Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. TIBCO Software, Inc. et al

Filing 175

ORDER RE PAGE LIMITATIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 7/26/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
VASUDEVAN SOFTWARE, INC.,

12
13
14
15
16

No. C 11-06638 RS

Plaintiff,
ORDER RE PAGE LIMITATIONS
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MOTIONS

v.
TIBCO SOFTWARE, INC.,
Defendant.
____________________________________/

17
18

Civil Local Rule 7-2(b) states that motions must be made in the form of one filed document

19

not exceeding 25 pages in length. Currently, in this case, VSI has filed two documents moving for

20

summary judgment totaling 25 pages in length and TIBCO has filed three documents moving for

21

summary judgment totaling 75 pages in length (one of which is 29 pages, leave having been granted

22

in advance to exceed the 25 page limit). In addition, the parties have filed a total of four motions to

23

strike or exclude evidence from each other’s experts, totaling 84 pages. All nine of these motions

24

are scheduled to be heard on August 29, 2013.

25

In order to avoid excessive briefing and facilitate the crystallization of the issues presented

26

by the parties in these five cross-motions for summary judgment, the following page limits are

27

adopted:

28
NO. C 11-06638 RS
ORDER

1

VSI Motions

2

Summary Judgment of No

3

Summary Judgment on TIBCO’s

5

Page Totals

16

10

9

5

25

15

Opposition Pages Allowed

Reply Pages Allowed

21

13

25

15

25

15

71

43

Laches Defense, Dkt. 158

6

Reply Pages Allowed

Inequitable Conduct, Dkt. 150

4

Opposition Pages Allowed

7
8

TIBCO Motions

9

Summary Judgment of Invalidity

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

of ’864 Patent for Lack of

11

Written Description and

12

Enablement Regarding Disparate

13

Databases, Dkt. 155

14

Summary Judgment of Invalidity

15

of ’864 Patent Due to

16

Obviousness, Dkt. 160

17

Summary Judgment of

18

Noninfringement of Patent ’864

19

Page Totals

20
21

The parties are encouraged to file responsive briefs of lesser length than permitted above. The

22

parties’ oppositions to the motions to exclude or strike expert evidence are limited to fifteen pages

23

each. Replies on these motions, if any, shall be no longer than eight pages.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 7/26/13
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
NO. C 11-06638 RS
ORDER

2