HealthTrio, LLC v. Aetna Inc. et al

Filing 48

ORDER adopting 46 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The extant Order for Briefing on Markman Issues [# 14 ] is AMENDED. The parties' Agreed Motion To Exceed Page Limitation of Joint Claim Construction Statement [# 44 ] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties' Joint Claim Construction Statement [# 43 ], is STRICKEN. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 6/13/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 12-cv-03229-REB
HEALTHTRIO, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AETNA, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation,
ACTIVEHEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
MEDICITY, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is the magistrate judge’s Recommendation on
Defendants’ Motion To Amend Court’s Order for Briefing on Markman Issues
(Docket No. 32) [#46], filed June 10, 2013;1 and (2) the parties’ Agreed Motion To
Exceed Page Limitation of Joint Claim Construction Statement [#44], filed June 3,
2013. Relevantly, the parties have filed their Joint Stipulation to Entry of the
Magistrate’s Recommendation on Defendants’ Motion To Amend Court’s Order
for Briefing on Markman Issues (Docket No. 32) [#47], filed June 11, 2013. Based
on the stipulation, and the eminently reasonable proposal suggested by the magistrate
judge for managing claims construction in this matter, I adopt the recommendation.

1

“[#46]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

However, as it is not clear from either the recommendation or the parties’
stipulation to the relief suggested therein whether an expansion of the 15-page limit on
the joint claim construction statement (as opposed to the parties’ briefs regarding same)
is still necessary given the agreement to substantially limit the initial claim construction
to a few key terms, the motion to exceed the page limitations for the joint claim
construction statement will be denied without prejudice. If one or both of the parties still
believe, in good faith, that the joint claim construction statement cannot adhere to the
reasonable page limitations initially imposed by the court, it or they may attempt to
make a showing justifying expansion of the page limitations at that time.2
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the magistrate judge’s Recommendation on Defendants’ Motion To
Amend Court’s Order for Briefing on Markman Issues (Docket No. 32) [#46], filed
June 10, 2013, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the extant Order for Briefing on Markman Issues [#14], December 11,
2012, is AMENDED as follows:
a. That paragraph 1 is AMENDED to provide that the parties’ joint claim
construction statement, limited to the nine terms identified in the
magistrate judge’s recommendation, SHALL BE FILED within twenty-one
(21) days of the date of this order;

2

Concomitantly, the Joint Claim Construction Statement [#43], filed June 3, 2013, which
contains proposed constructions of terms not covered by the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
which exceeds the page limitations set by the court is its Order for Briefing on Markman Issues [#14],
filed December 11, 2012, will be stricken.

2

b. That paragraph 5 is AMENDED to provide that plaintiff’s brief on
construction and defendant’s response both SHALL BE LIMITED to thirty
(30) pages;
c. That within fourteen (14) days of the date of any order on claims
construction, the parties SHALL FILE a joint statement informing the court
whether any disputed terms remain and, if necessary, proposing a briefing
schedule for a supplemental claims construction process; and
d. That all other provisions of the Order for Briefing on Markman
Issues [#14], filed December 11, 2012, SHALL REMAIN in full force and
effect;
3. That the parties’ Agreed Motion To Exceed Page Limitation of Joint Claim
Construction Statement [#44], filed June 3, 2013, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
and
4. That the parties’ Joint Claim Construction Statement [#43], filed June 3,
2013, is STRICKEN for failure to comply with the page limitations set forth (and pending
further order of court, still extant) in the court’s Order for Briefing on Markman Issues
[#14], December 11, 2012.
Dated June 13, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3