<Complainants request that the ALJ confirm that Complainants need not respond to Respondents’ proposed motions for summary determination unless the ALJ grants their motions for leave. As explained more fully below, it was at Respondents’ request that the ALJ’s model schedule was modified to place the summary determination deadline before expert discovery. No good cause or exceptional circumstances exist to now modify the procedural schedule to permit the filing of two motions for summary determination less than 60 days before the hearing in violation of Commission Rule 210.18(a). Further, the requested modifications would be prejudicial to Complainants because the parties are fully engaged in expert discovery and other imminentmotion practice and pre-trial deadlines at this time. Thus, complainants request that the motions for leave be denied, ....>

I think the first and last sentances sums up what the resondents are trying to do, which is make work for Agility at a critical time as we prepare for trial.

Delving into the more detailed argument is an interesting blurb.

<Here, Respondents’ motion concedes that there is evidence in the record because Dr. Oklogbdzija explicitly states that it is his opinion that the Accused Products infringe under the Respondents’ and Staff’s constructions, and he provides analysis of the “entire” limitations for each product . Mot. 853-027 at>

Interesting to say the least.

Opty