Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-md-01848-GIVIS Document 230 Filed 05/30/2008 Page 1 ot 2
CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE 8c HUTZ LLP
ar Arronmavs AT LAw 2
witwsmerow, oz
The Nemours Building
1007 North Orange St.
_ _ P.0. Box 2207
Collins J. Seitz, Jr. wrrmsngmn, or 19899
TEL (302) 88845278 ren.: tsozi eas 9141
FAX (502) 255-4278 mx: (302) ess 5614
EMAIL [email protected] WEB, WWW_Cb,h_COm
REPLY TO Wilmington Office
May 30, 2008
BY E-FILING
Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
Chief Judge, United States District Court
District of Delaware
844 King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: In re: Rembrandt T eclznalagies, LP Patent Litig.
C.A. N0. 1:07-md-1848 (GMS)
Dear Chief Judge Sleet:
2 I write with regard to Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint, filed May 27, 2008, to address two matters raised therein that may be a source
of confusion.
First, the modem manufacturers note that Rembrandt, in its opposition, cited to
and relied on the draft amended complaint sent to plaintiffs when consent was sought for
amendment. The modem manufacturers are correct that Rembrandt responded to the
proposed amended complaint that was provided before the actual tiling (which was not
marked as a draft). Accordingly, Rembrandt’s opposition addresses certain counts that
the modem manufacturers chose not to include in their proposed amended complaint tiled
with the Court. Rembrandt regrets a11y confusion it may have caused the Court or other
parties. .
At the same time, the conduct alleged in the complaint filed with the Court is the
same in substance as the conduct alleged in the draft complaint to which Rembrandt
responded. And Rembrandt’s opposition fully explains why the modem manufacturers’
allegations fail to state a claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 17200 of
the California Business and Professions Code.
In any event, Rembrandt’s error does not provide any basis for the modem
manufacturers° request for leave to substitute a different proposed amended complaint for
wiuvtmcrou, mz wnsumerom, nc tos Amczuas, cn

Case 1:07-mc|—01848-GIVIS Document 230 Filed 05/30/2008 Page 2 of 2
Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
Page 2
May 30, 2008
‘ the one submitted on April ll, 2008. The motion properly before the Court is for leave
to file the proposed amended complaint filed on April l 1, 2008, not any other.
. Second, the modem manufacturers assert that Rembrandt’s opposition exceeds the
page limit allowed under Your Honor’s new briefing page limit rule (posted on Your
Honor’s web page). Counsel for Rembrandt was unaware of the COLl1'l7S web page
posting until after it filed its brief, and is unsure whether the web page posting occurred
prior to the April ll, 2008 commencement of briefing. Should the Court desire that
Rembrandt tile a brief not to exceed twenty pages, Rembrandt will do so promptly.
Respectfully,
, Jr.
(Bar No. 2237)
[email protected]
CJS,Jr./saj
cc: Clerk of the Court (by ECP)
Jack B. Blumenfeld (by ECF and hand delivery)
John W. Shaw (by ECF and hand delivery)
(614156)