Free Order on Motion to Strike - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 53.0 kB
Pages: 2
Date: May 11, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 397 Words, 2,517 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/34820/194.pdf

Download Order on Motion to Strike - District Court of Delaware ( 53.0 kB)


Preview Order on Motion to Strike - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:05-cv-00292-JJF Document 194 Filed 05/11/2006 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LG. PHILIPS LCD CO. LTD, :
Plaintiff, ;
v. ; Civil Action No. 05-292-JJF
TATUNG COMPANY, TATUNG COMPANY ;
OF AMERICA, INC., CHUNGWHA :
PICTURE TUBES LTD., and :
VIEWSONIC CORP., :
Defendants. ;
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion To Strike
Plaintiff L.G. Philips LCD Co., LTD’s Response Brief In Support
Of Its Proposed Claim Constructions And The Accompanying
Declarations Of Scott H. Holmberg And William K. Bohannon (D.I.
149). Defendants contend that the Court should strike
Plaintiff's Response Brief (D.I. 143) and the accompanying
Declarations because the Response Brief exceeds the twenty page
limit prescribed by District of Delaware Local Rule 7.1.3(c)(2)
and because Plaintiff made new arguments in its Response Brief
that it should have made in its Opening Brief.
The Court will deny Defendants’ Motion for two reasons.
First, Defendants are not prejudiced by the excessive length of
Plaintiff’s Response Brief. After Defendants filed their Motion,
Plaintiff filed a Notice Of Voluntary Withdrawal Of Claims
Relating To U.S. Patent No. 6,738,121 (D.I. 180). In the Court’s

Case1:05-cv—00292—JJF D0cument194 Filed 05/11/2006 Page20f2
view, the withdrawal rendered moot everything in Plaintiff’s
Response Brief beyond page twenty.
Second, Defendants have had an opportunity to respond to any
new arguments in Plaintiff's Response Brief and the accompanying
Declarations. Following the Markman hearing, the Court issued an
Order, dated March 22, 2006 (D.I. 155), in which it ordered the
parties to reduce the number of claim terms and phrases they
requested the Court to construe. That Order also allowed the
parties to refine their existing claim construction arguments.
In response, Defendants submitted two letters. The first (D.I.
160) identified the terms and phrases they requested the Court to
construe and provided further argument on those terms and
phrases. The second (D.I. 164) responded to Plaintiff’s
arguments on the terms and phrases Plaintiff requested the Court
to construe.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motion
To Strike Plaintiff L.G. Philips LCD Co., LTD's Response Brief In
Support Of Its Proposed Claim Constructions And The Accompanying
Declarations Of Scott H. Holmberg And William K. Bohannon (D.I.
149) is DENIED.
1. 0 0 , .. I J
M0 . 0000 ~ —
DATE . TA DT? JUDGE