Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03125/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03125-12/pdf.json

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

---

Aplication and Order re Sur-Reply.DOC 

APPLICATION AND PROPOSED ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE SUR-REPLY PAPERS 

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

JONATHAN H. BORNSTEIN 

BORNSTEIN & BORNSTEIN 

2590 Geary Boulevard 

San Francisco, CA 94115-3318 

Telephone: (415) 409-7611 

Facsimile: (415) 409-9345 

E-mail: Jonathan@bornsteinandbornstein.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

EXCEL INNOVATIONS, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EXCEL INNOVATIONS, INC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

INDIVOS CORPORATION, SOLIDUS 

NETWORKS, INC., and DOES 1 TO 100, 

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No: C 03-03125 (MMC) 

APPLICATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE SURREPLY PAPERS 

Date: October 27, 2006 

Time: 9:30 a.m. 

Dept: Courtroom A, 15th Floor 

 

INDIVOS CORPORATION and SOLIDUS 

NETWORKS, INC., 

 Counterclaimants/ 

 Counterdefendants, 

 

 vs. 

EXCEL INNOVATIONS, INC., NED 

HOFFMAN, and AVIV LLC, 

 Counterdefendants/ 

 Counterclaimants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case 3:03-cv-03125-MMC Document 397 Filed 10/24/06 Page 1 of 2
Aplication and Order re Sur-Reply.DOC -1- 

APPLICATION AND PROPOSED ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE SUR-REPLY PAPERS 

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

Pursuant to Civil L. R. 7-3(d), plaintiff Excel Innovations, Inc. (“Excel”) applies for 

permission to file a sur-reply memorandum and supporting papers in connection with defendants’ 

motion for terminating sanctions. In their reply papers, defendants have gone far beyond replying to 

Excel’s opposition to the motion, but have introduced numerous new factual and legal issues. In 

addition, they have exceeded the page limit for reply briefs by attaching an appendix which contained 

extensive additional argument. The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly cautioned that because dismissal is 

such a harsh sanction, it should be imposed only in extreme circumstances. E.g., Bautista v. Los 

Angeles County, 216 F. 3rd 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F. 2nd 272, 273 (9th Cir. 

1992); Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Industries, Inc., 709 F. 2nd 585, 589 (9th Cir. ____). Therefore, the court 

should proceed very cautiously on such a motion and allow the party threatened with dismissal every 

opportunity to defend against such a motion. 

WHEREFORE, Excel requests that the court permit it to file a sur-reply memorandum 

not to exceed 15 pages, and appropriate supporting evidentiary material. 

Dated: October 13, 2006 Bornstein & Bornstein 

 By 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Excel Innovations, Inc. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October __, 2006 

____________________________________ 

United States District/Magistrate Judge 

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:03-cv-03125-MMC Document 397 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 2