Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
Filing
301
Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying #299 Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding Patent Local Rule Disclosures.(lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
vs.
CASE NO. 12-CV-00630-LHK (PSG)
ORDER DENYING JOINT STIPULATION
AND PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING
PATENT LOCAL RULE DISCLOSURES
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants.
23
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation, and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,
v.
24
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
25
Counterclaim-Defendant
20
21
22
26
27
28
1
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK (PSG)
ORDER DENYING JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
REGARDING PATENT LOCAL RULE DISCLOSURES
1
Plaintiff Apple, Inc. filed this action on February 8, 2012, against Samsung Electronics Co.,
2
Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. ECF
3
No. 1. On May 2, 2012, the Court entered a Minute Order and Case Management Order in which it
4
set a briefing schedule that provides for twenty-five (25) page opening claim construction briefs
5
that must be filed by December 21, 2012, twenty-five (25) page rebuttal claim construction briefs
6
that must be filed by January 25, 2013, and fifteen (15) page reply claim construction briefs that
7
must be filed by February 8, 2013. See ECF No. 160.
On November 9, 2012, the parties submitted a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order
9
Regarding Patent Local Rule Disclosures, in which the parties now seek to amend the claim
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
construction process in a manner that “results in two briefs per party rather than three . . . and
11
provides for the same volume of briefing for the Court.” ECF No. 299, at 2. Specifically, the
12
parties seek to file an opening claim construction brief that may use forty (40) pages and a
13
responsive claim construction brief that may use twenty-five (25) pages. Id. at 2–3. In the
14
stipulation, the parties further agree that “[n]o party may file a reply brief or any additional
15
supporting material without leave of court for good cause shown.” Id. at 3.
16
While the Court appreciates the parties’ cooperation in this instance to reach a stipulation,
17
the Court finds that two forty (40) page opening briefs are excessive. Moreover, the Court benefits
18
from reply briefs and does not want to hear each party’s reply arguments for the first time during
19
the claim construction hearing. Unfortunately, what is more likely to occur in this case is that,
20
regardless of the stipulation, each party will file a reply brief with a motion for leave to file such a
21
brief for good cause shown. The Court will then have to review each reply brief anyway to
22
determine whether good cause has been shown and whether leave should be granted. The
23
unnecessary proliferation of motions and additional pages of claim construction briefing are
24
unwarranted. The Court believes that sixty-five (65) pages of briefing should be sufficient to
25
construe ten claim terms; certainly one hundred and thirty (130) pages should be more than
26
sufficient for this case. Therefore, the page limitations for the claim construction briefing will
27
continue to be governed by the Civil Local Rules.
28
2
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK (PSG)
ORDER DENYING JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
REGARDING PATENT LOCAL RULE DISCLOSURES
1
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the parties’ Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order
2
Regarding Patent Local Rule Disclosures.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
6
Dated: November 12, 2012
_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK (PSG)
ORDER DENYING JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
REGARDING PATENT LOCAL RULE DISCLOSURES
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?