Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01285-GMS Document 26 Filed O4/05/2005 Page 1 of 2
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
EEE? ’é`I€€&"G“" ISHSIKKEEESXII THE BRANDYWINE BUILDING H ’“‘EESIJ{3“"°‘
S N S
Rl§IiE1?1T;A LEXWEER -·—-— 1000 WEST STREET, l7TI~I FLOOR H JAMES CoNAWAY_ JR
RICHARD A ZAPPA l°‘*7`l9°°
FREDERICRW IOBST AIHANASIOSE AGELIAKOPOULOS WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801 WILLIAM F TAYLOR
RICHARD H, MORSE JOSEPH M. BARRY l95,,_j,_004
DAVIDC MCBRIDE SEANM BEACH
JOSEPH M NICHOLSON DONALD}, BOWMAN. JR _....
CRAIG A 1 BARRYM WILLOUGHBY CURTIS} CROWTHER STUART B YOUNG
Iosvw INGERSOLL. MARGARETM DIBIANCA WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899-0391 EDWARDE MAXWELL. 2ND
ANTHONY G. FLYNN ERIN EDWARDS OF COUNSE,
JEROMEK GROSSMAN spéirgplss
?IFI?E?i..‘}I1°I¥'§L‘ftI° JAMES] GMIGHER (302) 57l—6600 ——-—
\l`§,OBERT LbT§IoMAs Rixggelhza SIIIEGDMAN (800) 253-2234 (DE ONLY) JOHN D MCLAUGI-ILIN, JR
ILLIAM OHN T N - . _ ,
1.,,,,.-Im. m,;,.° SENT wml FAX: ($02157*1253 E“;“,;*,%.,£’{i('t’IttI‘II§’F,¥,;°;“*Y>
BRUCE 1. SII.vERsTEIN KARA S HAMMOND SPECIAL COUNSEL
WILLIAMW BOWSER DAWNM JONES ,
LARRY] TARABICOS RICHARD s JULIE WRITER s DIRECT DIAL. NUMBERS wl.
. I< E R- .
’§§FIi`I2`£I’2 '§$'iE5“°·’“ IQEPEIMFIIEIUS vim. (302) svI~6I43 GEORGETOWN OFFICE
(TA5gANDRA Il ROBERTS EDWARD] KOSMOWSKI FAXY (302) 576-3463 HO WEST PINE STREET
RICHARDJ A PORPER JOHNC KUFFEL ,
TERESA A CHEEK TIMOTHY E. LENGKEEK P O BOI) 594
NEILL1MULLENWAL.SH MATTHEWB 1.Uww E-MAIL: [email protected] GEORGEIOWN- DELAWARE *99**7
JANETZ CHARLTON JOSEPHA MALFITANO (302)856-3571
R¤BI5RT5/ BRADY Egiyg xfsggéffl (800) 255-2234 (DE ONLY)
LIEIQC. ;`II&mI M.aIEI.w MCDLIIIOA FAX; <¤P> E6-Im
DANIELP JOHNSON MA`I`I'HE\VB MCGUIRE
CRAIG D GREAR MARIBETH L MINELLA
TIMOTHY JAY HOUSEAL EDMDN L MORTON
BRENDAN LINEHAN SHANNON D PON MUT1’A1~IARA·\VA1IKER
MARTIN S, LESSNER JENNIFER R NOEL.
PAULINEK MORGAN §>$Il~1MI\]I,’Agg?¥EW0 _
SETH} REIDENBERG 5;
LISA B. GOODMAN FRANCIS J . SCHANNE
JOHN W SHAW MICHELE SHERRETTA
JAMES P HUGHES, JR MICHAEL P STAFFORD
EDWIN} HARRON JOHNE TRACEY
MICHAEL. R. NESTOR ALFRED VILLOCH, 111
MAUREEND LUKE MARGARETB WHITEMAN
ROLIN P BISSELL CHRISTIAN DOUGLAS WRIGHT
SCOTIA I-IOLT SHARONM ZIEG
HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Enzon Pharmczceuticals, Inc. v. Phoenix Phammczcologics, Inc.,
C.A. No. 04-1285-GMS
Dear Judge Sleet:
I write on behalf of the parties to set forth the dispute on the agenda for the
discovery teleconference set for Thursday, April 7, 2005 at 2:00 p.m.
The gravamen of Enzon’s complaint against Phoenix is that fonner Enzon
employee Mike Clark filed a patent application in his own name after leaving Enzon that was
based on work done at Enzon. The patent that issued from this application was assigned by Dr.
Clark to Phoenix, which is a start-up company that he founded. Phoenix denies that the
invention claimed in the patent was based on work done at Enzon.
The disagreement between the parties now presented to the Court concerns a
provision in the Protective Order. The provision at issue would allow a party receiving
confidential documents in discovery to show those documents to anyone named on them as an
WP3:1l00313.1 63541 1001

Case 1:04-cv-O1285—Gl\/IS Document 26 Filed O4/05/2005 Page 2 of 2 J
Yorme CoNAwAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
April 5, 2005
Page 2
author or recipient. One effect of this provision would be to allow Phoenix to show Dr. Clark
Enzon’s confidential documents that he had authored or already seen. Enzon disagrees with
including such a provision.
Enzon is concerned about giving Dr. Clark, a current Phoenix employee and
competitor of Enzon, such access, because Dr. Clark is accused in this suit of using EHZOIIDS
trade secrets to obtain a patent. Phoenix simply wants to ensure that Dr. Clark is able to
participate in the defense of the suit by seeing documents to which he already had access as the
author or recipient. Dr. Clark would be prohibited by the Protective Order from using such
documents in any way other than for purposes of this litigation. Enzon states that this case is no
different from any other patent case in which document review is conducted by technically
trained patent counsel and independent experts who are approved under the usual notice
provisions of the Protective Order.
Respectfully Submitted,
Glenn C. Mandalas
(# 4432)
cc: Clerk of the Court (by hand and electronic tiling)
Richard D. Kirk, Esquire (by electronic filing and e—1nail)
Joseph Lucci, Esquire (by e—mail)
John W. Shaw, Esquire (by electronic filing and e—mail)
Charles A. Weiss, Esquire (by e—mail)
wrs;1 l003l3.l 6354l.l00l