Implicit Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.
Filing
92
ORDER ON REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME AND CROSS MOTION TO COMPEL 90 91 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 6/6/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
IMPLICIT NETWORKS, INC.,
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
No. C 10-04234 SI
Plaintiff,
ORDER ON REQUEST FOR
ADDITIONAL TIME AND CROSS
MOTION TO COMPEL
v.
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
Defendant.
/
13
14
Currently before the Court is Juniper’s request for additional time to provide its response to
15
Interrogatory No. 3, which the Court ordered Juniper to provide on or before June 12, 2012. Docket No.
16
89; see also May 23, 2012 Order. Juniper also moves to compel Implicit to provide an answer to
17
Juniper’s Interrogatory No. 18, which asks Implicit to describe and provide charts explaining why it
18
believes that each prior art reference and combination Juniper identified in its invalidity contentions and
19
requests for reexamination does not disclose each claim element at issue. Docket No. 90.
20
In Juniper’s first request, Juniper asks to be given fifteen days after Implicit serves its final set
21
of infringement contentions and claim charts with source code citations (which are due on June 7, 2012)
22
to provide its substantive non-infringement contentions and chart(s) in response to Implicit’s
23
Interrogatory No. 3. Juniper argues it should not be required to provide detailed non-infringement
24
contentions until well-after Implicit provides the infringement contentions with source code citations.
25
However, as noted in the Court’s May 23, 2012 Order, the Court found that Implicit’s “amended PICs
26
– as supported by code citations – provide[d] a good overview of its infringement contentions,”
27
questioned the utility of adding the source code citations on a claim by claim basis but nonetheless
28
ordered them to be provided while limiting Implicit’s ability to add any new material into the amended
PICs. See Docket No. 84. In light of that context, the Court does not see a reason why Juniper would
2
need additional time to provide a full response to Interrogatory No. 3. Juniper’s request is DENIED.
3
With respect to Juniper’s motion to compel Implicit to provide a response to its Interrogatory
4
No. 18, the Court finds that Interrogatory unduly burdensome and DENIES Juniper’s motion. As
5
Implicit pointed out in its response and objection, hundreds of prior art references and combinations
6
have been referenced. Requiring Implicit to provide responses and charts identifying why each of
7
hundreds of references or combinations do not disclose each asserted patent claim element is a
8
Herculean task with limited utility. Moreover, unlike the non-infringement contentions required from
9
Juniper – which hinge on Juniper’s insight into and understanding of the functionality of its own
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
products – neither side has a better understanding of how or whether the prior art references and
11
combinations asserted by Juniper disclose each of the claim elements at issue here.
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated: June 6, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?