Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01 199-SLR Document 263 Filed 06/07/2006 Page 1 ot 2
Ftsn Sc Rrcnanoson 1¤.c. _
Suite 11oo
919 Marker Street
rho. Box B14
Wiimington, Delaware
Frederick I). Fish I9899·U¥4
i8ss·19sO
Telephone
WK. Richardson 301 652-5o7o
:859-1515: i l
June 7, 2006 fjgsgfgéc,
Web Sire
Chief Judge Sue L. Robinson `W"`"‘&‘°°m
United States District Court
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: SRI International lnc. v. internet Security Systems, Inc., et al.
® USDC»D. Del. — C. A. No. 04-} 199 (SLR)
ATLANTA Dear Chief Judge Robinson:
A“"'*`*“ SRI respectfully submits this letter to request that it be permitted to assert two claims
¤OsrO~ that it did not and could not assert until after the completion of third party discovery.
,,,,_,W_,,,,, Fact discovery in this case continued until just days prior to the submission of SRl’s
WW YORK expert reports. During third party depositions, SRI obtained evidence confirming the
` basis for asserting claims retating to the location at which monitors are deployed in
SAN MGD customer networks. Based on this evidence, SRI’s expert identified 33 infringed
$‘“‘i"N VALLEY ctaims which had not been previously identified in SRl’s interrogatory responses. At
time sims the May 17, 2006 hearing on this issue, the Court indicated that while it would not
wlsnnimen, an permit SRi to add 33 claims, it would consider the addition of a few claims. [See Ex.
A, May 17, 2006 Hearing Trariscript at 45:i0~l4.]
Attempting to resolve this issue without the the Court's further involvement, SR}
proposed narrowing the 33 ciaims to just two claims — claims 74 and 78 ofthe ’6l5
patent. [See Ex. B, May 22, 2006 Letter from Howard Pollack to Paul Grewal and
Theresa Moehlman.] These two claims differ Hom previously asserted claims of the
’6l 5 patent only in that they require that monitors be deployed in a Virtual Private
Network or VPN. Defendants will not be prejudiced by the addition of these two
claims as Defendants invalidity experts have already addressed monitor deployment
in VPNs inthe context of their analysis of the claims ofthe ’338 patent. Nonetheless,
Defendants object to the addition of these two claims. [See Ex. C, May 30, 2006
Letter from Renee Brown and Theresa Moehlman to Howard Pollack.] in light of its
inability to have previously asserted these claims, and the lack of prejudice to

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR Document 263 Filed 06/07/2006 Page 2 of 2
Pisa Sc Rrciwtunsow r>.c.
Chief Iudge Sue L. Robinson
June 7, 2006
Page 2
Defendants, SRI respectfully requests that it be permitted to continue to assert claims
74 and 78 of the ’61 5 patent.
Respectfully submitted,
rl . ~ l~/e s
John}? . Horvath
JFH/db
cc: Paul S. Grewal, Esquire
Holmes J. Hawkius, III, Esquire
Theresa A. Moehlman, Esquire
Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire
Richard K. Herrmann, Esquire
80033866.doc