UK) Ltd., YKK Corporation, YKK Canada Inc., YKK Deutschland GMBH. For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff's cross-motion is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 920. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 5/2/2023) (rro)

April 19, 2023

Filing 968 ORDER denying 965 Letter Motion to Seal. Defendants' notification that it intends to file Daubert motions challenging the admissibility of Plaintiffs' experts' opinions at trial. Dkt. No. 966. Though Plaintiffs' date to infor m the Court whether they too intend to file analogous Daubert motions has not yet arrived, the Court finds it appropriate to set the schedule now for the briefing of all such motions (and to set interim deadlines for depositions of experts, as re quested by Defendants) Deadline to conduct expert depositions relating to the parties' supplemental expert reports: May 12, 2023. Deadline for filing of Daubert motions concerning opposing parties' supplemental expert reports: June 2, 202 3. Deadline for filing of oppositions to any Daubert motions: June 16, 2023. Deadline for filing of reply briefs for any Daubert motions: June 23, 2023. Second, concurrent with their notice that they intend to file Daubert motions concerning Plaint iffs' supplemental expert reports, Defendants sent those reports to the Court "for the Court's convenience." Dkt. No. 965 at 2. But Defendants also stated, consistent with the Court's understanding, that "[t]he Court is not required to take any judicial action on those reports at this time," and that it expects that the reports will later be submitted with additional redactions in connection with Defendants' forthcoming Daubert motions. Id. While the Cou rt appreciates Defendants' goal of aiding the convenience of the Court, because the Court need not take any action on these reports at this time and the reports will be submitted later in connection with Defendants' Daubert motions, it (a) will strike the reports from the docket at this time and accordingly (b) deny the motion to seal submitted with the reports. The Clerk of Court is directed to (a) strike Exhibit A and Exhibit B from Dkt. No. 966, (b) strike Exhibit A and Exhibit B from Dkt. No. 967, and (c) terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 965. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 4/19/2023) (rro)

March 23, 2023

Filing 958 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 763 MOTION for Sanctions DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. filed by YKK Vietnam Co., Ltd., YKK (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Dalian YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., YKK Austria GMBH, YKK Korea Co., Lt d., YKK Fastening Products Sales Inc., YKK Bangladesh Pte. Ltd., YKK France Sarl, YKK Hong Kong Ltd., P.T. YKK Zipper Indonesia, Shanghai YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., Shanghai YKK Trading Co. Ltd., YKK Canada, YKK (U.S.A.) Inc., YKK M etal Ve Plastik Urunleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S., YKK Zipper (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., YKK Taiwan Co., Ltd, YKK Italia S.P.A., OOO YKK a/k/a YKK Russia, YKK (UK) Ltd., YKK Corporation, YKK Canada Inc., YKK Deutschland GMBH. \For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for sanctions is granted in part. The Court will likely solicit additional briefing regarding the scope of appropriate sanctions as a result of Plaintiffs' violations of their discovery obligations following the Supreme Court's decision in Abitron Austria GmbH, et al. v. Hetronic International, Inc. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 763. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 3/23/2023) (rro)

February 28, 2023

Filing 957 ORDER denying 956 Motion to Strike document 956 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Submission at Docket No. 954. filed by YKK Corporation from the record. The Court is in receipt of the parties' submissions indicating that both parties intend to modify expert reports in advance of trial. See Dkt. Nos. 954955. The Court hereby sets the following schedule for submission of the parties' modified reports: Deadline for submission of Plaintiffs' modified expert rep orts: March 28, 2023. Deadline for submission of Defendants' modified expert reports and modified rebuttal reports (if necessary): April 18, 2023. Deadline for submission of Plaintiffs' modified rebuttal reports (if necessary): May 2, 2023. 2The Court further notes that, because of the uncertainty concerning the Lanham Act's scope in advance of Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hectronic Int'l, Inc., Dkt. No. 21-1043, the parties' modified expert reports should, as possible, accoun t for the full range of possible legal standards that could emerge from a decision in that case.Finally, Defendants' motion to strike, Dkt. No. 956, is denied. The Court, however, will not consider any arguments in that Plaintiffs' letter, Dkt. No. 954, that were nonresponsive to theCourt's request concerning an intent to file modified expert reports. See Dkt. No. 945.The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 956. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 2/28/2023) (rro)

February 23, 2023

Filing 952 ORDER: The Court has received the parties' letters concerning trial availability in late summer and fall of 2023. See Dkt. No. 947; Dkt. No. 948. The Court recognizes that counsel have other commitments and is pleased to accommodate those comm itments where possible. However, the Court cannot fully accommodate Plaintiffs' proposed August 7, 2023 start date for trial in this case. The Court, however, will move the first day of this trial to July 31, 2023 to, as best as possible, acc ount for counsels' availability. The other dates pretrial dates listed in the Court's prior order on this topic, Dkt. No. 945, will remain unchanged. The Court thanks counsel for their understanding. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 2/23/2023) (rro)

February 13, 2023

Filing 946 ORDER: In light of the Court's February 10, 2023 Order and the adjournment of the trial date, the parties are directed to contact Courtroom Deputy Rachel Slusher by email at Rachel_Slusher@nysd.uscourts.gov to schedule a settlement co nference if it would be productive at this time. Due to the Court's busy calendar, settlement conferences must generally be scheduled at least four to six weeks in advance. The Court will likely be unable to accommodate last-minute requests for settlement conferences, and the parties should not anticipate that litigation deadlines will be adjourned in response to late requests for settlement conferences. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 2/13/2023) (ras)

January 30, 2023

Filing 917 ORDER: As discussed with the parties on January 30, 2023, the parties are hereby ORDERED to submit separate letters, no greater than three pages in length, outlining their views of how they expect the definition of "high end outerwear" re ached by the jury at the just-closed trial will impact the admissibility of expert testimony at the March 6, 2023 trial. In the same letter, the parties may (but need not) raise other issues regarding scheduling for the March 6, 2023 trial. The letters should be filed no later than February 6, 2023. The Court anticipates holding a conference during the week of February 6, 2023 to discuss issues raised in the letters. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/30/2023) (rro)

