U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc. et al

Filing 1144

ORDER REGARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING SCHEDULE (cwlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC,

5
6
7

Plaintiff,
v.
ACER, INC., et al.,

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Defendants.
ATHEROS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et
al.,
Intervenors.

11
12
13

________________________________/
U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17

No. C 10-3724 CW

v.

No. C 10-5254 CW
ORDER REGARDING
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BRIEFING SCHEDULE

AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, et al.,
Defendants,
________________________________/

18
19

In this consolidated patent infringement case, after

20

Plaintiff U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC (USEI) filed its twenty-

21

five page summary judgment brief, Defendants and Intervenors

22

(collectively, Defendants) moved to increase the page limit for

23
24

their joint cross motion and opposition to one hundred pages.

Court granted Defendants’ administrative motion in part, allowing

25
26

The

seventy-five pages for Defendants’ cross motion and opposition,

27

seventy-five pages for USEI’s reply and opposition to cross

28

motions, and twenty-five pages for Defendants’ reply.

1

USEI now files an opposition to the administrative motion,

2

arguing that Defendants unfairly waited until the last minute to

3

seek a sizeable page limit extension.

4

be able to respond to the large number of substantive issues

5

raised by Defendants.

6
7

USEI complains it will not

Further, USEI argues the timing of the

extension is prejudicial because it would have preferred to raise
a larger number of affirmative issues in its brief, but limited

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

itself to comply with the Court’s default twenty-five page limit.
USEI and Defendants are directed to meet and confer regarding

11

the briefing and hearing of these motions.

12

be filed no later than Wednesday, July 9, 2014, at 5:00 p.m.

13

the parties cannot agree, then they should submit their respective

14

proposals by the same date.

15

Any stipulation should

Proposals should be reasonable; ones

requesting excessive page limits or lengthy delays in the schedule

16
17
18
19
20

If

will be disfavored.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 3, 2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2