`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`
`TWILIO, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TELESIGN CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 16-CV-06925-LHK
`
`ORDER STRIKING CLAIM TERMS
`BRIEFED IN VIOLATION OF PATENT
`LOCAL RULE 4-3 AND COURT
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Local Rule 4-3(c) requires that the parties’ Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`
`Statement include “[a]n identification of the terms whose construction will be most significant to
`
`the resolution of the case up to a maximum of 10.” Consistent with this rule, the Court’s March 1,
`
`2017 Case Management Order indicated that the Court would construe “no more than 10 terms” in
`
`its claim construction proceedings. ECF No. 48 (“Case Management Order”) at 2. On June 30,
`
`2017, the parties submitted a Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement which complied
`
`with these requirements and identified nine terms that the parties represented “will be the most
`
`significant to this case.” ECF No. 87 (“Joint Statement”) at 2.
`
`In violation of Patent Local Rule 4-3 and this Court’s March 1, 2017 Case Management
`
`Case No. 16-CV-06925-LHK
`ORDER STRIKING CLAIM TERMS BRIEFED IN VIOLATION OF PATENT LOCAL RULE 4-3AND COURT
`ORDER
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 111 Filed 08/29/17 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`Order, Twilio briefed fourteen disputed claim terms, including five that were not identified in the
`
`parties’ Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, in its August 14, 2017 Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief. ECF No. 105 (“Opening Br.”). On August 28, 2017, Telesign filed a
`
`Responsive Claim Construction Brief which noted Twilio’s improper briefing of these five
`
`additional terms. ECF No. 27 (“Responsive Br.”) at 23.
`
`The Court hereby STRIKES the portions of the parties’ briefing that relate to these five
`
`additional terms. Specifically, the Court strikes the following sections from Twilio’s Opening
`
`Claim Construction Brief: V.F (“API resource”), VI.B (“application resource”), VI.C
`
`(“communicating with an application server to receive an application response”), VI.D
`
`(“mapping”), and portions of VI.H which relate to “request.” The Court also strikes Section IV.J
`
`from Telesign’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, which discusses the additional terms.
`
`Twilio shall not address the additional terms in its Reply Claim Construction Brief.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 29, 2017
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`
`LUCY H. KOH
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-CV-06925-LHK
`ORDER STRIKING CLAIM TERMS BRIEFED IN VIOLATION OF PATENT LOCAL RULE 4-3AND COURT
`ORDER
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
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
