Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc. et al

Filing 224

RESPONSE to Motion re 192 MOTION Motion to Limit the Number of Asserted Claims filed by Function Media, L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, # 2 Exhibit Ex. B, # 3 Exhibit Ex. C, # 4 Exhibit Ex. D, # 5 Exhibit Ex. E)(Grinstein, Joseph)

Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc. et al

Doc. 224 Att. 4

Exhibit D

Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ACCOLADE SYSTEMS LLC
$ $

Plaintiff
vs.

s
$

$ $
$

CASE NO. 6:07 CV 48 PATENT CASE

CITRIX SYSTEMS.INC.
Defendant

s
$
$

$

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Accolade Systems LLC's ("Accolade") motion to restrict the number of claims and prior art references permitted at trial and to establish a deadline for compliance with this proposed restriction (Docket No. 125). After considering the parties' briefs, the Court DENIES

Accolade's motion.
Accolade brought this action for patent infringement against Citrix Systems, Inc. ("Citrix"), Webex Communications, Inc., and Laplink Software, lnc. Citrix is the remaining defendant in this
case. See Orders of Dismissal with Prejudice, Docket Nos. 49, 171. The Court held a Marlçnan

hearing and issued a preliminary claim construction order. Docket Nos. 115, 116. Accolade then

filed the present motion to restrict the number of claims and prior art references permitted

at

trial and

to establish a deadline for compliance with this proposed restriction. Citrix filed a response. At the

time of the motion and response, the Court had not issued aftnal claim construction order and the
parties had not completed expert discovery or filed aproposed pre-trial order, motions for summary

judgment, Daubert motions, and motions in limine. Trial is set for June 15, 2009. Docket No. 40.

Accolade argues that the Court should restrict the number of claims and references to avoid wasting the parties' resources. Accolade contends that the Court's preliminary claim construction
order provides sufficient information for the parties to select the claims and references they

will

use

attrial. Accolade points to the asserted fourteen claims and twenty-six references

and the

limit on

trial time to suggest that the parties will not have time to use all asserted claims and references at

trial.

Accolade suggests that continuing the case without limiting the number of claims and

references would cause the parties to waste resources addressing claims or references in pretrial

discovery and motion practice that will not be asserted at tnal. In light of this, Accolade requests
a

restriction on the number of claims and references. Citrix counters that the Court should not restrict the number of claims and references because

such a restriction would cause unnecessary prejudice. Citrix states that

it

has not received

information that it needs to limit its references-expert discovery, the claims and evidence Accolade

will present attnal,which products will

be the subject of

hial, and the Court's rulings on final claim

constructions, summaryjudgment motions, Daubert motions, and motions in limine. Citrix Br. 4.

Also, Citrix argues that

a

restriction is not necessary because the natural progression of the case and

the time limit on presenting at trial

will

cause the parties to self-limit the number

of claims and

references. Thus, Citrix opposes a restriction on the number of claims and references.

While the Court always encourages parties to focus their cases to the most relevant claims
and references, the Court does not usually impose a

limit on the number of claims and references
trial. Accolade

because parties naturally withdraw claims and references that are not viable for use at

has not presented any circumstances that make this case an anomaly. Restricting the claims and references

in this case ís not necessary because the number of claims and references are alreadv

reasonable. Accolade asserted fourteen claims- and Citrix asserted twentv-six references. This is

not an inordinate number of claims and references. While there may be a situation where it
necessary to restrict the number of claims or references, Accolade has not shown that proceeding

with this number of claims and references would so undulyburdensome as to outweigh the parties'
prejudice if the Court were to order the restriction. Here, a restriction on the number of claims and
references would carry little benefit in saving the parties' resources.

Given the relatively low number of claims and references at issue. Accolade has not shown

a restriction is warranted. A restriction would have provided minimal benefit and be unduly prejudicial. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Accolade's motion.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this

llth

day of May,2009.

LEONARD DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JTTDGE