Free Letter - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

"‘“_""‘““‘““““‘“"‘“‘*““_‘"‘———1""""“*·——···—·—·r·~·——————--—-—L—————~»————l——»-——-—-—"hl l -
, · Case 3:03-cv-00366-SRU Document 51 Filed 11/19/2004 Page 1 of 2 l
McCormick, Paulding & Huber LLP _l
Intellectual Pr0pertyLrzw g · - _ I
?i“'lT?, 2 :`¤ ‘ ~ M: Fil) I 1
€b5¤¤¤¤=*¤ PM l I
l-Iartt`ord,CT¤rrd Q, ,_§ grr ,,§,;,.,g‘.-.. .· . .
Springfield, MA
November 15, 2004
From the desk of
John C. Lindcrman
lind@ip-Iawycrscom ia f · d M
Tcl.: S60-549-5290
Hon. Stefan Fl. Underhill
F :860-$21-0464
ax United States District Judge
CltyP1¤¤·= it District of Connecticut
*85 AFy*·¤~~ Sm 915 Larayette Boulevard
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604
WWW.IP—L&WyCfS.COUI
Rei
l¤h¤C— l~l¤·t=m~¤··*t cava: Action N6. 3:03-cv-0366-SRU
J. Kevin Grogan*?
All F. 1:r =·+
,,:0,;;:, ,,_ ,5),?,T,,,,,., To The Honorable Judge Underhill:
l\/larina F. Cunningham* . i
glctrardcoiisersr * it With. regard to the Black & Decker letter of November 11, 2004, which alleges
N;’;;laS·J ,I?;c;;O__ that Ft0Vic is now improperly attempting to change those terms in the formal written l
Wm Tuckércrmh, settlement-documents", FloVic denies the allegation. In fact, it is Black & Decker that
,;,0,,,,,,, ,_ M,cD,m,,d, is demanding terms that were not part of the basic settlement terms agreed to on
kann a.vm1ai¢a1¤¤¢ October 26, 2004. As a consequence, the parties have not managed to memorialize
wayne R.Gr¤hs* the settlement in a written Settlement Agreement as stated in my letter of November .
"“°“°¤ C- Walsh 10 2004 To be clear FloVic Inc has no intention of abandonin ` E
» - . , . g the basic settlement ,
terms that were reached on October 26, 2004. =
*Admi.r!ea' in CT
vnemmarrn MA In view of the above, RoVic, Inc. would welcome and, in fact, requests the
Hmm Demo mm further assistance of Judge William Garfinkel in resolving the issues which remain in
,,,,,,, T_ Duffy, ,§;,,_ consummating a written Settlement Agreement.
l
g’;;;;”,fiHubcr, Since the time frame for finalizing a Settlement Agreement is uncertain, FloVic l
,0,,,, C_ ,,,,,0,,.. also requests that the date for dismissal ofthe case be postponed until Judge I
Frederick J. nmciwr Garfinkel confirms that the written Settlement Agreement between the parties has l
Chester E. Flaviuf bggn CgnSUmmatgd_
William C. Crutchcr"‘
`[°h“J‘ D°""-my With regard to Black & Decl extend the dismissal deadline to November 26, 2004, it was unclear to me that in the ,
conversation of November. 4, 2004, Mr. Niro consented to the extension. At the time l
he stated he was unfamiliar with the Court’s Order, but he thought that the extension l
would be proper. No agreement was reached that would have allowed me to submit a
letter on behalf of both parties consenting to the extension. My previous request by
phone and in writing to local counsel, Attorney Reilly, was never answered. Certainly, ,
i
l
-



‘ Q ` Case 3:03-cv-00366-SRU Document 51 Filed 11/19/2004 Page 2 of 2
1
Hon. Stefan R. Underhill
November 15, 2004
Page 2 ]
l
it would have been entirely to RoVic’s benefit if l had been able to confirm Black &
Decker’s consent in my letter of November 10, 2004. If I misconstrued li/lr. Niro’s
statements on November 4 as less than a definitive consent to the extension, it was i
unintentional.
Very truly yours,
McCormick, Paulding & Huber LLP
By —
JCL:jef
cc: Magistrate Judge William I. Garfinkel,
Atty. Raymond P. Niro, Jr. .
Atty. Patricia Reilly i
l
l
l
l
l
- l
l
l
1
l
l