Free Letter - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 123

Filed 07/31/2008

Page 1 of 1

WEll, GOTSHAl & MANGES LLP
SILICON VALLEY OFFICE

201 REDWOOD SHORES PARKWAY

AUSTIN BOSTON
BRUSSELS BUDAPEST DALLAS FRANKFURT

REDWOOD SHORES, CALIFORNIA 94065

(6S0) 802-3000 FAX: (650) 802-3100

HOUSTON

LONDoN
MIAMI

MUNICH
WRITER'S DIRECT LINE

NEW YORK
PARIS PRAGUE SINGAPORE WARSAW

edward. reines(gweil.com

(650) 802-3022

July 3 i, 2008

WASHINGTON, D.C.

The Honorable Elizabeth D. Laporte 450 Golden Gate Avenue Courtoom E, 15th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: Network Appliance, Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc. Case No. C-07-06053 EDL
Dear Judge Laporte:

I write concernng the page limits for reply claim construction briefs in the NetApp v. Sun case. I apologize for the timing of this request, but NetApp initiated a meet and confer on this issue early this week in the hopes of submitting a joint letter with Sun. It was not until shortly before noon today that Sun finally took a position and stated it would seek 40 pages for its reply brief.

The Court previously granted the paries' requests to fie principal claim construction briefs not exceeding 45 pages, an increase from the default 25-page limit. Given the expanded briefing thus far, and the scope of the issues, NetApp respectfully requests an increase in the page limit for its reply brief. The default limit for reply briefs is 15 pages. NetApp believes a doubling of that limit to 30 pages is waranted. NetApp believes, however, that the 40-page limit now sought by Sun (nearly trple the default rule) is excessive and would only invite the paries to rehash arguments made in their opening briefs in lieu of presenting true reply materiaL. NetApp respectfully requests that the Court permit the paries to file reply claim constrction briefs not to exceed 30 pages.

Edward R. Reines

SVI :\297773\01 \6DRHO 1 !.DOC\65166.0004