Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01258-SLR Document 418 Filed 06/16/2006 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE A
MCKESSON INFORMATION SOLUTIONS )
LLC, { CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-1258-SLR
Plaintiff, )
V· i
THE TRIZETTO GROUP, INC., g
Defendant. g
MCKESSON'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CROSS-MOVE FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT IN CONNECTION WITH TRIZETTO’S WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
AND ON-SALE BAR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS
Plaintiff McKesson Information Solutions LLC ("McKesson") respectfully moves for
entry of an order granting McKesson leave to cross-move for summary judgment in
connection with defendant The TriZetto Group, Inc.’s ("TriZetto") written description and on-
sale bar summary judgment motions, by way of the request and brief discussion in McKesson's
June 15, 2006 oppositions to these motions.
1. By order dated May 4, 2006, the Court ordered that summary judgment
motions addressed to invalidity be filed by June I, 2006. (D.I. 362.) Although TriZetto has
pled virtually every conceivable defense, TriZetto's actions in this case have indicated that it
does not actually intend to pursue all of these defenses at trial. For example, TriZetto has
withdrawn its "waiver" and "acquiescence" defenses and appears to no longer be pursuing
three of the four alleged bases for its inequitable conduct defense. Accordingly, McKesson
limited its summary judgment motions on invalidity issues to those defenses McKesson
believed TriZetto actually intended to pursue at the October 3, 2006 trial. McKesson therefore
did not iile motions directed to defenses originally alleged by TriZetto that were completely
baseless and that McKesson did not believe TriZetto actually intended to pursue at trial. These
l

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR Document 418 Filed 06/16/2006 Page 2 of 4
included TriZetto's § 101 "statutory subject matter" defense and its "written description" and
"on—sale bar" defenses.
2. To McKesson's surprise, TriZetto filed motions for summary judgment in
connection with both its written description and on-sale bar defenses. (D.I. 367 & 373.) As
discussed in McKesson's oppositions to TriZetto's motions, the facts and law relating to both of
these defenses show not only that TriZetto's motions should be denied, but that judgment on
these defenses should be granted in McKesson's favor as a matter of law.
3. McKesson therefore respectfully requests that the Court allow McKesson to
cross-move concerning these defenses. McKesson does not seek leave to file a separate
motion or supporting brief Rather, McKesson's request for summary judgment in its favor
and its supporting arguments are included in McKesson's brief in opposition to TriZetto's
motions conceming these defenses (D.I. 407 & 410), and required little more than a request
that judgment on these defenses be entered in McKesson's favor as supported by the
uncontested material facts.
4. Since the facts and law support judgment in McKesson's favor, the Court could
grant summary judgment in McKesson's favor even without a request by McKesson. See, e. g.,
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986); Donls Hydraulics, Inc. v. Colony Ins. C0.,
417 F. Supp. 2d 601, 611 (D. Del. 2006).
5. This request is in the interests of justice, will not unduly prejudice TriZetto and,
to the extent the Court agrees that summary judgment in favor of McKesson on these defenses
is appropriate, it will simplify the issues remaining for trial.
2

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR Document 418 Filed 06/16/2006 Page 3 of 4
McKesson therefore respectfully requests that the Court allow McKesson to cross-
move for summary judgment in connection with TriZetto's motions for summary judgment on
the issues of written description and on-sale bar.
Byzé ! Q 2 2 L-;
homas . Allingham II (#0476)
Michael A. Barlow (#3928)
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Rodney Square
P.O. Box 636
Wilmington, Delaware 19899
(302) 651-3000
Attomeys for Plaintiff McKesson
Infonnation Solutions LLC
OF COUNSEL:
Jeffery G. Randall
David W. Hansen
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
525 University Avenue, Suite 1100
Palo Alto, Califomia 94301
(650) 470-4500
DATED: June 16, 2006
3

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR Document 418 Filed 06/16/2006 Page 4 of 4
RULE 7.1.1 CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the subject of the foregoing motion has been discussed with
counsel for the defendant and that we have not been able to reach agreement.
Michael Barlow (#3928)
4