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)
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?