Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cv-00167-JJF Document 26 Filed O4/O3/2008 Page 1 of 2
Asn-|BY 6. GEDDES
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW TELEPH°NE
302-6.544888
soo DELAWARE AVENUE
FACSIMILE
P. O. BOX l|5O 302-854-2067
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899
April 3, 2008
The Honorable Joseph J. Faman, Jr. VIA ELECTRONIC FH.ING
United States District Court
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. InterDigital Communications
Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 07-167-JJF
Dear Judge Faman:
I am local counsel for plaintiff Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung") in the above
referenced action. I write to respectfully request that the Court schedule a Rule 16 Conference in
this action at Your Honor’s earliest convenience.
The original complaint (D.I. 1) in this matter was filed on March 23, 2007. That same
day, defendant InterDigital Communications Corporation ("InterDigital") tiled a related
complaint seeking to institute an investigation by the United States International Trade
Commission ("ITC") styled In the Matter of Certain 3G I/Wdeband Code Division Multiple
Access (WCDMA) Handsets and Components Thereojf IT C Investigation No. 33 7-TA-601 (the
"lTC Investigation"), and also filed a parallel patent infringement action in this Court styled
InterDigital Communications Corporation v. Samsung Telecommunications America LLP, et al.,
07-1 65-J J F .
On June 12, 2007, pursuant to the automatic stay provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1659,
Samsung and InterDigital agreed to stay C.A. No. 07-165-JJF until a final determination is
reached in the ITC Investigation. The parties to the instant action also stipulated to, and the
Court so ordered, a stay of this case until September 14, 2007, in the hope that the ITC
Investigation (and an arbitration enforcement proceeding in which they were involved) could
facilitate a resolution of their disputes (D.I. 8).
Unfortunately, the parties have been unable to resolve their disputes, and the stay in this
action expired on September 14, 2007. Samsung has since tiled its First Amended Complaint
(D.I. 9), and the defendants have tiled their answer and counterclaims (D.I. 14) and a motion to
dismiss a single count of the First Amended Complaint that alleges a violation of the California
Business & Professional Code (D.I. 15), which has been fully briefed. Samsung replied to the
defendants’ counterclaims on January 18, 2008 (D.I. 23).
{OO20541l;v1}

Case 1 :07-cv-00167-JJF Document 26 Filed O4/O3/2008 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
April 3, 2008
Page 2
Since the pleadings have now closed, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court
reschedule a Rule 16 Conference at Your Honor’s earliest convenience so that the parties can
begin to move this matter forward.
Respectfully,
/s/ John G. Day
J olm G. Day
J GD/nml
c: Richard K. Herrmann, Esquire (by hand and via electronic mail)
David J. Healey, Esquire (via electronic mail)
David C. Radulescu, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Cabrach Cormor, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Mark D. Flanagan (via electronic mail)
Ron E. Shulman (via electronic mail)
Patrick J. Coyne (via electronic mail)
{oozos411;v1}