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

Filing 1144


Download PDF
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

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?