January 23, 2023

Filing 913 ORDER terminating 886 Motion to Address Admissibility Issues with Certain of Plaintiffs' Exhibits for the High End Outerwear Trial re: 886 MOTION to Address Admissibility Issues with Certain of Plaintiffs' Exhibits for the High End Outerwear Trial ., 905 MOTION for Reconsideration of the 1/13/23, Ruling on YKK's New Definition of "High End Outerwear"., 912 MOTION on the Inadmissibility of Certain Portions of Michael Blunt' ;s Deposition Testimony . ; denying 905 Motion for Reconsideration re 886 MOTION to Address Admissibility Issues with Certain of Plaintiffs' Exhibits for the High End Outerwear Trial . filed by YKK Vietnam Co., Lt d., YKK (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Dalian YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., YKK Austria GMBH, YKK Korea Co., Ltd., YKK Fastening Products Sales Inc., YKK Bangladesh Pte. Ltd., YKK France Sarl, YKK Hong Kong Ltd., P.T. YKK Zipper Indonesia, Shangha i YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., Shanghai YKK Trading Co. Ltd., YKK Canada, YKK (U.S.A.) Inc., YKK Metal Ve Plastik Urunleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S., YKK Zipper (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., YKK Taiwan Co., Ltd, YKK Italia S.P.A., OOO YKK a/k/a YKK Rus sia, YKK (UK) Ltd., YKK Corporation, YKK Canada Inc., YKK Deutschland GMBH, 905 MOTION for Reconsideration of the 1/13/23, Ruling on YKK's New Definition of "High End Outerwear". filed by Trelleborg Coated Sys tems US, Inc., Au New Haven, LLC, 912 MOTION on the Inadmissibility of Certain Portions of Michael Blunt's Deposition Testimony . filed by YKK Vietnam Co., Ltd., YKK (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Dalian YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., YK K Austria GMBH, YKK Korea Co., Ltd., YKK Bangladesh Pte. Ltd., YKK Fastening Products Sales Inc., YKK France Sarl, YKK Hong Kong Ltd., P.T. YKK Zipper Indonesia, YKK Canada, Shanghai YKK Trading Co. Ltd., Shanghai YKK Zipper Co., Lt d., YKK (U.S.A.) Inc., YKK Metal Ve Plastik Urunleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S., YKK Zipper (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., YKK Taiwan Co., Ltd, YKK Italia S.P.A., OOO YKK a/k/a YKK Russia, YKK (UK) Ltd., YKK Corporation, YKK Canada Inc., YKK D eutschland GMBH ; denying 912 Motion re: 886 MOTION to Address Admissibility Issues with Certain of Plaintiffs' Exhibits for the High End Outerwear Trial ., 905 MOTION for Reconsideration of the 1/13/23, Ruling on YKK's New Definition of "High End Outerwear"., 912 MOTION on the Inadmissibility of Certain Portions of Michael Blunt's Deposition Testimony . Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the Court's ruling concerning Defendants' definition of high end outerwear, see Dkt. No. 905, is denied, and (2) Defendants' motion concerning the inadmissibility of certain portions of Mr. Blunt's testimony, see Dkt. No. 912, is denied. Further , the Court hereby orders Plaintiffs to include the part of Mr. Press's testimony identified by Defendants in the letter at Dkt. No. 911 as part of Plaintiffs' case-in-chief video presentation. Finally, the motion pending at Dkt. No. 886 is terminated; as the Court has begun to do and will do throughout trial, the Court will continue to resolve the admissibility of the exhibits mentioned in this document individually. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at Dkt. Nos. 886, 905, and 912. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/23/23) (yv)

January 11, 2023

Filing 895 ORDER: This order responds to Plaintiffs' letter filed at Dkt. No. 892. The document posted at Dkt. No. 890 granted in part Plaintiffs motion at Dkt. No. 889, insofar as the Court agreed to take that motion up at the conference scheduled for January 13, 2023. It took no action with respect to the motion filed at Dkt. No. 886, which was already set to be a subject of that conference. All of that is evident from the face of the actual order linked at that docket number. The text on the docket at Dkt. No. 890, which was attached to the entry by the office of the Clerk of Court and reflects that the motion at Dkt. No. 886 was granted and denied in part, was in error. Counsel is directed to review the Court's ECF Rules, in part icular Rule 4.3, which states the following: "All Filing and Receiving Users have an obligation to review the Court's actual order, decree, or judgment, as available on ECF, and should not rely on the description of such order, decree or judgment in the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) alone." The Clerk is directed to correct the docket text attached to Dkt. No. 890 to reflect that Dkt. No. 890 granted in part Dkt. No. 889 (but took no action with respect to Dkt. No. 886). (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/11/2023) (rro)

January 9, 2023

Filing 890 MEMO ENDORSEMENT re: 889 LETTER addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Brian P. Daniels dated January 9, 2023 re: YKK's legally impermissible definition of "high end outerwear" (ECF 884); granting in part and denying in part 886 Motion re: 886 MOTION to Address Admissibility Issues with Certain of Plaintiffs' Exhibits for the High End Outerwear Trial . ENDORSEMENT: Application granted in part. The Court will take up this issue at the conference scheduled for January 13, 2023. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/9/2023) (tg)

January 6, 2023

Filing 885 ORDER: A conference is hereby scheduled in this case for January 13, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. The conference will be conducted by telephone. The parties are directed to use the conference call dialin information and access code noted in the Court' s Emergency Rules in Light of COVID-19, available on the Court's website, and are specifically directed to comply with Emergency Rule 2(C). At the conference, the Court expects to take up issues raised by the parties concerning stipulation s of fact, see Dkt. Nos. 874, 878, the issue raised by Defendants concerning two of Plaintiffs' exhibits, see Dkt. Nos. 879880, and some of the issues raised in Plaintiffs' motion on cross-cutting evidentiary issues, Dkt. No. 875. (Telephone Conference set for 1/13/2023 at 02:00 PM before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/6/2023) (rro)

December 29, 2022

Filing 873 ORDER: This order concerns four topics. First, for the reasons stated at the December 29, 2022 conference, if Defendants' witnesses Akinobu Shibata and Masayuki Sarumaru testify in either upcoming trial in this case, they must do so through a Japanese interpreter. Second, for the reasons given at the same conference, Defendants' motion in limine number 17, Dkt. No. 652, is granted in part; Plaintiffs' exhibit 77 is excluded from the high end outerwear (HEO) trial but is not excluded from the second trial while Plaintiffs' exhibit 80 is excluded from both trials. Third, for the reasons given at the same conference, Defendants' motion in limine number 18, Dkt. No. 654, is denied. Finally, for the reaso ns given at the same conference, the Court expects to adopt Defendants' proposals concerning the timing for exchange of notices of witnesses and exhibits when it enters a final pretrial order in this case. See Dkt. No. 840 at 13. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 12/29/2022) (rro)

December 15, 2022

Filing 863 ORDER denying 846 Motion for Sanctions; denying in part 859 Motion to Strike document 846 MOTION for Sanctions . filed by Au New Haven, LLC, Trelleborg Coated Systems US, Inc., 859 MOTION to Strike Document No. 849 . filed by YKK Vietnam Co., Ltd., YKK (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Dalian YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., YKK Austria GMBH, YKK Korea Co., Ltd., YKK Fastening Products Sales Inc., YKK Bangladesh Pte. Ltd., YKK France Sarl, YKK Hong Kong Ltd., P.T. YKK Zipper Indonesia, Shanghai YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., Shanghai YKK Trading Co. Ltd., YKK Canada, YKK (U.S.A.) Inc., YKK Metal Ve Plastik Urunleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S., YKK Zipper (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., YKK Taiwan Co., Ltd, YKK Italia S.P.A., OOO YKK a/k/a YKK Russia, YKK (UK) Ltd., YKK Corporation, YKK Canada Inc., YKK Deutschland GMBH from the record. This order concerns three subjects. First, for the reasons described at the December 15,2022 conference, Defen dants' motion in limine number 19, Dkt. No. 775, is denied. Second, for the reasons described at the December 15, 2022 conference, Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions, Dkt. No. 846, is denied. Finally, given the Court's discussion at th e December 15, 2022 conference involving supplemental materials submitted by both parties, Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiffs' pre-conference statement, Dkt. No. 859, is denied in part; the Court will consider both parties' sub missions in advance of the December 21, 2022 conference and in preparing for trial. See Dkt. No. 849 (Plaintiffs' submission); Dkt. No. 860-1 (Defendants' submission). Neither party should submit additional briefing on this topic without advance leave of court. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at Dkt. No. 846 and Dkt. No. 859. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 12/15/2022) (rro)

November 28, 2022

Filing 848 ORDER: To fully prepare for the parties' Final Pretrial Conferences, the Court hereby orders the parties to jointly provide two items to the Court no later than December 5, 2022: 1. A document listing, for each of the parties' will-call o r may-call witnesses (see Dkt. No. 840 Ex. 2-A, B), an estimate of the time that the parties expect they will need for both direct and cross-examination of the witnesses; 2. A proposed brief, mutually acceptable overview of the applicable law, to be read to the jury as part of the Court's initial instructions prior to opening statements. (Brief due by 12/5/2022.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 11/28/2022) (rro)

November 22, 2022

Filing 845 ORDER: As discussed at the November 22, 2022 pre-motion conference, Plaintiffs' request to file a motion for sanctions, see Dkt. No. 842, is granted. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file and serve their motion is November 28, 2022. Defendants must file and serve their opposition no later than December 5, 2022; Plaintiffs' reply, if any, must be filed and served no later than 9:00 a.m. EST on December 8, 2022. Additionally, the parties are directed to submit to the court transcript s of the depositions that are relevant to this motion, as well as transcripts of the depositions that were identified in the parties' deposition designation and trial exhibit list spreadsheet. The parties are directed to contact the Courtroom Deputy for instructions on how to submit these documents through the Court's electronic filing system. The Deputy's contact information can be found on the Court's website. The parties are ordered to submit these documents no later than one week from the date of this order. Finally, as mentioned on the November 22, 2022 call, the Court anticipates that additional time will be needed to fully address the disputes raised by the parties at the final pretrial conference. Accor dingly, a second date and time for that conference is hereby scheduled for December 21, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. EST. This time supplements, but does not replace, the first date and time (December 15, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.) for the final pretrial conference already scheduled by the Court. The conference will be held at: Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. (Motions due by 11/28/2022., Responses due by 12/5/2022, Replies due by 12/8/2022., Final Pretrial Conference set for 12/21/2022 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 11/22/2022) (rro)

November 21, 2022

Filing 843 ORDER Plaintiff's request for a pre-motion conference, Dkt. No. 842, is granted. The conference will be held on November 22, 2022 at 4:00 p.m. The parties are directed to use the conference call dial-in information and access code noted in th e Court's Emergency Rules in Light of COVID-19, available on the Court's website, and are directed to comply with Emergency Rule 2(C). Additionally, the parties are directed to email to the court, at WoodsNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.g ov, the documents contained in Dkt. No. 840 Exhibits 3-A, 3-B, 3-C, 3-D, 3-E, 3-F, 4-A, and 4-B in their native formats. SO ORDERED. (Telephone Conference set for 11/22/2022 at 04:00 PM before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 11/21/2022) (jca)

October 24, 2022

Filing 835 ORDER: The Court has reviewed the parties' joint letter regarding the upcoming trials in this case, Dkt. No. 833, and hereby sets the following dates for the upcoming trial on the meaning of high end outerwear (the HEO trial): December 15, 2 022, at 9:00 a.m. (Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY10007): Final pretrial conference. January 23, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. (Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007):HEO trial begins. March 6, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. (Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007): Second trial begins. To fully address the dispute between the parties, however, the Court hereby orders the parties to write a letter to the Court no later than October 27, 2022, addressing two issues: Whether, as suming that only Defendants' witnesses will require interpretation services, it is Defendants' position that Plaintiffs must retain their own interpreter for crossexamination, or whether Defendants' position is instead that Defendant s' chosen interpreter will be made available for cross-examination, and Whether the parties believe, given the anticipated number of witnesses in need of Japanese-to-English interpretive services, and given the anticipated length of those witne sses' testimony, that one interpreter would be sufficient, or whether it would be advisable to have two interpreters. (Final Pretrial Conference set for 12/15/2022 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Gregory H. Woods., Jury Trial set for 1/23/2023 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Gregory H. Woods., Jury Trial set for 3/6/2023 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 10/24/2022) (rro) Modified on 10/25/2022 (rro).

October 17, 2022

Filing 832 ORDER: This Court has ordered that trial is this case be bifurcated so that the definition of the phrase "high end outerwear" as used in the parties' licensing agreement be determined in an initial jury trial. Dkt. No. 831. The Co urt recognizes that this may require the parties to modify litigation strategy, which in turn may require additional time. Accordingly, the Court is prepared to adjourn the trial currently scheduled for December 5, 2022, Dkt. No. 803, to January 23 , 2023, and to conduct the trial on the meaning of "high end outerwear" starting on that date. In that case, the Court would propose to begin the second trial on March 6, 2023 (and will hold that date open accordingly). If, however, the parties believe it would be possible and beneficial to conduct the first trial sometime within the three-week window that the Court previously held open for trial (December 523, 2022), the Court invites the parties to inform the Court of that concl usion, and the Court would be pleased to do so (understanding that it would not likely take the full three weeks). Accordingly, the Court requests that the parties submit a joint letter no later than October 21, 2022, stating their views on trial d ates in light of the Court's proposals. In addition, that letter should contain the parties' views on proposed timing for completion of revised jury charges for the first trial, proposed timing for submission of other pretrial materials f or the first trial, and which motions in limine must be resolved in advance of the first trial. Upon receipt of that letter, the Court will finalize the dates for trial and the final pretrial conference, as well as the deadlines for receipt of pretrial materials in this case. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 10/17/2022) (rro)

June 9, 2022

Filing 814 ORDER: As stated on the record during the conference held on June 9, 2022, to the extent that Defendants wish to file a motion for summary judgment with respect to the meaning of the term "high end outerwear" in the Exclusive License Agreement, Defendants are directed to file and serve a request for leave to file such a motion by no later than June 23, 2022. Plaintiffs' opposition is due within fourteen days after service of Defendants request. Defendants' reply, if any, is due within seven days after service of Plaintiffs' opposition. As stated on the record during the conference held on June 9, 2022, to the extent that Defendants wish to request that the Court schedule two separate jury trials, Defendan ts are directed to file a motion pursuant to Rule 42 no later than June 23, 2022. Plaintiffs' opposition is due within fourteen days after service of Defendants' motion. Defendants' reply, if any, is due within seven days after service of Plaintiffs' opposition. SO ORDERED. ( Motions due by 6/23/2022.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 6/9/2022) (va)

April 14, 2022

Filing 803 ORDER: The jury trial currently scheduled to begin on Monday, August 29, 2022 is adjourned to Monday, December 5, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. As the Court previously advised the parties, there is limited availability of trial dates resulting from the COVI D-19 pandemic and the Court must modify its trial calendar to accommodate a criminal trial. Accordingly, the final pretrial conference is also adjourned. The Court will hold a final pretrial conference in this case on Wednesday, November 9, 2022 a t 10:00 a.m. Both the final pretrial conference and the jury trial will be held in Courtroom 12C of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007. The parties are directed to submit the following materials no later than September 28, 2022: (1) the joint pretrial order and other submissions permitted or required under Rule 5 of the Court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, (2) a proposed brief, mutually acceptable description of the case, to be read to the venire, and (3) a proposed brief, mutually acceptable overview of the applicable law, to be read to the jury as part of the Court's initial instructi ons prior to opening statements. SO ORDERED. (Pretrial Order due by 9/28/2022., Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/9/2022 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Gregory H. Woods., Jury Trial set for 12/5/2022 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 4/14/2022) (jca)

February 26, 2022

Filing 794 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 656 MOTION Motion to Determine the Ambiguity of the Term "High-End Outerwear" filed by YKK Vietnam Co., Ltd., YKK (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Dalian YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., YKK Austria GMBH, Y KK Korea Co., Ltd., YKK Fastening Products Sales Inc., YKK Bangladesh Pte. Ltd., YKK France Sarl, YKK Hong Kong Ltd., P.T. YKK Zipper Indonesia, Shanghai YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., Shanghai YKK Trading Co. Ltd., YKK Canada, YKK (U.S.A.) Inc., YKK Metal Ve Plastik Urunleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S., YKK Zipper (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., YKK Taiwan Co., Ltd, YKK Italia S.P.A., OOO YKK a/k/a YKK Russia, YKK (UK) Ltd., YKK Corporation, YKK Canada Inc., YKK Deutschland GMBH. For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that the term "high end outerwear" as used in the ELA is ambiguous. The meaning of the term is to be determined by a finder of fact looking to extrinsic evidence of the parties' intentions at the time of contract formation. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 656. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 2/26/2022) (va)

