Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc. et al

Filing 139

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 119 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND SETTING CASE SCHEDULE. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FINJAN, INC.,

Case No. 13-cv-05808-HSG

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION AND SETTING CASE
SCHEDULE

v.
9
10

PROOFPOINT, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 119

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On February 6, 2015, Defendants Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc. filed

13

an Administrative Motion requesting this Court: (1) construe an unspecified number of claim

14

terms beyond the ten-term maximum specified in this District’s Patent Local Rules; (2) permit the

15

parties ten additional pages in their respective opening and responsive briefs to construe additional

16

claim terms; and (3) permit Defendants to file a 15-page surreply. See Dkt. No. 119.

17

Defendants’ Administrative Motion is DENIED. Neither party nor judicial resources will

18

be conserved by construing terms that may never be at issue in this case. See Dkt. No. 119 at 4

19

(“At this stage, however, neither the Court nor Proofpoint can predict which claims Finjan might

20

ultimately elect.”). Moreover, Defendants have not attempted to explain which of its “over 80”

21

proposed terms should be construed, why those constructions are or could be necessary to the

22

resolution of this case, or their likelihood of remaining necessary after Finjan’s asserted claims are

23

whittled-down to 24. Broad and conclusory generalizations that “the parties and the Court would

24

benefit from early resolution of their disputes” or that the construction of additional claim terms

25

“will positively impact the litigation” are not sufficient to demonstrate good cause. See Dkt. No.

26

119 at 1, 3. Should construction of additional terms prove necessary after Finjan has elected its

27

final asserted claims, the Court will provide the parties a supplemental briefing schedule to

28

1

address those constructions.1
Nor have Defendants demonstrated good cause to depart from the default schedule for

2
3

claim construction briefing set by Patent Local Rule 4-5. A surreply is not provided by that Rule.

4

Defendants have offered no argument as to why claim construction in this particular case merits

5

alteration of the schedule contained in Rule 4-5. Accordingly, the Court sets the following

6

schedule for this case:

7

Event
Opening Claim Construction Brief
Opposition Claim Construction Brief
Reply Claim Construction Brief

8
9

Claim Construction Tutorial

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Claim Construction Hearing

12

Comply with P.L.R. 3-7

13

Close of Fact Discovery
Final Election of Asserted Claims
Final Election of Asserted Prior Art
Opening Expert Reports
Rebuttal Expert Reports
Close of Expert Discovery
Last Day to File Dispositive Motions
Opposition to Dispositive Motions
Reply to Dispositive Motions
Dispositive Motion Hearing Date
Final Pretrial Conference
Trial

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

The Court will consider alterations to this schedule only upon a showing of good cause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Deadline
May 1, 2015
May 15, 2015
May 22, 2015
June 2, 2015
(10:00-11:30 am)
June 24, 2015
(10:00 am - 1:00 pm)
50 days after claims
construction order
September 2, 2015
September 9, 2015
September 16, 2015
September 23, 2015
October 14, 2015
October 28, 2015
November 11, 2015
November 25, 2015
December 2, 2015
December 17, 2015
February 23, 2016
March 7, 2016

Dated: April 2, 2015
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
1

28

Because the Court denies Defendants’ request to brief additional terms, there is no need for the
parties to submit additional pages in their respective opening and responsive briefs.
2