Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03646/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03646-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC 

and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CANON, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 14-3640 CW

ORDER ON 

DEFENDANTS' MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

EXCESS PAGES

(Docket No. 290)

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

FALCON COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant.

________________________________/

No. C 14-3641 CW

(Docket No. 66)

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC 

and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,

Defendant.

________________________________/

No. C 14-3643 CW

(Docket No. 76)

Case 4:14-cv-03646-CW Document 78 Filed 04/17/15 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

2

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

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

NEWEGG INC. et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 14-3645 CW

(Docket No. 63)

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 14-3646 CW

(Docket No. 72)

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC 

and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SHUTTLE, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 14-3647 CW

(Docket No. 68)

The matter comes before the Court on Defendants' 

administrative motion for leave to file excess pages for their 

joint opposition brief on claim construction. Docket No. 290.1

Defendants seek ten extra pages, raising the limitation from 

twenty-five to thirty-five pages. In support of their motion, 

 

1 Docket Numbers correspond to the docket for case number 

14-3640.

Case 4:14-cv-03646-CW Document 78 Filed 04/17/15 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

3

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

Defendants point out that there are nine terms across three 

patents in dispute. Further, Defendants argue that the excess 

pages are necessary to provide ample space to harmonize the 

arguments of six separate Defendants. Finally, Defendants state 

that additional pages will permit Defendants to incorporate 

illustrations which will make their argument easier to follow, 

thereby assisting the Court.

Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Docket No. 295. Having 

considered Plaintiffs' opposition, the Court concludes that many 

of Plaintiffs' arguments simply carry no weight. For example, 

Plaintiffs argue that there is "no justification" for the 

increase; in fact, Defendants provided several justifications in 

their motion. Plaintiffs also argue that "Defendants will use 

some of the allotted page limit making accusatory statements about 

Plaintiffs rather than focusing on the merits of claim 

construction." The Court will not deny Defendants' motion on a 

prediction. Plaintiffs also make much of the fact that Defendants 

have had three months to file their brief. Plaintiffs' arguments 

to that effect ring hollow, as Plaintiffs agreed to this briefing 

schedule at the case management conference and several Defendants 

have settled in the interim, necessarily upsetting the preparation 

of a joint brief. Plaintiffs also argue that it would be 

prejudicial to grant Defendants' motion, since Plaintiffs complied 

with the applicable page limit in filing their opening brief. 

However, Plaintiffs had an available remedy, had they determined 

that extra pages were necessary: they could have filed a similar 

motion for excess pages.

Case 4:14-cv-03646-CW Document 78 Filed 04/17/15 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

4

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

In sum, Defendants justified their request and Plaintiffs' 

opposition has not convinced the Court that Defendants' motion 

should be denied. The Court thus finds good cause and GRANTS 

Defendants' motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 17, 2015

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-03646-CW Document 78 Filed 04/17/15 Page 4 of 4