September 27, 2021

Filing 789 ORDER terminating 634 Motion to Amend/Correct 634 MOTION to Amend/Correct Trial Exhibits and to Add Deposition Entries., 640 MOTION in Limine ., 642 MOTION in Limine No. 12 re extraterritorial application o f the Lanham Act., 644 MOTION in Limine No. 13 to preclude Plaintiffs from presenting evidence or argument that Plaintiffs' foreign patents are relevant to willful infringment., 646 MOTION in Limine No. 14 to exclude evidence and argument regarding claims resolved on Summary Judgment., 648 MOTION in Limine No. 15 to limit testimony of Expert James Donohue Before the Jury., 650 MOTION in Limine No. 16 to limit Plaintiffs' Damages A llegations According to the Issuance Date of the Japanese Patent at Issue., 652 MOTION in Limine No. 17 to Preclude Certain of Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibits., 654 MOTION in Limine No. 18 to Preclude Plaintiffs from Prese nting Deposition Testimony Non-Sequentially., 747 JOINT MOTION Entry of Pretrial Scheduling Order re: 639 Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings, ., 775 MOTION in Limine No. 19 to Preclude Plaintiffs from Referring to Plaintiff "Au New Have, LLC" as "Uretek.". ; terminating 640 Motion in Limine; terminating 642 Motion in Limine; terminating 644 Motion in Limine; terminating 646 Motion in Limine; terminating 648 Motion in Limine; termin ating 650 Motion in Limine; terminating 652 Motion in Limine; terminating 654 Motion in Limine; terminating 747 Motion re: 634 MOTION to Amend/Correct Trial Exhibits and to Add Deposition Entries., 640 MOTION in L imine ., 642 MOTION in Limine No. 12 re extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act., 644 MOTION in Limine No. 13 to preclude Plaintiffs from presenting evidence or argument that Plaintiffs' foreign patents are relevant to willful infringment., 646 MOTION in Limine No. 14 to exclude evidence and argument regarding claims resolved on Summary Judgment., 648 MOTION in Limine No. 15 to limit testimony of Expert James Donohue Before t he Jury., 650 MOTION in Limine No. 16 to limit Plaintiffs' Damages Allegations According to the Issuance Date of the Japanese Patent at Issue., 652 MOTION in Limine No. 17 to Preclude Certain of Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibits., 654 MOTION in Limine No. 18 to Preclude Plaintiffs from Presenting Deposition Testimony Non-Sequentially., 747 JOINT MOTION Entry of Pretrial Scheduling Order re: 639 Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings, ., 775 MOTION in Limine No. 19 to Preclude Plaintiffs from Referring to Plaintiff "Au New Have, LLC" as "Uretek.". ; terminating 775 Motion in LimineThe Court has reviewed the parties' September 26, 2021 letter s regarding trial dates. A jury trial in this matter will begin on Monday, August 29, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. The Court will hold a final pretrial conference in this case on Monday, July 25, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. Both the final pretrial conference and the jur y trial will be held in Courtroom 12C of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007. Given the new trial dates, the Court is also termi nating the pre-trial motions currently pending, which it will resolve prior to the final pretrial conference. The parties are directed to submit the following materials no later than June 3, 2022: (1) the joint pretrial order and other submissions pe rmitted or required under Rule 5 of the Court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, (2) a proposed brief, mutually acceptable description of the case, to be read to the venire, and (3) a proposed brief, mutually acceptable overview o f the applicable law, to be read to the jury as part of the Court's initial instructions prior to opening statements. The Clerk of Court is ordered to terminate the motions currently pending at Dkt. Nos. 634, 640, 642, 644, 646, 648, 650, 652, 654, 747, and 775. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 9/26/2021) (rro)

September 25, 2021

Filing 787 MEMO ENDORSEMENT denying 657 Motion to Seal. ENDORSEMENT: Application denied. The only justification provided for the sealing of this document is the fact that it was designated as "Highly Confidential" by Plaintiffs. See Dkt. No. 658. That fact, by itself, is insufficient to overcome the presumption of public access that applies to judicial documents. Plaintiffs did not elect to present any other justification for sealing or redaction. As a result, the motion to file t hese documents under seal is denied. Defendants are directed to file them in unredacted form on the public docket no later than October 5, 2021. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 657. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 9/25/2021) (rro)

August 2, 2021

Filing 749 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER: A settlement conference is scheduled for Wednesday, August 11, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. and will be held telephonically. The Court will provide dial-in information by email before the conference. The parties are directed to review and comply with the Procedures for Cases Referred for Settlement to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, a copy of which is available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-netburn. The parties are strongly encouraged to engage in good-faith settlement negotiations before the settlement conference and preferably before the submission to the Court of the Ex Parte Settlement Letters and Acknowledgment Forms, which are to be submitted by Friday, August 6, 2021, by e-mail to Netburn_NYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov. Should the parties resolve the litigation before the conference date, they must notify the Court in writing immediately. (Settlement Conference set for 8/11/2021 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 8/2/2021) (ras)

June 16, 2021

Filing 746 ORDER: In light of Judge Gregory H. Woods's June 15, 2021 Order regarding the currently-scheduled trial date, the parties are directed to contact Courtroom Deputy Rachel Slusher via email at Rachel_Slusher@nysd.uscourts.gov with three (3) mutually convenient dates, to schedule a settlement if it would be productive at this time. The parties are advised that settlement conferences must generally be scheduled at least four to six weeks in advance. The Court will likely be unable to accommodate last-minute requests for settlement conferences, and the parties should not anticipate that litigation deadlines will be adjourned in response to late requests for settlement conferences. The parties should assume that the settlement conference will be conducted by telephone using a platform that will allow the Court to hold confidential conversations with counsel and the party representative(s) for each side. (ras)

June 15, 2021

Filing 745 ORDER: On January 22, 2021, the Court informed the parties that it intended this matter to go to trial on November 29, 2021. Dkt. No. 735. As the Court informed the parties in its order, the likelihood of this case going forward on that date was contingent on, among other things, the Court's internal processes for the allocation of trial dates. The Court advises the parties that a criminal trial has been scheduled for the same date as this case; because such trials enjoy priority u nder the Court's internal processes, the parties should prepare for the possibility that this case may be tried at another date. At this time, the Court will not disturb the schedule set in its January 22 order. The Court will inform the parties should there be any relevant developments. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 6/15/2021) (rro)

January 22, 2021

Filing 735 ORDER: The Court has reviewed the parties' January 21, 2021 letter regarding the jury trial in this matter. The jury trial scheduled for May 17, 2021 is adjourned. The Court intends that a jury trial in this matter will begin on November 29, 202 1 at 9:00 a.m. However, the parties should be aware that this trial date is subject to the Southern District of New York's jury trial schedule. The deadline for the parties to submit the pretrial materials described in the Court's October 6 , 2020 order, Dkt. No. 639, is extended to September 7, 2021. The final pretrial conference scheduled for April 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. is adjourned to November 2, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. Both the final pretrial conference and the jury trial will be held in Courtroom 12C of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007. (Pretrial Order due by 9/7/2021. Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/2/20 21 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Gregory H. Woods. Jury Trial set for 11/29/2021 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/22/2021) (jwh)

