Filed: Jun. 13, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 13, 2013
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge. 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
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge. 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 M..
More
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge.
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.
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;
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.
