The court sua sponte struck the parties’ joint claim construction filings, because the number of claim terms that the parties submitted for construction exceeded the limit set by the court, and no party moved to raise the limit on the number of terms to be construed. “At the parties’ February 28, 2011 Scheduling Conference, the Court stated that it would construe no more than 12 claim terms, except upon noticed motion requesting construction of additional terms. … In the fourteen months since that Scheduling Conference, no party filed a motion to raise the claim construction limit. Instead, the parties filed a ‘Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement’ on May 2, 2012 requesting that the Court construe forty-five claim terms from eight different patents. Because of the parties’ noncompliance with the Court’s instructions, the Court strikes the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. The parties shall submit a revised Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement . . . identifying no more than 12 claim terms for this Court to construe. Alternatively, each party may separately lodge . . . a document setting forth the 12 terms it wishes construed in order of preference. If the parties submit separate documents . . . , the Court will review them to determine if both sides desire construction of the same terms. If so, the Court will construe them. If, as is likely, there is not perfect overlap between the parties’ chosen terms, the Court will select the remainder by going down each party’s list – selecting the first term from Plaintiff’s list, followed by the first term from Defendant’s list, followed by the second term from Plaintiff’s list, followed by the second term from Defendant’s list, and so on – until the 12 term limit is reached."
LSI Corporation v. Vizio, Inc., 8-10-cv-01602 (CACD May 8, 2012, Order) (Guilford, J.)