Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc.

Filing 203

RESPONSE to re 201 Order Request for Input on Page Limits by Blockbuster, Inc.. (Pierce, Sheila) (Filed on 5/7/2007)

Download PDF
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. Doc. 203 Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 203 Filed 05/07/2007 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 BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP Donn P. Pickett (SBN 72257) Mary T. Huser (SBN 136051) Adrienne L. Taclas (SBN 166115) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4067 Telephone: (415) 393-2000 Facsimile: (415) 393-2286 Marshall B. Grossman (SBN 35958) William J. O'Brien (SBN 99526) Tony D. Chen (SBN 176635) Dominique N. Thomas (SBN 231464) The Water Garden 1620 26th Street Fourth Floor, North Tower Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060 Telephone: (310) 907-1000 Facsimile: (310) 907-2000 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant, BLOCKBUSTER, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NETFLIX, INC, a Delaware corporation v. Plaintiff, Case No. C 06 2361 WHA (JCS) BLOCKBUSTER INC.'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S REQUEST FOR INPUT ON PAGE LIMITS BLOCKBUSTER, INC., a Delaware corporation, DOES 1-50, Defendant. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS Complaint Filed: April 4, 2006 In response to the Court's Request For Input On Page Limits, dated May 1, 2007, Defendant Blockbuster, Inc. responds as follows: Blockbuster agrees with the Court's proposed length of thirty (30) pages of briefing for opening memoranda and fifteen (15) pages for reply briefs. With respect to the 100 pages of evidentiary support, Blockbuster raises the following issues for the Court to consider. Blockbuster may move for invalidity on some or all PA/52202097.2/ BLOCKBUSTER INC.'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S REQUEST FOR INPUT ON PAGE LIMITS Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 203 Filed 05/07/2007 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 of the claims asserted by Netflix in this case. Doing so necessarily requires Blockbuster to introduce into evidence numerous pieces of prior art, to compare them to the numerous elements of the claims, and to explain why it would have been obvious to combine or modify prior art to obtain the same combinations of elements set forth in various claims. Some items of prior art are described in multiple documents as well as in deposition testimony. One important document a government-sponsored Reference Guide for libraries for the blind is almost 300 pages in length. Blockbuster will be selective as to the prior art and supporting documents used. Still, the total number of pages required is likely to approach or exceed 100. A significant number of additional pages will be required for expert analysis of the claim elements, comparison of them to the prior art, and analysis of the obviousness of combinations and modifications. In addition, Blockbuster may move with respect to non-infringement of certain claims and with respect to inequitable conduct. Significant additional evidence and analysis would be required for each of these motions. Should the Court and Netflix agree to allow Blockbuster to cite to only the specific pages within the prior art references on which it relies, it would be possible for Blockbuster to limit itself to 200 pages of evidentiary support for all motions combined. However, if complete references are required, the evidentiary support required would be much more voluminous. Blockbuster accepts the Court's suggestion that no evidentiary support be provided with reply memoranda without leave of Court. DATED: May 7, 2007 Bingham McCutchen LLP By: /s/ Donn P. Pickett Donn P. Pickett Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Blockbuster Inc. PA/52202097.2/ 2 BLOCKBUSTER INC.'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S REQUEST FOR INPUT ON PAGE LIMITS

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?