January 7, 2021

Filing 729 ORDER denying without prejudice 711 Motion. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' motion is denied without prejudice. B y reading additional limitations into the Court's comments during the September 21, 2020 h earing, Plaintiffs effectively seek to have the Court reconsider its prior ruling. The Court declines t o do so. If D efendants seek to introduce Mr. Blunt's deposit i on at trial and Plaintiffs feel that such use would be in violation of Rule 32, they are invited to renew their motion at that time. T he Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 711. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/7/2021) (rro)

October 6, 2020

Filing 639 ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' motions at Dkt. Nos. 634 and 637. First, to clarify, as stated on the record during the September 21, 2020 conference, and as ordered by the Court at Dkt. Nos. 632 and 633, the parties w ere directed to confer regarding, and Plaintiffs were directed to submit to Defendants, the "very, very small number" of new deposition materials discussed during the September 21, 2020 conference by no later than September 30, 202 0. September 21, 2020 Hearing Tr. at 79:21-82:6; Dkt. Nos. 632, 633. This deadline did not affect the deadlines for the larger exchanges of the revised designations, counter-designations, objections, and joint chart described in th e Court's September 14, 2020 order. Dkt. No. 625. The schedule described in the Court's September 14, 2020 order remains in place. Furthermore, to the extent Defendants wish to respond to Plaintiffs' motions at Dkt. Nos. 634 and 637, those responses are due no later than October 19, 2020. Plaintiffs' replies, if any, are due no later than October 26, 2020. Furthermore, the Court intends that a jury trial in this matter will begin on May 17, 202 1 at 9:00 a.m. However, the parties should be aware that this trial date is subject to the Southern District of New York's jury trial schedule. The Court will hold a final pretrial conference in this case on April 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Bo th the final pretrial conference and the jury trial will be held in Courtroom 12C of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 100 07. The parties are directed to submit revised versions of the following materials no later than April 2, 2021: (1) the joint pretrial order required under Rule 5 of the Court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, and (2) a proposed brief, mutually acceptable description of the case, to be read to the venire. The parties are directed to limit their changes to those giving effect to the Court's July 30, 2020 summary judgment decision, Dkt. No. 6 11. The parties are further directed to submit a proposed brief, mutually acceptable overview of the applicable law, to be read to the jury as part of the Court's initial instructions prior to opening statements. ( Pretrial Order due b y 4/2/2021., Responses due by 10/19/2020, Replies due by 10/26/2020., Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/23/2021 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Gregory H. Woods., Jury Trial set for 5/17/2021 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 10/6/2020) (mro)

September 14, 2020

Filing 625 ORDER: The Court has reviewed the parties' September 11, 2020 submission regarding the processes for resolving certain pretrial issues. Dkt. No. 624. The Court adopts the parties' proposed deadlines and orders the following schedule for the parties' submissions: Issues Related to the Potential Ambiguity of the Term "High End Outerwear." Briefs are due by no later than October 9, 2020. Oppositions are due by no later than October 23, 2020. Replies, if any, are due by no l ater than October 30, 2020. Plaintiffs' application to add new deposition designations during this process is denied. Supplementary Motions in Limine. Any supplementary motions in limine arising from the Court's July 30, 2020 summary judgme nt decision, Dkt. No. 611, are due by no later than October 9, 2020. Oppositions are due by no later than October 30, 2020. Replies, if any, are due by no later than November 13, 2020. Any objections regarding the scope of these motions and their con nection to the Court's summary judgment decision shall be raised in the parties' opposition briefs. Issues Related to Foreign Law. The parties are directed to submit materials on any outstanding foreign law issues, including proposed supple mental jury charges, supporting memoranda of law from each party, expert information regarding the proposed charges, and English translations of the law the Court is being asked to consider, by no later than November 2, 2020. Any oppositions are due by no later than November 23, 2020. Replies, if any, are due by no later than November 30, 2020. Furthermore, the Court will hold a teleconference in this matter on September 21, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. The parties are directed to use the conference call dial-in information and access codenoted in the Court's Emergency Rules in Light of COVID-19, available on the Court's website, and are specifically directed to comply with Emergency Rule 2(C). And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED., ( Motions due by 10/9/2020., Responses due by 10/30/2020, Replies due by 11/13/2020., Telephone Conference set for 9/21/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 9/14/2020) (ama)

September 8, 2020

Filing 623 ORDER granting 461 Motion to Quash; granting in part and denying in part 466 Motion in Limine; granting 467 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 471 Motion in Limine; denying without prejudice 474 Motion in Limine; g ranting 477 Motion in Limine; granting 482 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 485 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 488 Motion in Limine; terminating 490 Motion in Limine; granting in part and d enying in part 495 Motion in Limine; terminating 500 Motion in Limine; denying without prejudice 503 Motion in Limine. For the reasons stated on the record during that conference, the Court issued the following rulings: Plaintiffs&# 039; patent-related motion in limine, Dkt. No. 466, is granted in part and denied in part; Plaintiffs' non-patent-related motion in limine, Dkt. No. 495, is granted in part and denied in part, and Sections IV and XI are reserved for judgm ent at a later date; Defendants' motion in limine at Dkt. No. 467 is granted; Defendants' motion in limine at Dkt. No. 471 is granted in part; Defendants' motion in limine at Dkt. No. 474 is denied without prejudice; De fendants' motion in limine at Dkt. No. 477 is granted; Defendants' motion in limine at Dkt. No. 482 is granted. To the extent Plaintiffs wish to introduce any such evidence for impeachment purposes, they are directed to identify the evidence no later than two weeks prior to the witness's testimony; Defendants' motion in limine at Dkt. No. 485 is granted in part and denied in part; Defendants' motion in limine at Dkt. No. 488 is granted in part and denied in part; Defendants' motion in limine at Dkt. No. 503 is denied without prejudice, and Sections I, IV, and V are reserved for judgment at a later date; and Defendants' motion to quash the subpoena of Ms. Anstett, Dkt. No. 461, is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at Dkt. Nos. 466, 467, 471, 474, 477, 482, 485, 488, 490, 495, 500, and 503. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 9/8/2020) (va)

