Free Motion to Compel - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 77.0 kB
Pages: 4
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 667 Words, 4,250 Characters
Page Size: 612 x 794 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8610/128-4.pdf

Download Motion to Compel - District Court of Delaware ( 77.0 kB)


Preview Motion to Compel - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:04-cv—01258-SLR Document 128-4 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 1 014

Case 1 :04-cv-01258-SLR Document 128-4 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 2 of 4
. GIBSON, DUNN SLCRUTCHER LLP
LAWY E RS
A lircisrriiro trump inuuurv I‘AR'1`NEi·lSHll’
iscieeiuc morrssiomu coiwoatrious
One Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94104-4505
(415) 393-8200
WWW.g1l'}S0£l&Zil\1‘l11.C01'IE
[email protected]
October 7, 2005
Direct Dial Chem Nm
(415) 393~8221 T 9265400006
Fax No.
(415) 374-8454
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND FACSIMILE
Jeffrey Randall
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & F loin LLP
525 University Avenue, Suite 1100
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: McKesson Information Solutions LLP v. The TriZetto Group, Inc.
C.A. No. 04—1258—SLR (D. Del.)
Dear Mr. Randall:
We are writing with regard to McKesson's supplemental claim construction which was
belatedly served on Monday, October 3, 2005. In addition to the fact that Mcliessou failed to
serve its supplementation as required bythe Courts September 22 ruling, McKesson's
supplemental claim construction fails to comply with the Courts Order dated September 20,
2005 in several significant respects.
First, each ofthe means plus function limitations set out by Mcliesson contains multiple
references to multiple portions of the specification, the figures andthe appendices. Not one of
the limitations identifies a specific structure. Thus, it is unclear from MCKGSSOH'S submission
whether it is asserting that all ofthe cited portions of the specification, taken as a whole, identify
the corresponding structure or whether each individual citation identities the appropriate
structure. McKcsson’s position in this regard must be clarified as required by the Court.
Second, Mcliesson has not proffered any interpretation ofthe proposed means plus
function terms. instead, it has once again repackaged the same language utilized in the actual
claim. Mcliesson must provide a proposed construction as required by the Court.
Third, each of th means plus function lirnitations set out by Mcliesson contain a
statement that the corresponding structure would be known by those skilled in the art. Please
Los merits Ntw roam w.»isn1Norou,o.<;. sm taiuctsco PALO nitro
roiuoou mus Musica snusstrs osmot counrv cturu ur ctrv minis oruvra

Case 1 :04-cv-01258-SLR Document 128-4 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 3 of 4
GIBSON, DUNN &CRUTCHER LLP
Jeffrey Randal}
October 7, 2005
Page 2
clarify whether it is McKesson’s position that each ofthe means pins function claim limitations
are obvious to those skilled in the art or whether the structure is disclosed in some portion of the
specification. To the extent it is the fatter, Mcliesson must so state and provide a citation to the
“speciiic algorithm disclosed in the specification? Memorandum Opinion, 1} 1.
Piase provide the foregoing suppiementations by October 11, 2005. if we do not receive
them by that time, we will raise this matter with the Court.
Very truly yours,
%ichae z
MAS/ksz
cc: David Hansen
Bernard Shel;
402l7525_1.DOC

Case 1:04-cv—01258-SLR Document 128-4 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 4 of 4
SKADDEN, Ames. SLATE, MEAGI-t EF? 5 FLOM L.L.P
FIRMFAFFILIATE OFFICES
mxt.0 ALTO. <:A1.nr-*0RmA 9430a e¤E&»~
················· CHICAGO
TEL: (550) 470-4500 uogcsjdgyes
mx; {650} 470-esvo NEW YGRK
DIRECT Dm.- WWW.SkBddEH.COm
550-470-45 i 3 “"*»’*j_'j§"°N
B5$l“é:&¤§;;SSDEN . COM Bgggigré?.5
FRANKFURT
october 10, 2005
MUNICH
$|N;;`SA»:g§}REZ
iLi".3i"
TORONTO
Via Facsimile and Email
Michael Sitzman, Esq.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
One Montgomery Street, Suite 3 100
San Francisco, CA 94104
RE: Mcifesson Information Solutions LLC v. The T riZetz‘o Group, Inc.
CA. No. 04-1258 (SLR) (D. Del.)
Dear Mike:
I am responding to your letter dated October 7, 2005, to Jeff Randall. We have
fully complied with the Court’s order and have supplemented our claim construction to
identify exactly what the Court ordered us to identify. Accordingly, Mcliesson is not
required to provide any further supplementation.
Very only yo .
iernard C.
BCS:)/c
ce: Jeffrey Thomas
David Segal
Jack Blumenfeld