Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, 18-966-CFC. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Delaware Number: infdco20190425718 Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 22, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER COLM F. CONNOLLY , District Judge . WHEREAS, the Court has considered the parties' competing proposals with respect to limiting the number of claims and prior art references ( see Tr. of Apr. 3, 2019 Hr'g; D.I. 127; D.I. 131; D.I. 133); IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, on this Twenty-second day of April in 2019, that: 1. On or before April 26, 2018, Plaintiff shall limit itself to, and identify for Defendant, no more than 25 asserted claims; 2. On or before May 10, 2019, Defend
More

MEMORANDUM ORDER

WHEREAS, the Court has considered the parties' competing proposals with respect to limiting the number of claims and prior art references (see Tr. of Apr. 3, 2019 Hr'g; D.I. 127; D.I. 131; D.I. 133);

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, on this Twenty-second day of April in 2019, that:

1. On or before April 26, 2018, Plaintiff shall limit itself to, and identify for Defendant, no more than 25 asserted claims;

2. On or before May 10, 2019, Defendant shall limit itself to, and identify for Plaintiff, no more than 80 combinations of prior art references;

3. On or before 30 days after the Court's issuance of a Claim Construction Order, Plaintiff shall limit itself to, and identify for Defendant, no more than 18 asserted claims; and

4. On or before 14 days after Plaintiff has identified pursuant to paragraph three of this Order no more than 18 claims, Defendant shall limit itself to, and identify for Plaintiff, no more than 30 combinations of prior art references.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Plaintiff may seek to add at a later date asserted claims and Defendant may seek to add at a later date combinations of prior art references upon a showing of good cause that includes a demonstration that the addition of the proposed new claims or combinations of the prior art references, as the case may be, is necessary to vindicate the due process rights of the party in question.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer