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