throbber
Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 107 Filed 06/03/16 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 2427
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`
`§
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD, et al.,
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 2:15-CV-01274 (Lead Case)
`
`PLAINTIFF BLITZSAFE TEXAS LLC’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
`TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATIONS
`
`
`
`Plaintiff files this partially unopposed1 Motion requesting leave to exceed the page
`
`limitations for Plaintiff’s reply claim construction by five pages, i.e., from ten to fifteen pages.
`
`Good cause supports the extension. Plaintiff requests leave to exceed the page limitations in
`
`order to respond to Defendants’ arguments regarding collateral estoppel and indefiniteness raised
`
`for the first time in Defendants’ responsive claim construction brief (Docket No. 101).
`
`I.
`
`Good Cause Exists to Increase the Page Limitations
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`
`
`The page limitations for dispositive motions pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(a) apply to
`
`claim construction briefing unless the Court orders otherwise. P.R. 4-5(e). Therefore, Local
`
`Rule CV-7(a) limits reply claim construction briefing to ten pages. This limitation, however,
`
`may be modified for good cause with the Court’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Indeed, this
`
`Court has routinely granted a party’s request to file excess pages in order fully brief a relevant
`
`
`1
`Blitzsafe agreed not to oppose Defendants’ request for up five additional pages for their
`responsive claim construction brief. Defendants refused to provide Blitzsafe with the same
`courtesy.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 107 Filed 06/03/16 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 2428
`
`
`
`issue. See, e.g., Waterman v. McKinney Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 4:13-cv-170, 2014 WL 2611185,
`
`at *6 (E.D. Tex. June 11, 2014).
`
`B. Defendants’ Responsive Brief Raises Issues of Collateral Estoppel and
`Indefiniteness to Which Plaintiff Must Respond
`
`Plaintiff filed its Opening Claim Construction Brief on May 13, 2016, addressing the
`
`
`
`twelve groups of claim terms currently in dispute between the parties within the 30-page limit
`
`pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(a) (Docket No. 98). Defendants’ counsel contacted Plaintiff’s
`
`counsel requesting that Plaintiff agree not to oppose Defendants’ Motion for leave to exceed the
`
`page limitation. Counsel reached an agreement and Plaintiff’s counsel has accordingly lodged
`
`no objection to Defendants’ motion for leave to exceed the page limitations for their responsive
`
`claim construction brief.
`
`
`
`Defendants then filed their responsive claim construction brief, using the excess pages
`
`not to respond to Plaintiff’s substantive arguments with respect to the disputed claim terms, but
`
`to raise issues of collateral estoppel and indefiniteness under IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Because Plaintiff must not only reply
`
`to Defendants’ substantive claim construction arguments but also oppose legal arguments raised
`
`for the first time in their responsive brief, Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to exceed the page
`
`limitations in order to do so.
`
`II.
`
`Conclusion
`
`
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court grant its motion
`
`to increase the page limit for Plaintiff’s reply claim construction brief from ten pages to fifteen
`
`pages.
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 107 Filed 06/03/16 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 2429
`
`
`
`Dated: June 3, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`
` /s/ Alessandra Carcaterra Messing
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`Texas Bar No. 2219392
`Email: afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`Lawrence C. Drucker
`Email: ldrucker@brownrudnick.com
`Texas Bar No. 2303089
`Peter Lambrianakos
`Texas Bar No. 2894392
`Email: plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`Alessandra Carcaterra Messing
`Texas Bar No. 5040019
`Email: amessing@brownrudnick.com
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (212) 209-4800
`
`Samuel F. Baxter
`Texas State Bar No. 01938000
`sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
`Jennifer L. Truelove
`Texas State Bar No. 24012906
`jtruelove@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 923-9000
`Facsimile: (903) 923-9099
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 107 Filed 06/03/16 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 2430
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic
`service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system per
`Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on this 3rd day of June, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Alessandra Carcaterra Messing
` Alessandra Carcaterra Messing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, in accordance with Local Rule CV-7(h), on June 3,
`
`2016, Peter Lambrianakos and the undersigned met and conferred with Joseph M. Beauchamp,
`counsel for Honda, representing Defendants, about whether Defendants were opposed to this
`motion and the relief requested. Defendants’ counsel stated that it does not oppose two pages
`would not consent to a total of five additional pages.
`
`
`/s/ Alessandra Carcaterra Messing
` Alessandra Carcaterra Messing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket