Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05808/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05808-15/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FINJAN, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PROOFPOINT, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-05808-HSG 

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION AND SETTING CASE

SCHEDULE

Re: Dkt. No. 119

On February 6, 2015, Defendants Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc. filed 

an Administrative Motion requesting this Court: (1) construe an unspecified number of claim 

terms beyond the ten-term maximum specified in this District’s Patent Local Rules; (2) permit the 

parties ten additional pages in their respective opening and responsive briefs to construe additional 

claim terms; and (3) permit Defendants to file a 15-page surreply. See Dkt. No. 119.

Defendants’ Administrative Motion is DENIED. Neither party nor judicial resources will 

be conserved by construing terms that may never be at issue in this case. See Dkt. No. 119 at 4 

(“At this stage, however, neither the Court nor Proofpoint can predict which claims Finjan might 

ultimately elect.”). Moreover, Defendants have not attempted to explain which of its “over 80” 

proposed terms should be construed, why those constructions are or could be necessary to the 

resolution of this case, or their likelihood of remaining necessary after Finjan’s asserted claims are 

whittled-down to 24. Broad and conclusory generalizations that “the parties and the Court would 

benefit from early resolution of their disputes” or that the construction of additional claim terms 

“will positively impact the litigation” are not sufficient to demonstrate good cause. See Dkt. No. 

119 at 1, 3. Should construction of additional terms prove necessary after Finjan has elected its 

final asserted claims, the Court will provide the parties a supplemental briefing schedule to 

Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 139 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

address those constructions.

1

Nor have Defendants demonstrated good cause to depart from the default schedule for 

claim construction briefing set by Patent Local Rule 4-5. A surreply is not provided by that Rule. 

Defendants have offered no argument as to why claim construction in this particular case merits 

alteration of the schedule contained in Rule 4-5. Accordingly, the Court sets the following 

schedule for this case:

Event Deadline

Opening Claim Construction Brief May 1, 2015

Opposition Claim Construction Brief May 15, 2015

Reply Claim Construction Brief May 22, 2015

Claim Construction Tutorial June 2, 2015

(10:00-11:30 am)

Claim Construction Hearing June 24, 2015

(10:00 am - 1:00 pm)

Comply with P.L.R. 3-7

50 days after claims 

construction order

Close of Fact Discovery September 2, 2015

Final Election of Asserted Claims September 9, 2015

Final Election of Asserted Prior Art September 16, 2015

Opening Expert Reports September 23, 2015

Rebuttal Expert Reports October 14, 2015

Close of Expert Discovery October 28, 2015

Last Day to File Dispositive Motions November 11, 2015

Opposition to Dispositive Motions November 25, 2015

Reply to Dispositive Motions December 2, 2015

Dispositive Motion Hearing Date December 17, 2015

Final Pretrial Conference February 23, 2016

Trial March 7, 2016

The Court will consider alterations to this schedule only upon a showing of good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2015

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

 

1 Because the Court denies Defendants’ request to brief additional terms, there is no need for the 

parties to submit additional pages in their respective opening and responsive briefs.

Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 139 Filed 04/02/15 Page 2 of 2