Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cv-00286-JJF Document 22 Filed 08/O2/2007 Page 1 of 2
Youuc- Connway Srnaonrr & Tnrton, LLP
E5§li§t`§Ttiiati iT§;S‘Z¢r$‘?i·’tC§tiE*°“ THE BMNDYWYNE BUELWG iiidtttit? t§‘?§%itli?¤’#i’E§E“E”
rucimnn A. Lavme Joann. \VAzT& §(}(`}(} WEST STREET? ]']']”[-] FLOQR i$;5NJM‘ I-Iilstgtwixoixnj .§JsE:=Hi;\\t;t»xtFrrix: I. . B . C.5 i rz n . \¤.·mAN, tt. .rm.x .. .nrn¤am.t
yiig sy p WELMENGTON, DELAWARE i9SOi E;;iE;sTsré€n5aIEsrEi BgDiCAl·Z %1|cum:1L\\;;;£;1ii_tgsntiot`r
.M RAIG . REAR Y . A L AN r\MM‘1` .. il ll
giijaiifg hlcugigg T1momx*JAx‘HouseaL PD. BOX 39l texas I-lrutnioisu Corte MAP.!E3E'¥TIL httrtettix
tltttrgttlettti Wa»~··~¤t¤~— ¤¤»~—~·»=¤¤ 19t9¤—t>39¤ TsEttttt§ttt'*ttttE§ft”“‘t t“tL§’§tiUaii‘t2t.i.t-..at..
i‘.;$i?‘i»“l£2ti3E€"“`" igiiilitittd <302>57*·66tl° Ei;§2iEi?iitEi" fE§§iiit.%s2?“
.·\l‘i'T§lOti¢\'G. Ferris LISAB iioommn {$00}Z53·223=5 (DE ONLY) Ksr~mEniJ Enos SETHJ Rswsrtueno
Jizttosrsti Gaosstms loam W SHAW FAX; {302} 5·;]_]253 IAN S.Ftu»;uEnicxs SARA A. Rtsvnusirc
EUGENE A DIPIIENZIC} James ?.HUGilES,}R. CiIER‘•L.·\E;\S]»‘;»’;".?`NgS`i.[t.®
.·;· . .,3. E\\'NJ.l‘E N `”""'“’""”_"" EAN. _ i' ' ."
iw M ¤~e¤S¤=r¤ t:ata·:it:a...,
Ttsiorur.I, SNYDER Retin P. Bisssu. PD- BUN 594 Kannu E. KELLER Crmn S.C Srovna
Bnucs 1..Su.vtansrEm Sco·rrA.Hot.’r {];;gRm;~;¤wN,DE[A\\y,\nE 19947 JENNEFEIIIWFKINKUS .loiiNE.TnAcrar
\vii.i.mr~i\V Bowssa Jo1»tN'1‘ Donser 7 8-66 -7] ED\\'»\llDJ kosruowsr;1 TRAVISN TURNER
maint'} Tanrxatcos M.B1..u:ECLEAn‘¤‘ {39*) J ’ JonNC. hottest, MAao.=inaTH \\’1iites1tu¤
sucnsnn A tn1,iaenro,1a. Cmusrm: Douotas \‘·'atGu‘r {8[}0)255—2234{DEONL1‘} KAREN LANTZ SHMGN M. ZIEG
MELANEEK SHARP DANIELLEGEBS FAX: (302) 855_9338 'E`|MOTTl\'E.LENGKEEK
CASSANDRA F. ROSFRTS SFECEAL COUNSEL ‘i§E‘JEOi1 COENSEL
giliggipin {,2 r·:niuti.w WWW·YOUNGCGN·'\\\"\\,·€0i`1 jenn;) A-sr;1,,w{;iu,ir¢_ in Qurmsj (jnoivmgp.
mu ““’“E" “"`““ iianiiih iiiidiiitiiss at Courcsri.
D1aEctD1».t: (302)57l·6SS4 ’ " ` _ _ ` ,
oimzcr Prix; {302)576-3467 i·iii,iii$i.SiiS·i»i$Ti
kkcllC¥@ycst-cum ED\\’.·\IlDE}.?\·1A>C\\'ELl,, 1Ni}
August 2, 2007
BY CM/ECF
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan Jr.
United States District Court
844 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Iovate Health Sciences USA, Inc., er al. v. We!!NCr LM Sciences Inc., er ol. -—
CA. N0. 07—2S6·JJF
Dear Judge Farnan:
I write on behalf of Plaintiffs iovate Health Sciences U.S.A., inc.,
lovate Health Sciences International, Inc., Iovate T & P, Inc., FLAMMA Spa, and Use Techno
Co eration colleetivel “Iovate" in res onse to the Court’s Remark dated Au ust 2, 2007
rp 5
striking Plaintiffs’ Motion for Enlargement of Briefing Schedule In Order to Permit
Jurisdictionai Discovery Necessary to Respond To Det`endants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dl.20) for
failure to comply with the Court’s standing order on non—case dispositive motions.
Although this Motion is nomdispositive, Plaintiffs were required to tile it on Juiy
27, 2007 in order to timely respond to the individual Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, as
Piaintiffs’ answering brief was due on that date. Plaintiffs could not iiie a meaningful response
to that motion absent jurisdictional discovery, and therefore filed a motion for an extension as it
relates tothe motion to dismiss and for an order permitting jurisdictional discovery.
Due to the Court’s requirement under the Standing Order for non—case dispositive
motions in patent cases that all briefing must be completed 5 days prior to the noticed motion
date, Plaintiffs could not notice the motion for the Court’s August 3, 2007 motion day. The next
available motion day was outside the 30 day window provided by the Court’s Order.
DBo2;6159t62.1 .·066372.10OE _

Case 1:07-cv-00286-JJF Document 22 Filed 08/O2/2007 Page 2 of 2
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
The Honorable Joseph 5. Parnan Jr.
August 2, 2007
Page 2
Iovate, therefore, respectfully requests to be allowed to conduct jurisdictional discovery
of the individual defendants in order to adequately respond to Defendants Motion to Disiniss
(DI. 13) and to be granted a corresponding extension ofthe time in which to respond fully to
Defendants’ Motion until after jurisdictional discovery is completed. We plan to re—file our
motion for jurisdictional discovery and an extension within the 30 day window unless we are
advised otherwise by the Court.
Respectfully submitted,
t/·/d»*
I aren E. Keller (#4489)
cc: Clerk ofthe Court (by CM/ECF and hand delivery)
Rodger D. Smith, Il, Esq. (by CM/ECP and electronic mail)
Mary B. Graham, Esq. (by CM/ECF and electronic mail)
Roger Colaizzi, Esq. (by electronic mail)
Jeffrey A. Dum, Esq. (by electronic mail)
Tamany Vinson Bentz (by electronic mail)
Jerry Canada, Esq. (by electronic mail)
Josy W. Ingersoll, Esq. (by electronic mail)
DB02.:6l sarsai W osssvarect _