August 18, 2020

Filing 617 PARTIAL JUDGMENT: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff AU New Haven, LLC and against Defendants YKK Corporation et al. on the claim for breach of contract described in paragraph 69 of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Dkt. 90) in the amount of $768,052.00. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 8/18/2020) (Attachments: # 1 Appeal Package) (mro)

July 30, 2020

Filing 611 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 564 MOTION for Summary Judgment and for Entry of Judgement filed by YKK Vietnam Co., Ltd., YKK (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Dalian YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., YKK Austria GMBH, YKK Korea Co., Ltd., YKK Fastening Products Sales Inc., YKK Bangladesh Pte. Ltd., YKK France Sarl, YKK Hong Kong Ltd., P.T. YKK Zipper Indonesia, Shanghai YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., Shanghai YKK Trading Co. Ltd., YKK Canada, YKK (U.S.A.) Inc., YKK Metal Ve Plast ik Urunleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S., YKK Zipper (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., YKK Taiwan Co., Ltd, YKK Italia S.P.A., OOO YKK a/k/a YKK Russia, YKK (UK) Ltd., YKK Corporation, YKK Canada Inc., YKK Deutschland GMBH. For the reasons discusse d above, YKK's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' CUTPA and breach of contract claims and GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as to their Lanham Act claim. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 564. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 7/30/2020) (mro)

March 13, 2020

Filing 603 ORDER: The settlement conference currently scheduled for Tuesday, April 28, 2020, at 11:00 a.m., is RESCHEDULED for Friday, April 3, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 219, Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. The part ies are directed to review and comply with the Procedures for Cases Referred for Settlement to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, a copy of which is available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-netburn. The parties are strongly encouraged to engage in good-faith settlement negotiations before the settlement conference and preferably before the submission to the Court of the Ex Parte Settlement Letters and Acknowledgment Forms, which are to be submitted by Friday, March 27, 2020. Should the parties resolve the litigation before the conference date, they must notify the Court in writing immediately. (Settlement Conference set for 4/3/2020 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 219, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 3/13/2020) (ras)

February 24, 2020

Filing 600 ORDER: A full-day settlement conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 28, 2020, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 219, Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer to discuss whether a set tlement conference would be productive considering the June 15, 2020 trial date. By March 2, 2020, the parties shall file either a request for an adjournment if they do not believe a settlement conference would be productive, or a request for a dif ferent date in advance of the scheduled trial. (Settlement Conference set for 4/28/2020 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 219, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 2/24/2020) (ras)

December 20, 2019

Filing 562 ORDER with respect to 500 Motion in Limine; with respect to 507 Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the jury trial currently scheduled to proceed on January 13, 2020 is adjourned to June 15, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The final pre-trial conference current ly scheduled for January 3, 2020 is adjourned to May 28, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. Defendants are granted leave to present the arguments raised by their Motion in Limine No. 10 and Rule 16 Motion, as well as any arguments regarding the extraterritorial appl ication of the Lanham Act or CUTPA, in the form of a renewed motion for summary judgment by no later than January 8, 2020. If Defendants file such a motion, Plaintiffs opposition is due no later than January 24, 2020. Defendants' reply is due no later than January 31, 2020. These motions must fully comply with all of the requirements for a standard Rule 56 motion. The Court intends to resolve Defendants motion as promptly as is practicable after it is fully submitted so as not to necessitat e any further delays of the trial date. Accordingly, the Court does not expect to entertain any requests for an extension of this briefing schedule absent a significant justification. To the extent that issues of foreign law remain in this case follo wing the Court's resolution of Defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment, the Court expects that it will require the parties to submit memoranda of law setting forth their views of the applicable foreign law, together with English tra nslations of the foreign legal precedent that supports their positions, as well as proposed jury instructions for any charges that involve issues of foreign law. The parties are directed to write the Court jointly within one week of the Courts decisi on on Defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment setting forth their respective positions regarding the foreign law issues remaining in the case. The Court expects that it will schedule a conference shortly after resolution of the summary judgment motion to discuss any remaining scheduling issues to be addressed before trial. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 12/20/2019) (kv)

July 8, 2019

Filing 454 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims is GRANTED; Defendants motion for reconsideration is DENIED; and Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at Dkt. Nos. 431 and 433. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 7/8/2019) (jca) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

March 31, 2019

Filing 425 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: In sum, Plaintiffs' and Defendants' cross motions for summary judgment are granted in part and denied in part. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 362 and 414. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 3/31/2019) (mro)

March 19, 2019

Filing 419 OPINION AND ORDER re: 359 MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF RANDY MEIROWITZ, filed by Au New Haven, LLC, 366 MOTION to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiffs' Experts, filed by YKK Vietnam Co., Ltd., YKK (Thailand) Co. , Ltd., Dalian YKK Zipper Co., Ltd., YKK Austria GMBH, YKK Korea Co., Ltd., YKK Fastening Products Sales Inc., YKK Bangladesh Pte. Ltd., YKK France Sarl, YKK Hong Kong Ltd., P.T. YKK Zipper Indonesia, Shanghai YKK Trading Co. Ltd., YKK Canada, YKK (U.S.A.) Inc., YKK Metal Ve Plastik Urunleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S., YKK Taiwan Co., Ltd, YKK Zipper (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., YKK Italia S.P.A., OOO YKK a/k/a YKK Russia, YKK (UK) Ltd., YKK Corporation, YKK Deutschlan d GMBH, 401 MOTION for Oral Argument Re: Daubert Motions [Dkt. Nos. 359, 361 & 366], filed by Trelleborg Coated Systems US, Inc., Au New Haven, LLC, 361 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony, filed by Trelleborg Coated S ystems US, Inc., Au New Haven, LLC. Both Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Daubert motions are granted in part and denied in part. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 359, 361, 366, and 401. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 03/19/2019) (ras)

