Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01251-GIVIS Document 32 Filed 07/01 /2005 Page 1 of 2
CON BOVE 8: HITJTZ LLP
s 1007 Norte Orange Street
RG. Box 2207
Wilmington DE 19899
an (302} 658 Qléll
tsozi ssa sem
James D. Heisman ’`:: T fj ‘=`‘ iii I if
r¤¤<302)658· QW `..`` Z I . '",=’ 1
mx {senses sem -=--` -- =-‘ ` ‘’‘‘‘ -=- `
man. [email protected]
nerur ro Wilmington Oftice pz; i www.cblh.com
July 1, 2005
VIA E-FILING AND HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
United States District Court
844 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE l980l
Re: Abbott Laboratories v. Bayer Healthcare, C.A. No. 044251 (GMS)
Dear Judge Sleet:
Pursuant to Paragraph 5(d) ofthe Scheduling Order (DJ. 24), Bayer, submits this agenda
letter outlining the issues in dispute which it would like to raise at the teleconference scheduled
for next Wednesday at 11:00 am. As background, this is a patent infringement action in which
Abbott has accused Bayer of infringing three patents relating to sehedulers, scheduling methods,
and methods of modeling assays for immunoassay devices. The parties have conferred on
several occasions regarding these issues and are at an impasse.
Issue 1:
Whether Abbott should designate a witness to testify in response to a Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition notice concerning Bayer’s laches defense. Bayer’s 30(b)(6) deposition notice is
directed specifically to when Abbott knew or should have known of its claim against Bayer.
Abbott has refused to designate a witness claiming that the discovery sought "is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," and protected by attorney client
privilege and work product immunity.
Issue 2: .
Whether Abbott should produce its lawyer, William Murray, for deposition so that
Bayer may ascertain non—privileged facts to support Bayer’s laches defense. Abbott has
previously proffered a declaration by Mr. Murray in the Bayer Healthcare v. Abbott
Laboratories, Civil Action No. 03—l89~GMS(Bayer v. Abbott), litigation in support of Abbott’s
infringement claims against the Centaur and to explain Abbott’s delay in tiling suit. Abbott has

Case 1:04-cv—O1251-G|\/IS Document 32 Filed 07/O1/2005 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Gregory M. Sicet
June I5, 2005
Page 2
objected to Mr. Murray’s deposition on the ground that all information sought is irrelevant or
calls for privileged or work product infomation.
Respectfully submitted,
( o . 7 ,4.,,..
J Heisman
}DH:mtf
ce: Dr. Peter T. Dalleo, Clerk (By Hand)
Mary B. Graham, Esq. (By facsimile and email)
Jeffrey I Weinberger, Esq. (By facsimile and email)
Dale M. Heist, Esq. (By facsimile and email)