Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 479

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages re Samsung's Administrative Motion to Exceed Page Limit in Samsung's Responsive Claim Construction Brief filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Briggs Declaration, #2 Exhibit 1 to Briggs Declaration, #3 Exhibit 2 to Briggs Declaration, #4 Proposed Order)(Briggs, Todd) (Filed on 12/12/2011)

1 UINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
2 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
5 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
6 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
7 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
8 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
9
Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
10 [e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
11 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
12 Facsimile: [phone]
13 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
14 AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

18 APPLE INC., a California corporation,

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK

19

SAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT IN
SAMSUNG’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

20

Plaintiff,
vs.

21 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
22 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
23 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
24
Defendants.
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4504068.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT

1

In accordance with Northern District of California Civil L. R. 7-11, Samsung Electronics

2 Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC
3 (collectively “Samsung”) respectfully move the Court for leave to exceed the page limit under
4 Civil L. R. 7-4(b) for Samsung’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (“Response Brief”).

This

5 Response Brief is due on December 22, 2011.
6

Pursuant to the Court’s Case Management Order of August 25, 2011 and Patent Local Rule

7 4-3, the parties selected 5 terms each for claim construction by the Court. Samsung selected 5
8 terms from Apple’s patents, while Apple selected 3 terms from its own patents and 2 terms from
9 Samsung patents.

This resulted in a total of 8 Apple patent terms and 2 Samsung patent terms for

10 construction.
11

Under Civil Local Rule 7-3 and Patent Local Rule 4-5, Samsung has a total of 40 pages

12 (25 page opening and 15 page reply briefs) and Apple has a total of 25 pages (25 page response
13 brief) to address the 2 Samsung patent terms. On the other hand, Apple has a total of 40 pages
14 (25 page opening and 15 page reply briefs) and Samsung has a total of 25 pages (25 page response
15 brief) to address the 8 Apple patent terms.

This distribution gives Samsung an average of 20

16 pages to discuss each of the terms from its own patents and slightly over 3 pages total to discuss
17 each of the terms from Apple's patents.

The severe imbalance in this distribution curtails

18 Samsung’s ability to discuss the Apple claim terms at issue.
19

Samsung seeks leave to correct this imbalance by exceeding the 25 page limit for its

20 Response Brief.

Any pages in excess of the 25 page limit would be deducted from Samsung’s

21 opening and reply brief such that Samsung would only file a maximum of 65 pages for claim
22 construction – thus, the parties would still have an equal amount of briefing and Samsung would
23 have the same total number of pages it is currently allowed under the local rules.
24

On November 27, Samsung sought a stipulation regarding the distribution of page limits to

25 allow both parties to allocate their 65 total pages as necessary. Declaration of Todd Briggs in
26 Support of Samsung’s Administrative Motion to File Excess Pages, Ex. 1.
27 on November 29, seeking a response. Id.
02198.51855/4504068.1

Samsung followed up

On December 1, Apple responded stating, “We’ll get

28 back to you [Samsung] as soon as possible on your page limits proposal.” Id. However, Apple
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-1SAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT

1 waited until December 7, the day before opening claim construction briefs were due, to reject
2 Samsung’s proposed stipulation.

Id.

Apple thereby gave Samsung little time to seek additional

3 pages of briefing prior to the parties submitting their opening claim construction briefs.
4

The next day, Samsung sought a stipulation to allow Samsung to file additional pages for

5 its response brief. Id., Ex. 2.

Apple refused and offered Samsung no alternative proposal. Id.

6 Thus, Samsung seeks leave from the Court to allocate additional pages from its opening and reply
7 brief to its Response Brief, to allow for a more balanced discussion of the 8 Apple patent terms.
8
9 DATED: December 12, 2011
10

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

By

/s/ Todd M. Briggs
Charles K. Verhoeven
Kevin P.B. Johnson
Victoria F. Maroulis
Michael T. Zeller
Todd M. Briggs
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4504068.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-2SAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT