Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 575.8 kB
Pages: 1
Date: April 21, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 329 Words, 2,176 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8795/126.pdf

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 575.8 kB)


Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1 :04-cv-01443-GIVIS Document 126 Filed 04/21 /2006 Page 1 of 1
FISH 8c RICHARDSON P.C.
Suite 1100
919 N. Market Street
1>.o. Box III4
Wilmington, Delaware
Frederiolgslg.-gglg 21, I9899‘1U4
Telephone
WK. Richardson 302 652-5070
1859-1951
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet Facsimile
United States District Court 302 652-6697
for the District of Delaware WSIS site
844 King Street, Room 4324 mwvhcom
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: National Starch and Chemical, etal. v. Cargill, Inc., et al.
USDC—D. Del. - C.A. No. 04-1443-GMS
Dear Judge Sleet:
® Defendants respectfully apologize for any confusion caused by counsel's less than
ATLANTA clear reference regarding interpretation of the patents-in—suit made in our prior letter
SIISIIISI to the Court. Defendants April 17th letter in no way meant to denigrate the Court's
BOSTON claim construction decision, especially in light of the careful consideration exerted by
Your Honor regarding these matters.
DALLAS
DELAWARE Defendants' April 17th letter intended to explain that Plaintiffs’ position on
NW 1¤1<1< willfulness appeared to rely upon assertions: (i) that Cargill could not have reasonably
SAN DIEGO relied on many years of testing its own products for amylose content utilizing a
SILICON VLLLLI standard iodine colorimetric test; and (ii) that Cargill should have realized that the test
TWIN CITIES set forth in the specification of the patents-in-suit would later be applied and (when
modified to make it operable) would substantially inflate the apparent amylose
WASmN°TON’ DC content results compared to the results Cargill routinely had obtained from testing its
own products over many years. Thus, Defendants sought to explain that Plaintiffs'
position relied upon an improper foundation for charging Cargill with willful
misconduct.
Counsel for Defendants sincerely regret our failure to more clearly state Defendants
position.
Respectfully,
·?· 311-.2 L _ if
Thomas L. Halkowski
TLH:kxl Enclosure
cc John W. Shaw (via ECF and hand delivery)
Monté T. Squire (via ECF and hand delivery)
Paul M. Richter (via E-mail)
Jerry Canada (via E-mail)