Fortinet, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc. et al

Filing 290

ORDER re 218 Supplemental Briefing. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 10/14/2015. (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 FORTINET, INC., 7 Plaintiff, 8 ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING v. 9 10 SOPHOS, INC., et al., Docket No. 218 Defendants. 11 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court Case No. 13-cv-05831-EMC 13 Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Fortinet, Inc.‟s motion for summary 14 judgment. See Docket No. 218 (motion). At the hearing on the motion, Fortinet raised an 15 argument that it had not explicitly made in its papers with respect to the alleged invalidity 16 (indefiniteness) of claim 9 of the „587 patent. More specifically, Fortinet argued that the first 17 means-plus-function limitation in claim 9 (“means in a first data processor of the network for 18 providing a second data processor of the network with a copy of an item of data which is stored 19 for access by the first data processor”) was indefinite pursuant to Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty 20 Ltd. v .Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008).1 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 1 28 To be clear, Aristocrat was cited in Fortinet‟s opening brief to the extent the PTAB had cited the case in its decision on which Fortinet relied. 1 Because this argument was not fully fleshed out in the parties‟ briefs, the Court hereby 2 orders supplemental briefing as to whether the first means-plus-function limitation in claim 9 is 3 indefinite under Aristocrat. Each party shall file a supplemental brief by 12:00 p.m., October 16, 4 2015. The brief shall be no longer than five pages. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 9 10 Dated: October 14, 2015 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 11 13 14 15 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?