May 8, 2018

Filing 356 OPINION AND ORDER: re: 327 MOTION Enjoin Defendant YKK Corporation From Maintaining Its Declaratory Judgment Action In Japan, filed by Au New Haven, LLC, Trelleborg Coated Systems US, Inc. For the reasons stated above, Plaint iffs' motion for a preliminary anti-suit injunction is GRANTED. Defendants are hereby ENJOINED from maintaining their declaratory judgment action in Japan during the pendency of the present action. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 327, and as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 5/8/2018) (ap)

October 24, 2017

Filing 287 OPINION AND ORDER: This is the third time the Court has conducted an in camera review of documents withheld by Defendants. Although some of the exemplars in this latest set are privileged, Defendants largely failed to provide adequate descriptions of the documents in their Fifth Log as required by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 26.2. Moreover, Defendants have belatedly sought to claim attorney-client privilege for several of the exemplars, even though the Fifth Log does not assert the documents are covered by that privilege. Defendants have waived those claims. The Court concludes that Defendants improperly withheld or inadequately described all but one of the exemplars submitted for in camera review. Defendants may withhold Document 9548, but they are ordered to produce the other 19 documents in full and unredacted form. Defendants are further ordered to review immediately the Fifth Log and all of the other documents they have withheld and produce additional documents in accordance with this Order by November 3, 2017. To assist Defendants in this endeavor, the Court summarizes the Order's principal conclusions as follows: (1) the Fifth Log controls with respect to all outs tanding privilege claims; (2) Defendants are not permitted to assert new claims of privilege or further revise their privilege log to correct the numerous deficiencies; (3) Defendants must produce all documents that are listed in the Fifth Log as predating January 1, 2015, except to the extent the Fifth Log adequately asserts attorney-client privilege with respect to those documents; (4) subject to specific challenges by Plaintiffs, Defendants may presumptively withhold any documents that are listed in the Fifth Log as dated on or after January 1, 2015, and that are identified as covered by work product immunity in the Fifth Log; (5) in-house counsel's communications concerning the negotiation of a contract generally fall in t he category of business advice and are not protected by the attorney-client privilege; and (6) Defendants must produce all documents for which the descriptions in the Fifth Log fail to comply with the requirements of Local Civil Rule 26.2, includ ing those for which the descriptions fail to describe the subject matter with specificity or omit reference to a specific attorney or specific member of the legal department. Finally, Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a motion for sanctions in t he form of an award of attorneys' fees incurred in reviewing and litigating issues related to Defendants' Fifth Log. Plaintiffs may file such motion, supported by a memorandum of law not to exceed 10 double-spaced pages and an attorney affidavit with exhibits, by no later than Friday, November 3, 2017. Defendants' opposition shall be filed no later than Friday, November 10, 2017, by memorandum of law not to exceed 10 double-spaced pages. No reply brief is requested. (Motions due by 11/3/2017. Responses due by 11/10/2017) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 10/24/2017) (ap)

November 22, 2016

Filing 180 OPINION AND ORDER. In sum, the Court finds no basis to depart from the general rule that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning. The patentee did not act as his own lexicographer to support a construction that equates wa ter resistance with the AATCC 35 Test. Nor did the patentee disavow resistance to wetting as way of achieving the water resistance of the layer on said second surfaces. Here, the meaning of "water resistant" as it appears in the disputed term is "readily apparent even to lay judges," and is readily apparent to this Court. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Therefore, "claim construction in [this] case[ ] involves little more than the application of the widely accepted mean ing of commonly understood words." Id. Accordingly, the Court construes "a water resistant layer on said second surfaces" to mean just that: a water resistant layer on said second surfaces. The parties are reminded that fact discove ry must be completed no later than 45 days from date of this opinion and are directed to review the Court's March 15, 2016, order, Dkt. No. 99, for the subsequent expert discovery and motion practice deadlines. (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 11/22/2016) (lmb)

November 18, 2016

Filing 178 OPINION AND ORDER: Following in camera review of the selected log entries, plaintiffs and defendants are both ordered to produce the documents or portions of documents described in this order as non-privileged. They are further ordered to review the ir privilege logs to produce additional documents in accordance with this Order. To assist the parties in this endeavor, the Court summarizes the Order's principal conclusions as follows: (1) the common interest doctrine protects otherwise privi leged communications between Uretek and Trelleborg that were reasonably related to this litigation, such as Document 198, but not documents preceding this "ongoing legal enterprise," such as Document 130; (2) the common interest doctrine pr otects otherwise privileged communications between counsel at YCA and employees at YKK, despite the fact that YCA and YKK are separate corporate entities; (3) in light of the need for language interpretation within YKK, privilege is not waived by the presence of Japanese non-attorney advisors on Defendants' email chains and extends to legal communications by such non-attorneys that were prepared under the direction or supervision of an attorney; and (4) neither party may withhold entire documents on the ground that a portion of the document is privileged, and must instead redact only the actually privileged information in each document. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 11/18/2016) (cla)

September 28, 2016

Filing 171 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 49 MOTION to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss Trelleborg Coated Systems US, Inc. for Lack of Standing, filed by YKK Corporation. For the reasons outlined above, Defendants' motion to dismiss Trelleborg's patent infringement claim is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 49. (As further set forth in this Opinion) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 9/28/2016) (kl)

Search for this case: Au New Haven, LLC et al v. YKK Corporation
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Au New Haven, LLC
Represented By:	Brian P Daniels
Represented By:	Sean Michael Fisher
Represented By:	Tonia A. Sayour
Represented By:	David R. Schaefer
Represented By:	Jeffrey Louis Snow
Represented By:	Norman H. Zivin
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Trelleborg Coated Systems US, Inc.
Represented By:	Brian P Daniels
Represented By:	Sean Michael Fisher
Represented By:	Tonia A. Sayour
Represented By:	David R. Schaefer
Represented By:	Jeffrey Louis Snow
Represented By:	Norman H. Zivin
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: YKK Corporation
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Available Case Documents