NeoMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. DUNKIN' BRANDS GROUP, INC., 13-cv-02351-RM-BNB. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Colorado
Number: infdco20141015861
Visitors: 29
Filed: Oct. 06, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 06, 2014
Summary: ORDER RAYMOND P. MOORE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the joint motion for a claim construction hearing filed by the parties in this case. (ECF No. 33.) The parties disagree about the briefing schedule for the invalidity-by-indefiniteness issue that has been raised by Defendant Dunkin' Brands Group, Inc. ("Dunkin' Brands"). Dunkin' Brands has proposed that the Court maintain its current Markman briefing schedule, but file separate indefiniteness briefs on a somewhat stagge
Summary: ORDER RAYMOND P. MOORE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the joint motion for a claim construction hearing filed by the parties in this case. (ECF No. 33.) The parties disagree about the briefing schedule for the invalidity-by-indefiniteness issue that has been raised by Defendant Dunkin' Brands Group, Inc. ("Dunkin' Brands"). Dunkin' Brands has proposed that the Court maintain its current Markman briefing schedule, but file separate indefiniteness briefs on a somewhat stagger..
More
ORDER
RAYMOND P. MOORE, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the joint motion for a claim construction hearing filed by the parties in this case. (ECF No. 33.) The parties disagree about the briefing schedule for the invalidity-by-indefiniteness issue that has been raised by Defendant Dunkin' Brands Group, Inc. ("Dunkin' Brands"). Dunkin' Brands has proposed that the Court maintain its current Markman briefing schedule, but file separate indefiniteness briefs on a somewhat staggered schedule. Plaintiff NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. ("NeoMedia") has objected to this proposed schedule, and also pointed out that it would "force NeoMedia to be working on two briefs simultaneously." (ECF No. 33 at 4.) The Court understands both parties' positions on this issue, and has resolved on the following briefing schedule and page limitations:
Markman Briefing Indefiniteness Briefing
Opening Brief Sept. 12, 2014 (15 pages) Oct. 10, 2014 (15 pages)
Response Brief Oct. 10, 2014 (15 pages) Nov. 7, 2014 (15 pages)
Reply Brief Oct. 24, 2014 (10 pages) Nov. 21, 2014 (10 pages)
On or about November 24, 2014, the parties are directed to jointly call Chambers at (303) 335-2595 to set a date for a status conference in this case, at which time the Markman Hearing will be scheduled.
Source: Leagle
