Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Seiko Epson Corporation et al

Filing 78

Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 72 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages.(cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2015)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC
and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC,
Plaintiffs,

11
12
13

v.
CANON, INC. et al.,

(Docket No. 290)

________________________________/

16

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED
LLC,

17

Plaintiff,

18

ORDER ON
DEFENDANTS' MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE
EXCESS PAGES

Defendants.

14
15

No. C 14-3640 CW

No. C 14-3641 CW
(Docket No. 66)

v.

19

FALCON COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.,

20

Defendant.

21

________________________________/

22

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC
and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC,

23

Plaintiffs,

24
25
26
27
28

v.
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
Defendant.
________________________________/

No. C 14-3643 CW
(Docket No. 76)

1

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED
LLC,

2

Plaintiff,

3
4

(Docket No. 63)

v.
NEWEGG INC. et al.,

5

Defendants.

6

________________________________/

7

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED
LLC,

8

10
11

14

SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC
and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC,

15
16
17

No. C 14-3647 CW
(Docket No. 68)

Plaintiffs,
v.
SHUTTLE, INC., et al.,

18
19

(Docket No. 72)

v.

12
13

No. C 14-3646 CW

Plaintiff,

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 14-3645 CW

Defendants.
________________________________/

20
21
22

The matter comes before the Court on Defendants'

23

administrative motion for leave to file excess pages for their

24

joint opposition brief on claim construction.

25

Defendants seek ten extra pages, raising the limitation from

26

twenty-five to thirty-five pages.

27
28

Docket No. 290.1

In support of their motion,

Docket Numbers correspond to the docket for case number
14-3640.
1

2

1

Defendants point out that there are nine terms across three

2

patents in dispute.

3

pages are necessary to provide ample space to harmonize the

4

arguments of six separate Defendants.

5

that additional pages will permit Defendants to incorporate

6

illustrations which will make their argument easier to follow,

7

thereby assisting the Court.

8
9

Further, Defendants argue that the excess

Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

Finally, Defendants state

Docket No. 295.

Having

considered Plaintiffs' opposition, the Court concludes that many

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

of Plaintiffs' arguments simply carry no weight.

11

Plaintiffs argue that there is "no justification" for the

12

increase; in fact, Defendants provided several justifications in

13

their motion.

14

some of the allotted page limit making accusatory statements about

15

Plaintiffs rather than focusing on the merits of claim

16

construction."

17

prediction.

18

have had three months to file their brief.

19

to that effect ring hollow, as Plaintiffs agreed to this briefing

20

schedule at the case management conference and several Defendants

21

have settled in the interim, necessarily upsetting the preparation

22

of a joint brief.

23

prejudicial to grant Defendants' motion, since Plaintiffs complied

24

with the applicable page limit in filing their opening brief.

25

However, Plaintiffs had an available remedy, had they determined

26

that extra pages were necessary: they could have filed a similar

27

motion for excess pages.

For example,

Plaintiffs also argue that "Defendants will use

The Court will not deny Defendants' motion on a

Plaintiffs also make much of the fact that Defendants
Plaintiffs' arguments

Plaintiffs also argue that it would be

28
3

1

In sum, Defendants justified their request and Plaintiffs'

2

opposition has not convinced the Court that Defendants' motion

3

should be denied.

4

Defendants' motion.

The Court thus finds good cause and GRANTS

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: April 17, 2015

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4