Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01268/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01268-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNIRAM TECHNOLOGY,

Plaintiff,

v

MONOLITHIC SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY, INC

et al,

Defendant.

 /

No C-04-1268 VRW

ORDER

A claim construction hearing in this case is presently

set for August 17, 2005. Pursuant to the parties’ briefing

schedule, plaintiff UniRAM’s opening claim construction brief was

due on or before July 1, 2005. On June 30, 2005, -- one day before

its opening brief was due -- UniRAM filed an “unopposed motion for

administrative relief,” seeking the court’s permission to reset the

page limits for all parties’ briefs. Doc #88. 

Civil Local Rule 7-4(b) and this court’s standing order

3.1 provide that opening and opposition briefs shall not exceed 25

pages, and a reply brief shall not exceed 15 pages. See Civ L R 7-

4(b); Standing Order 3.1. UniRAM requested that (1) it be allowed

Case 3:04-cv-01268-VRW Document 114 Filed 07/21/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

a 50-page opening brief; (2) each defendant be allowed a 50-page

response brief; and (3) UniRAM have 25 pages for its reply brief. 

Id. On July 1, 2005, the court informed UniRAM that the

undersigned was unavailable to entertain UniRAM’s motion for

administrative relief prior to the opening brief’s due date. 

Moreover, the court informed UniRAM that if it proceeded to file an

over-sized opening brief, it did so at its own risk. Subsequently,

UniRAM filed a 50-page opening brief and both defendants filed 50-

page response briefs. Doc ##91, 99, 103. 

By waiting until the day before its opening brief was due

to seek to reset the briefing page limits, UniRAM has placed the

court and its opponents in an awkward position. Due to the sheer

volume of disputed claim terms in this case, the court GRANTS

UniRAM’s motion for administrative relief but cautions counsel

that, in the future, they should not wait until the last minute to

seek relief from page limitations of the local rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01268-VRW Document 114 Filed 07/21/05 Page 2 of 2