Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02361/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02361-35/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NETFLIX, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BLOCKBUSTER, INC., a Delaware

corporation, and DOES 1–50,

Defendants. /

AND RELATED COUNTER ACTION.

 /

No. C 06-02361 WHA

REQUEST FOR INPUT ON PAGE

LIMITS

With respect to summary judgment motions, counsel are reminded that “less is more.” 

Fewer motions are more likely to allow the Court to grasp the main points. More motions are

more likely to submerge the best points beneath the storm-tossed sea of controversy. For all

summary judgment motions combined, the Court proposes that each side be limited in its

opening memoranda to 30 pages of briefing and 100 pages of evidentiary support (with

equivalent limits on the oppositions) and 15 pages in reply with no further evidentiary support

without leave of the Court. Please respond by MAY 7, 2007, AT NOON, concerning this

proposal. 

Whether an advisory jury will be used in connection with the inequitable conduct issue

will be postponed to the final pretrial conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 201 Filed 05/01/07 Page 1 of 1