I :>I Day, Berry CC Howard LLEM E Fl Efaq
\ Ek COUNSELLORS AT LAW if E; -’__ ,_.,,l·..-.»»t—·
2 E Francis H. Morrison III _ ,.__ T __ ui [D 21
. ,_, Direct Dial: (ssc) 275-0231 IBB} ut. .
i ul ct _ E-mail: [email protected] __ -..
tv tv __}\{,_ ·-Q- {5; { jill-1 l
3.t;: sh aa"- J l .·
2 lat .1..>tNi,\RU.{jRt] Cl
E `“' ` '
o r:
.-1 0
I an December 3, 2003
5 E VIA FACSIMILE
4.¤ rn .
Q jj Q The Hon. Alfred V. Covello
2 Senior Judge
= *0 2 , i United States District Court `
j 2 Lil · zfor the District of Connecticut
" U oi ( E 450 Mqqm Street
I cu cu *=· klitrtford, 03
Q f · éF;.§ "" co
E O Qc: ,__§_@_sco Hand Tools, Inc., et al v. Hu, Hou-Fei a/it/a Bobby Hu, Civil Action No.
` O M _ - ;.— ‘r};B‘&2 CV l723 (AVC)
>* E Qi ' ti
»¤ ¤ -_.: _ _ _
· fj *2 - gggggco Hand T cols, Inc., et al v. Hu, Hou-F ei a/k/a Bobby Hu, Civil Action No.
[U “* " l “ »·:— CV 1747 (AVC)
.1: $4 Ll Fran f, )
0 ua P-#3 t.:>
to E »—•
-»-t GJ nr:
E
§ 5 . Dear Judge Covello:
0 · . . .
U Plaintiffs have rev1ewed defendant Hu’s letter to the Court dated yesterday, December 2,
· *2 2 2003 regarding the pa1ties’ disagreements over the scheduling order in this case. Defendant’s
4-¤ g new draft proposed order attached to his letter materially differs from any proposal previously
2 o made to plaintiffs during the parties’ negotiations. These new positions were not, and could not
F2 yi have been, addressed in plaintiffs’ December 1, 2003 letter to the Court. Most importantly,
rt J.: defendant’s new proposal is even more lopsided than defendant’s previous proposal, would
.2 § prejudice plaintiffs in several new ways, and, therefore, should be rejected:
o to
c
2 3 Q • Timing of Disclosures : Defendants’ prior proposal improperly required plaintiffs to
E" g .g provide their invalidity positions and then called for the parties to provide their claim
, cons tue ions one mon a er, a owing e en an o ai or is propose constructions
q,§ tt thlt ll dfdtttlh d
Q f O, based on plaintiffs’ invalidity positions. (Plaintiffs’ Letter, Tab B, par. 1-2.) Defendant’s
ff, O fl current proposal now goes even further and requires the parties to further construe the
_ +’ -5* q claim terms after receiving the other s1de’s proposed constructions and liability positions.
st E *¤ ¤ (Defendant’s Letter, Ex. l, par. l-2.) More than just permitting an improperly-based
t—· *3 -2 EG] proposed claim construction, defendant’s new proposal virtually requires it. Moreover,
cu r: o Q . . . . . .
2 2 ra 2 Defendant’s new proposal necessarily requires plaintiffs to construe terms the plaintiffs
3 2 ru 0 believe are in dispute one month before defendant provides any responsiveposition. This
ui ui -•-u 0
Q E om
i Boston Greenwich Hartford New York Stamford wwraa'bb.cam
, ’“' constructions one month later, allowing defendant to tailor his proposed constructions
cv o
Q f O, based on plaintiffs’ invalidity positions. (Plaintiffs’ Letter, Tab B, par. 1-2.) Defendant’s
ff, O fl current proposal now goes even further and requires the parties to further construe the
_ +’ -5* q claim terms after receiving the other side’s proposed constructions and liability positions.
st 2 2 Q (Defendant’s Letter, Ex. l, par. l-2.) More than just permitting an improperly-based
2 *2 g proposed claim construction, defendant’s new proposal virtually requires it. Moreover,
2 2 ra 2 Defendant’s new proposal necessarily requires plaintiffs to construe terms the plaintiffs
cu o tu 0 believe are in dispute one month before defendant provides any responsiveposition. This
o E
ui ui -•-u 0
Q E om
CityPlacc 1 Hartford, CT 06103 I r S60 275 0100 860 275 0343
i Boston Greenwich Hattford New York Stamford wwraa'bb.cam
I iT' ftnnsatrimtinns one mnntft later nllnwinu deefanrl-iiiif tn tailnr his nrnnnnarl nnnsztnmtinnsa
` ` Case 3:02-cv-01723-AVC Document 64 Filed 12/O4/2003 Page 2 of 3
I Day, Berry dc Howard LLP
The Hon. Alfred V. Covello
i December 3, 2003
Q Page 2
bears no resemblance to the Court’s directive that the exchange of invalidity information
and all claim constructions occur on a single date. In contrast, Plaintiffs’ proposal is fair,
I balanced, eliminates the possibility of prej udice through the advance identification of
L terms to be construed, and adheres to Your Honor’s directive that all disclosures be
l simultaneous. Indeed, Defendant’s own previous proposal called for advance
identification of all terms "in dispute" followed by a single simultaneous exchange of all
I constructions. (Plaintiffs’ Letter, Tab B, par. I—2.)l
_ • Defendant’s new proposal limits the good faith showing and leave of Court requirements
I before- a‘ party may amend or modify any proposed construction to only those
E "responsive" constructions to be provided on February 16, 2004; no limit is placed on
amending or modifying the proposed constructions initially to be provided in January.
(Defendant’s Letter, Ex. l, par. 2(a).) Defendant has already agreed -- and in fact
I proposed himself -- that any "peril" in trying to change claim constructions would apply
? to all constructions. (Plaintiffs’ Letter, Tab B, par. 2(a).) ___Defendant provides no basis I
for this new carve out.
I • Scope Of Invalidity Disct'0sure.· Regarding the scope of plaintiffs’ invalidity disclosure,
defendant illustrates the impropriety of the extensive, expert-like disclosure he seeks (see
Defendant’s Letter, Ex. l, par. l(a)), requiring a detailed chart with specific
identifications and explanations), by limiting the disclosure requirements for his own
· infringement disclosure (see Defendant’s Letter, Ex. l, par. l(b), vaguely requiring only Q
that Hu "provide his positions"). Defendant’s refusal to describe the scope of his own
infringement production in the same onerous, detailed terms he seeks to impose on
· plaintiffs proves plaintiffs’ point —- that this is not the time for expert-like disclosures but
rather the exchange of all available factual information. (Plaintiffs’ Letter, Tab A, par.
2(b).) Plaintiffs’ invalidity production should be described comparably to defendant’s
description of his infringement production, namely that plaintiffs will provide the facts
supporting their invalidity position on the exchange date.
For these additional reasons, and those set forth in Plaintiff s Letter of December 1, 2003,
plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to adopt Plaintiffs’ Proposed Scheduling Order. (See
Plaintiffs’ Letter, Tab A.)
I Defendant’s new proposal also creates the ancillary problem of so front-loading
plaintiffs’ production that the January 16 proposed deadline becomes impracticable.
I
I
I
I . |
|
' ` Case 3:02-cv-01723-AVC Document 64 Filed 12/O4/2003 Page 3 of 3
I Day, Berry Sc Howard LLP
I The Hon. Alfred V. Covello
December 3, 2003
Page 3
Very truly yours,
Francis H. Morrison III 62*
Fnmxiqub
cc: Jonathan M. Pierce, Esq.
a
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms