Free Response ( Non Motion ) - District Court of California - California

Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW

Document 251

Filed 09/14/2004

Page 1 of 4

1 Teresa M. Corbin (SBN 132360) Thomas Mavrakakis (SBN 177927) 2 HOWREY SIMON ARNOLD & WHITE, LLP 301 Ravenswood Avenue 3 Menlo Park, California 94025 Telephone: (650) 463-8100 4 Facsimile: (650) 463-8400 5 Attorneys for Defendants AEROFLEX INCORPORATED, AMI SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., MATROX 6 ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS, LTD., MATROX GRAPHICS INC., MATROX INTERNATIONAL 7 CORP. and MATROX TECH, INC. and for Plaintiff SYNOPSYS, INC. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 10 11 12 RICOH COMPANY, LTD., 13 14 vs. Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. C03-04669 MJJ (EMC) Case No. C03-2289 MJJ (EMC) OPPOSITION AND RESPONSE TO RICOH' MISCELLANEOUS S ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 7-10(b) TO STRIKE OVERLONG OPPOSITION BRIEF AND TO SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND LENGTH FOR REPLY BRIEF NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

15 AEROFLEX INCORPORATED, et al., 16 17 18 19 20 21 vs. SYNOPSYS, INC., Plaintiff, Defendants.

RICOH COMPANY, LTD., a Japanese 22 corporation 23 24 25 26
OPPOSITION AND RESPONSE TO RICOH' S MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST 27 TO STRIKE Case Nos. 03-04669 MJJ(EMC) & 03-02289 MJJ(EMC)

Defendant.

28

HOWREY SIMON ARNOLD & WHITE

Case Nos. 03-04669 MJJ (EMC) and 03-02289 MJJ (EMC)

Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW

Document 251

Filed 09/14/2004

Page 2 of 4

1 2

I.

ARGUMENT Synopsys and the seven Defendants oppose Ricoh' procedurally improper and substantively s

3 unjustified request to: (1) strike Synopsys'and Defendants'Responsive claim construction brief; (2) 4 preclude Synopsys'and Defendants' from even presenting extrinsic evidence in its brief; (3) permit 5 Ricoh to file a second over-length brief-- i.e., a reply brief; and (3) permit Ricoh extended time so that 6 it can file that over-length reply brief. 7 Ricoh' opening claim construction brief, as filed, is well over 53 pages because it admittedly s

8 includes text in 10-point font. Ricoh filed this over-length brief without even attempting to meet and s 9 confer with Synopsys and Defendants and more importantly without any attempt to seek the Court' s s 10 approval before filing it. Ricoh' brief, therefore, violated this Court' Local Rules 3-4(c)(2) and 7s 11 4(b). Because of this and the hard-line tactics Ricoh now engages in, it is Ricoh' opening claim . 12 construction brief that should be stricken not Synopsys'and Defendants' 13 In sharp contrast to Ricoh' complete disregard for the Local Rules and failure to even give s

14 Synopsys and Defendants any advance notice of its intent to submit well over 53 pages for its opening s 15 brief, Synopsys and Defendants prepared their responsive brief and sought Ricoh' agreement before s 16 filing an over-length brief. Rather than seeking to have Ricoh' brief stricken, Synopsys and 17 Defendants, while preparing their papers within the two week period provided in the scheduling order s 18 agreed to by the parties months ago, obtained and filed a stipulation by the parties agreeing to Ricoh' 19 already-filed over-length brief and to Synopsys and Defendants filing a responsive brief not to exceed 20 80 pages. That stipulation was filed on Wednesday, September 8, 2004-- i.e., two days before 21 Synopsys and Defendants responsive brief was due on September 10, 2004. 22 On Friday, September 10, 2004, Synopsys and the seven Defendants filed one responsive claim

23 construction brief that was 69 pages-- well within the 80 pages agreed to by Ricoh. On the following 24 court day, Monday, September 13, 2004, court staff e-filed an Order signed by the Court on September 25 10. The Court signed the proposed order provided with the parties'stipulation but modified the 26 parties'stipulation by crossing out the 80 pages and replacing it with 53 pages. Almost immediately s s 27 after receiving the Court' order, Ricoh' counsel demanded that Synopsys and Defendants re-file their 28
HOWREY SIMON ARNOLD & WHITE

OPPOSITION AND RESPONSE TO RICOH' S MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO STRIKE Case Nos. 03-04669 MJJ (EMC) & 03-02289 MJJ (EMC)

2

Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW

Document 251

Filed 09/14/2004

Page 3 of 4

1 brief reducing it to within 53 pages.1 Before counsel for Synopsys and Defendants could respond to 2 these demands from Ricoh, Ricoh filed the instant Administrative Request. Because Defendants and s 3 Synopsys will re-file their responsive claim construction brief later today, Ricoh' request to strike 4 Synopsys and Defendants brief is moot.2 5 Next, Ricoh seeks to improperly use the fact that the Court changed the parties agreed to

6 stipulation from 80 to 53 pages one Court day after Synopsys and Defendants filed their responsive 7 claim construction brief to support its baseless request to restrict the evidence that Synopsys and 8 Defendants may present to support their arguments.3 Specifically, Ricoh improperly asks this Court to 9 preclude Synopsys and Defendants from even presenting any extrinsic evidence to support their 10 arguments. Such a request finds absolutely no support in the law. While the Court may or may not 11 choose to rely on extrinsic evidence to support its claim construction ruling in this case, nothing 12 precludes Synopsys and Defendants from presenting such evidence. In fact, the Court has already 13 rejected this argument by Ricoh. 14 Besides being already rejected by the Court, the Court should take notice of Ricoh' frantic s

15 effort to prevent the Court from having any evidence of what the claims mean to one of skill in the art. s 16 The reason for this is that Ricoh' constructions are contrary to how one of ordinary skill in the art 432 patent' public record, i.e., the ` s 432 patent, its file history, and the prior art 17 would understand the ` 18 cited therein. Thus, Ricoh wishes to keep any such evidence from the Court. 19 20 21 1 Earlier that day, Ricoh' counsel also requested a page extension to 50 pages for its Reply and an s 22 extension of time until Wednesday, September 22, 2004.
2 Ricoh that the paper filed exhibits to Synopsys'and Defendants' brief were received 23 until the complains of Monday, September 13. In fact, those exhibits were hand deliverednot Ricoh' afternoon to s local counsel in San Francisco before the close of business on September 10, 2004. 24 3 Ricoh also mischaracterizes Synopsys and Defendants brief by claiming that their over-length brief 25 was necessitated by their including of extrinsic evidence. Ricoh is wrong. Even a quick glance at Synopsys'and Defendants'brief reveals that the added length can be attributed, for the most part, to 26 their including of large portions of the intrinsic evidence in their brief-- i.e., the claims, the specification, and the file history. 27

28 OPPOSITION AND RESPONSE TO RICOH'S
HOWREY SIMON ARNOLD & WHITE

-2-

MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST Case Nos. 03-04669 MJJ(EMC) & 03-02289 MJJ(EMC)

Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW

Document 251

Filed 09/14/2004

Page 4 of 4

1

Finally, Ricoh fails to adequately support its request for yet another over-length brief for its

2 reply or for the belated change to the scheduling order that it agreed and stipulated to months ago. 3 First, as noted above, Ricoh has already filed an over-length brief. Specifically, Ricoh exceeded the 4 page limit for its opening claim construction brief by well over 28 pages (i.e., filed 53 pages that 5 included text in 10 point font). Ricoh has had Synopsys'and Defendants'positions on claim 6 construction since mid-July and there is simply no excuse for its failure to include its position in its 7 over-length opening brief. Thus, Ricoh has not provided any justification for a second over-length 8 brief. 9 Second, Ricoh stipulated to the existing scheduling order, which currently requires them to

s 10 serve and file their reply brief in the midst of Rosh Hashanah, on Friday, September 17, 2004. Ricoh' 11 counsel does not even claim that they were unaware that this scheduling order conflicted with this s 12 Holiday when they agreed to this schedule. Ricoh' counsel never mentioned this conflict and has 13 never made any attempt (until after Synopsys and Defendants filed their claim construction brief) to 14 meet and confer with Synopsys and Defendants regarding this schedule. In fact, Synopsys'and s 15 Defendants'time to respond to Ricoh' opening brief encompassed the Labor Day weekend holiday. 16 Thus, the parties could have agreed to a schedule, beforehand, accommodating everyone. Instead, s 17 Ricoh' counsel belatedly seeks to accommodate only their schedule and obtain additional time for s 18 Ricoh' reply. Ricoh has had Synopsys'and Defendants'position since mid-July and has had 19 Synopsys'and Defendants'brief since last Friday, September 10, 2004. Thus, Ricoh has not provided 20 any justification for its requested extension. 21 22 II. CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, Ricoh' Administrative Request should be denied in its entirety. s

23 Dated: September 14, 2004 24 25 26 27 28 OPPOSITION AND RESPONSE TO RICOH'S
HOWREY SIMON ARNOLD & WHITE

HOWREY SIMON ARNOLD & WHITE, LLP By: /s/ Thomas C. Mavrakakis Thomas C. Mavrakakis Attorneys for Plaintiff Synopsys and Defendants Aeroflex, et al.

-3-

MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST Case Nos. 03-04669 MJJ(EMC) & 03-02289 MJJ(EMC)