Some people have inquired whether invalidity contentions can be too excessive based on page count alone. In other words, if technology can generate invalidity contentions, including invalidity charts, won't a Court strike contentions that may appear to be overboard based on the total number of pages? Other than the rules in a jurisdiction and relevant case law, there does not seem to be clear guidance as to specific page counts. If you can justify that the contention rules have been satisfied and that all the pertinent information that may be relied upon in the future is disclosed, a patent owner's arguments may ring hollow about your contentions if the only argument is based on page count.
In Tyco Healthcare v. E-Z EM Inc invalidity contentions order, Judge Ward (E.D. Tex 2010) explained:
In other words, the 700 pages of invalidity contentions in Tyco were not the issue. As long as a defendant provides meaningful information supporting its contentions, such as detailed charts with citations and an identification of how the claims are met by the references, a Court is not likely to disturb those contentions. In contrast, the defendants in Saffran seemingly failed to provide the requisite notice of their invalidity contentions leading to the opposite conclusion.
Technology now allows you to include more pertinent information that is directly relevant to your contentions. Instead of taking the Saffran approach, you should consider following the approach of E-Z-EM, Inc. and leverage the appropriate tools to efficiently manage your contentions.