`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`F ACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 16-116-RGA
`
`ORDER
`
`The parties have a dispute. (D.I. 42, 44): Plaintiff wants to strike a provision of the
`
`scheduling order (D.I. 21) that limits Plaintiff to asserting 20 claims in this seven-patent case.
`
`There were multiple drafts of the scheduling order (which, in issued form, is eight double-spaced
`
`pages long) with the disputed provision, and an in-person Rule 16 conference, and, apparently
`
`not a spoken or emailed word exchanged over this provision. Defendant did not hide it, but, for
`
`unexplained reasons, Plaintiff either did not notice this provision, or did not appreciate its
`
`significance. I favor the former explanation.
`
`If there had been a dispute between the parties about it at the Rule 16 conference, I would
`
`have sustained Plaintiffs objection to "20." I would not have, however, agreed with Plaintiff
`
`that there should be no limit. I would have replaced the "20" with "32."
`
`Upon further request, I would also have limited Defendant to "a total of 40 references" in
`
`connection with its initial invalidity contentions. Plaintiff at least suggests such a limitation
`
`would be appropriate, without specifying a number. (D.I. 42 at 1).
`
`I note that Plaintiff has asserted 49 claims in its Complaint. I do not think Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 45 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 792
`
`pleading choices limit my discretion in this regard. Further, given the early stage of the case, I do
`
`not see that modifying what I believe was a mistake on the part of Plaintiff will cause any
`
`prejudice to Defendant. Further, I do not see that the rest of the schedule needs to be modified.
`
`Thus, the "20" limitation is struck, and replaced with "32," and the "40 references"
`
`limitation in connection with the initial invalidity contentions is added. Upon a showing of
`
`diligence, and with due consideration for prejudice, a party may seek to modify this order for
`
`good cause shown. The parties are also encouraged to discuss further mutual reductions after the
`
`claim construction order is issued.
`
`The telephonic hearing scheduled for August 26, 2016, is CANCELLED.
`IT IS SO ORDERED this~day of August 2016.
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
