Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 95

MOTION MOTION PLAINTIFF'S MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE REGARDING EXISTENCE OF LIMITATIONS ON THE LENGTH OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION filed by Overture Services, Inc.. (Fenwick, Anthony) filed by Overture Services, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Fenwick, Anthony)

Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Doc. 95

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 95

Filed 08/25/2003

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Latham & Watkins
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SILICON VALLEY

LATHAM & WATKINS Anthony I. Fenwick (Bar No. 158667) Allon Stabinsky (Bar No. 197642) 135 Commonwealth Drive Menlo Park, California 94025 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE Jack C. Berenzweig (Pro Hac) William H. Frankel (Pro Hac) Jason C. White (Pro Hac) Charles M. Mcmahon (Pro Hac) NBC Tower - Suite 3600 455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive Chicago, Illinois 60611 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff OVERTURE SERVICES, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

OVERTURE SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., a California Corporation, Defendant.

CASE NO. C02-01991 JSW (EDL) PLAINTIFF'S MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE REGARDING EXISTENCE OF LIMITATIONS ON THE LENGTH OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION L.R. 7-10(b)

In view of the forty-six page Responsive Claim Construction Brief filed last Friday, August 22, 2003, by defendant Google Technology Inc. ("Google"), plaintiff Overture Services, Inc. ("Overture") seeks the Court's guidance with respect to whether there are any page limitations applicable to Overture's Reply Brief, currently due Wednesday, September 3.1 On August 8, 2003, operating under the assumption that the page limitations of
1

The claim construction hearing in this matter is scheduled to take place on October 22, 2003. 1
Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 95

Filed 08/25/2003

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Latham & Watkins
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SILICON VALLEY

Local Rule 7-1 were applicable, Overture filed a 25 page Opening Claim Construction Brief. On Friday, August 22, Google filed a 46 page responsive brief. Prior to filing the brief, Google neither consulted Overture nor (to Overture's knowledge) sought leave or guidance from the Court regarding the brief's length. At footnote 1 of the brief, Google takes the position that in this Court there are no page limitations applicable to claim construction briefing. (In the same footnote, Google requests leave to file its oversized brief in the event the Court disagrees with Google's position regarding the absence of any page limitations.) Given the length of Google's footnote-laden brief, Plaintiff anticipates filing a Reply brief that exceeds the 15 page limit of Local Rule 7-3(c) (and paragraph 7 of the Court's Standing Order). In view of Google's stated position that no page limitations apply, Overture has seen no need to seek Google's stipulation to the filing of such a brief. Overture files this miscellaneous administrative request in an effort to assure its compliance with the Court's rules and respectfully requests that the Court inform Overture if, in these circumstances, the filing of a Reply brief exceeding 15 pages is prohibited. Should the Court restrict Overture's Reply brief to 15 pages, then Overture respectfully requests that Google's oversized responsive claim construction brief be stricken and that Google be ordered to file a brief no more than 25 pages in length. Dated: August 25, 2003 LATHAM & WATKINS

By /s/ Anthony I. Fenwick Anthony I. Fenwick Attorneys for Plaintiff OVERTURE SERVICES INC.

2