Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 301

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying 299 Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding Patent Local Rule Disclosures.(lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 8 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 APPLE INC., a California corporation, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 vs. CASE NO. 12-CV-00630-LHK (PSG) ORDER DENYING JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING PATENT LOCAL RULE DISCLOSURES SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants. 23 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation, and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, v. 24 APPLE INC., a California corporation, 25 Counterclaim-Defendant 20 21 22 26 27 28 1 Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK (PSG) ORDER DENYING JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING PATENT LOCAL RULE DISCLOSURES 1 Plaintiff Apple, Inc. filed this action on February 8, 2012, against Samsung Electronics Co., 2 Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. ECF 3 No. 1. On May 2, 2012, the Court entered a Minute Order and Case Management Order in which it 4 set a briefing schedule that provides for twenty-five (25) page opening claim construction briefs 5 that must be filed by December 21, 2012, twenty-five (25) page rebuttal claim construction briefs 6 that must be filed by January 25, 2013, and fifteen (15) page reply claim construction briefs that 7 must be filed by February 8, 2013. See ECF No. 160. On November 9, 2012, the parties submitted a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order 9 Regarding Patent Local Rule Disclosures, in which the parties now seek to amend the claim 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 8 construction process in a manner that “results in two briefs per party rather than three . . . and 11 provides for the same volume of briefing for the Court.” ECF No. 299, at 2. Specifically, the 12 parties seek to file an opening claim construction brief that may use forty (40) pages and a 13 responsive claim construction brief that may use twenty-five (25) pages. Id. at 2–3. In the 14 stipulation, the parties further agree that “[n]o party may file a reply brief or any additional 15 supporting material without leave of court for good cause shown.” Id. at 3. 16 While the Court appreciates the parties’ cooperation in this instance to reach a stipulation, 17 the Court finds that two forty (40) page opening briefs are excessive. Moreover, the Court benefits 18 from reply briefs and does not want to hear each party’s reply arguments for the first time during 19 the claim construction hearing. Unfortunately, what is more likely to occur in this case is that, 20 regardless of the stipulation, each party will file a reply brief with a motion for leave to file such a 21 brief for good cause shown. The Court will then have to review each reply brief anyway to 22 determine whether good cause has been shown and whether leave should be granted. The 23 unnecessary proliferation of motions and additional pages of claim construction briefing are 24 unwarranted. The Court believes that sixty-five (65) pages of briefing should be sufficient to 25 construe ten claim terms; certainly one hundred and thirty (130) pages should be more than 26 sufficient for this case. Therefore, the page limitations for the claim construction briefing will 27 continue to be governed by the Civil Local Rules. 28 2 Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK (PSG) ORDER DENYING JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING PATENT LOCAL RULE DISCLOSURES 1 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the parties’ Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order 2 Regarding Patent Local Rule Disclosures. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 6 Dated: November 12, 2012 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK (PSG) ORDER DENYING JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING PATENT LOCAL RULE DISCLOSURES