Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv—01258-SLR Document 88-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page1 0f2
EXHIBIT A

Case 1 :04-cv-01258-SLR Document 88-2 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 2 of 2 —
Exhibit A

t
"[B]ased on my discussion with Craig, Q_ M1-_ Luaig, ara you awam af my
W€ b€ll°V€ · - · W6 Would most likely ‘ conversations within Trizetto at all
be able to render a nominfringement ccnceming whathar Triaaaa infiingcs
opinion showing that TriZetto's the MCKEJSSOH patent?
software products do not meet the
claims of the 'l64 patent, which are
Signifiggntly mu-owed by the MR. MUINO; Objection. I'd
aforementioned means-for and steps- ask that GOUUSEI Fcslilcl that
for language" November 12, 2003 E- question to conversations that
Mail from Eric King of Blakely Pcftajlil te the Bl¤k€Y - - - 13W
l Sokoloff to Jim Sullivan (TRZ 0P11110¤ IGUGYS-
.227269-271, em hasis added . 109:14-20.
"Fuither, we believe that even stronger "As to any other questions,
arguments may be made that the including general discussions
claims of the '164 patent are in fact about infringements invalidity or
invalid. These arguments would be anything else related to this case
based on patent references that I have with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
found during my own prior art search, lawyers or with the in-house
as well as my review ofthe counsel at Trizetto we’re
prosecution history of the 'I64 patent" asserting privilege as to that."
November 12, 2003 E~Mail from Eric Statement by Daniel Muino,
King of Blakely Sokoloff to Jim Counsel for TriZetto, 159:12-24.
Sullivan (TRZ 837269-271, emphasis l
added .
"Based on our current understanding "With respect to conversations
ofthe facts you have presented to us . . between this witness and any
' . we think that Trizetto has a very Trizetto attorneys or any other
strong argument that the doctrine of attorneys other than Blakey saw
laches applies to the '164 patent . . . [sic] law attorneys you can ask
Further, based on our understanding of him questions with respect to
the facts you have presented us . . . we conversations that pertain to the
think that TriZetto has a very strong Blakey sap [sic] law opinion
argument that McKesson should be letters but not as to anything else
equitably estopped from asserting the including estoppel laches or
'l64 patent, in its entirety, against anything he was that was
Trizetto, such that the *164 patent is discussed that was not
completely unenforceable against specifically related to the
Trizetto . . ." February 5, 2003 Blakeley opinion letters."
Blakely Sokoloff Letter to Jim Statement by Daniel Muino,
Sullivan (TRZ 837260-61, emphasis Counsel for TriZetto, 108: 20-
added). 25; 109:2-5.