Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:O6—cv—OOO28-SLR-LPS Document 31 Filed O4/17/2006 Page 1 of 2
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT St TUNNELL LLP
1201 N 0RT1r MARKET STREET
P.O. Box 1347
W1Lu1NeTon, Dxmwnuz 19899-1347
302 658 9200
302 658 3989 Fax
.lU1.urH1;A1~112Y
3023519221 _
s02 425 2004 ria April li'. 2006
jl1E811Cy@mDH[.COm
VIA E-FILING
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
844 King Street
Wilmington, DH 19801
Re: MeKe.s*son Auromcrtion Inc. v. Swi.s.rZrJg Holding A G er al.,
QA No. 06-028 [KA.];
Dear Judge Jordan;
Defendants submit this letter in response to Plaintiff Mcléesson Automation, lnc.’s,
("McKcsson") April 12, 2006 letter requesting an initial Scheduling Conference under L.R.
l6.2(a), and have also just received (as we were about to send this letter) Your Honor’s letter
conceming the conference. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants request that the Court
not hold a scheduling conference at this time because there remains significant uncertainty over
whether the Court has jurisdiction over all ofthe Delendants.
Mcliesson named four defendants: Translogic Corp. (“'l`ranslogic"), a Delaware
corporation; two Swiss entities (Swisslog llolding AG and Swisslog Management AG,
collectively "the Swiss Delendants"); and Swisslog North America. Translogic was served on
January 24, 2006. The Swiss Defendants waived formal service of process and have until June
12, 2006 to respond to the Complaint.
Counsel for the parties have had several discussions concerning whether McKcsson
named the correct parties as Defendants. Speeilically, Detbndants’ counsel advised McKcsson
that Swisslog North America is not a separate entity but rather. is simply a name under which
Translogic does business. After several discussions. Mcliesson dismissed Swisslog North
America from this action voluntarily.
Defendants’ counsel has also advised Mcl have any contacts with Delaware and have not committed any acts in the United States which
could, under any scenario, constitute infringement of either of the patents in suit. There is no
allegation that any accused product has ever been sold in Delaware; the only basis for
jurisdiction over Translogic is its status as a Delaware corporation. Defcndants” counsel
proposed that the Swiss Defendants be dismissed voluntariiy and that if, during the course of
discovery, evidence to the contrary were found or if other Swissiog related entities were found to

Case 1 :O6—cv—OOO28-SLR-LPS Document 31 Filed O4/17/2006 Page 2 of 2
Honorable Kent A. Jordan
April 17, 2006
Page 2
be more appropriate defendants, those parties could be joined. This would obviate the need for
the Swiss Defendants to engage in lengthy and expensive discovery only for Plaintiff to confirm
that they were not proper defendants to begin with. Mcliesson has not agreed to this and instead,
has indicated that it wants to conduct discovery to determine whether it has any basis to proceed
against the Swiss Detendants. The parties have, thus tar, failed to reach agreement on how to
proceed.
Because the Swiss Defendants have not yet appeared, and intend to move to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction, a Rule 16 conference would be premature. Defendants request
that the Court not require the parties to schedule a conference at this time.
Respectfully,
‘ `lni ‘ Julia lleaney (#3052)
cc: Clerk ofthe Court (by CMJECF)
Blair Jacobs, Esquire (by FedEx)
Neal Belgam, Esquire (by hand)