ESN LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 77

Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by ESN LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Willis, Gerald)

Download PDF
ESN LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al Doc. 77 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION ESN, LLC, Plaintiff, v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., and CISCO-LINKSYS, LLC, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 5:08-cv-20-DF PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF IN EXCESS OF THE PAGE LIMITATION SET FORTH IN LOCAL RULE CV-7 ESN, LLC ("ESN") respectfully moves for leave of Court to file a reply brief in support of its claim construction of the disputed claim terms of U.S. Patent No. 7,283,519 ("the `519 Patent") being asserted in this action. According P.R. 4-5(e), the page limitations governing claim construction briefing are the same as those for dispositive motions pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(a). Local Rule CV-7(a)(1) limits reply briefs to ten pages. ESN is requesting leave to exceed the page limitation by five pages, for a total of 15 pages. ESN has used its best efforts to limit the number of pages in its reply brief, but has been unable to do so. The reasons that ESN needs to exceed the ten-page limit are twofold. First, there are 13 claim terms and/or phrases that need to be addressed in the Reply. Second, a significant amount of space is taken up by incorporating a table of each party's proposed construction for each of the disputed terms and/or phrases. ESN believes that having each party's proposed construction side-by-side will significantly assist the Court in understanding Dockets.Justia.com each argument as it relates to that disputed claim term. Unfortunately, the tables take up a significant amount of space in the brief. For the reasons stated herein, ESN respectfully requests that the Court grant ESN's Unopposed Motion For Leave to Exceed the Page Limitation Set Forth in Local Rule CV-7 by five pages, for a total of 15 pages. Respectfully submitted, FOR PLAINTIFF, ESN, LLC: _/s/ Gerald C. Willis____________ Eric M. Albritton Lead Attorney Texas State Bar No. 00790215 ALBRITTON LAW FIRM P.O. Box 2649 Longview, Texas 75606 Telephone (903) 757-8449 Facsimile (903) 758-7397 ema@emafirm.com T. John Ward Jr. Texas State Bar No. 00794818 Ward & Smith Law Firm 111 W. Tyler St. Longview, Texas 75601 Telephone (903) 757-6400 Facsimile (903) 757-2323 jw@jwfirm.com George P. McAndrews Thomas J. Wimbiscus Peter J. McAndrews Gerald C. Willis Paul W. McAndrews Heather A. Bjella Matthew N. Allison McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. 500 W. Madison Street, 34th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60661 Telephone (312) 775-8000 Facsimile (312) 775-8100 pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the individuals listed below were served with Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Brief in Excess of the Page Limitation Set Forth in Local Rule CV-7 by email and via the Court's Electronic Filing System on the date stated herein. Michael Jones 110 N. College, Suite 500 P.O. Box 359 Tyler, Texas 75710 mikejones@potterminton.com Charles K Verhoeven Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP 50 California St., 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com Victoria F. Maroulis Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Dr., Suite 560 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com Date: May 1, 2009 /s/ Gerald C. Willis Gerald C. Willis CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I hereby certify that counsel for ESN has complied with the meet and confer requirement in Local Rule CV-7(h). The personal conference required by Local Rule CV-7 was conducted via telephone on May 1, 2009 between trial counsel for ESN (Gerald C. Willis), and trial counsel for Cisco (Victoria Maroulis). Counsel for Cisco indicated that they do not oppose this motion. Dated: May 1, 2009 By: /s/ Gerald C. Willis_______________ Gerald C. Willis

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?