Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 55.9 kB
Pages: 2
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 376 Words, 2,384 Characters
Page Size: 792 x 612 pts (letter)
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/37443/67.pdf

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 55.9 kB)


Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR Document 67 Filed 11/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
MoRRrs, NICHOLS, .ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
1201 NORTH MARKET STREET
P.O. Box 134:7
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899-134-7
302 658 9200
.1AcK B. BLUMENFELD 302 658 3989 FAX
202 351 9291
302 425 2012 FAX November 6, 2007
[email protected]
By E-Filing
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
844 N. King_Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Polaroid Corporation v. Hewlett-Packard Company
C.A. No. 06-738 (SLR)
Dear Judge Robinson: ·
Polaroid would like to raise the following issues at the discovery conference scheduled
for 5:00 p.m. today:
(1) Polaroid’s request for declarations and to have portions of a deposition
transcript stricken, necessitated by HP’s conduct regarding Polaroid privileged documents.
(2) HP’s document production, including the specific categories listed below:
(a) A date certain by which HP will produce (1) unit, revenue, profit, price,
and specification information for each of the accused products; (2) unit and revenue numbers for
paper and ink cartridges used with the accused products; (3) a verified written response
, indicating where the accused products are manufactured, and how HP accounts for whether a
unit is a worldwide unit, or a U.S. unit; (4) specific survey and marketing documents identified
in HPPOL 162026-34 (NPD Retail Sales data), HPDE 115297-98 (Checkpoint customer
research), and HPPOL 179229-87 (AP Usability Study; IZE Usability and Beta Test Studies;
Boston Research Group Studies); and (5) sales forecasts for the accused products. HP agreed
more than two weeks ago to produce most of these categories of documents.
(b) Prompt production of the following doctunents, which HP has refused to
produce:
(i) Complete versions of the potentially infringing source code, or
code that HP may argue is a non-infringing alternative (TACE,
ACE, LACE, SOSA, Retinex).

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR Document 67 Filed 11/06/2007 q Page 2 of 2
Hon. Sue L. Robinson
November 6, 2007
Page 2
(ii) Product development documents for products implementing this
code.
(iii) Product manuals, guides, and data sheets for the accused products.
Respectfully,
lumenf 14)
J BB/cbh
cc: Clerk of Court (By Hand)
William J. Marsden, Jr., Esq. (By Hand)
Matthew C. Bernstein, Esq. (By E-Mail)
Russell C. Levine, Esq. (By E-Mail)
1305815