`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
`LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC. and T-MOBILE
`US, INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`ORDER
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP
` LEAD CASE
`
`
`
`Before the Court is the Joint Motion for Leave to Increase Page Limits for Claim
`
`Construction Briefing (“Motion”) filed by Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC
`
`(“Plaintiff”) and Defendants TMobile USA, Inc. T-Mobile US, Inc., Lyft, Inc., Uber Technologies,
`
`Inc. d/b/a/ Uber, and WhatsApp LLC1 (collectively “Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”).
`
`Dkt. No. 138. The Parties’ Motion seeks to double the briefing regarding claim construction by
`
`increasing the page limit of Plaintiff’s opening brief from thirty pages to sixty pages, Defendants’
`
`responsive brief from thirty pages to sixty pages, and Plaintiff’s reply brief from ten pages to
`
`twenty pages. The Parties assert that the page limit increase is warranted in view of the number of
`
`parties, patents, terms in dispute, and complexity of legal issues in the claim construction disputes.
`
`
`
`The Joint P.R. 4-3 Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement indicates that there are
`
`nine patents with terms in dispute. Dkt. No. 124 at 1–2. The attached exhibits indicate that there
`
`are sixteen terms in dispute with respect to Defendants T-Mobile USA, Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc.,
`
`
`1 The Parties’ Motion, which is signed by counsel for Plaintiff, indicates that WhatsApp, Inc. is
`incorrectly named in the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 47) and that the entity is WhatsApp
`LLC. Dkt. No. 138 at 1.
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 141 Filed 09/03/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 3346
`
`and WhatsApp LLC, and twenty-eight terms in dispute with respect to Defendants Uber
`
`Technologies Inc., d/b/a Uber and Lyft, Inc. Importantly, although the consolidated defendants
`
`have to share the briefing limits, the same patents are not asserted against both groups.
`
`Nonetheless, the parties have not shown a need to double the length of the briefs. Accordingly,
`
`
`
`IT IS ORDERED that the page limit for Plaintiff’s opening brief is increased to forty-five
`
`pages, the page limit for Defendants’ response brief is increased to forty-five pages, and the page
`
`limit for Plaintiff’s sur-reply is increased to fifteen pages.
`
`
`
`____________________________________
`ROY S. PAYNE
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.
`
`SIGNED this 3rd day of September, 2021.
`
`