Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv—00876-GIVIS Document 284 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 1 of 2
ASHEY & GEDDES
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW TELEPHONE
302-854-IBB8
500 DELAWARE AVENUE
FACSIMILE
P. O. BOX ||5O aca-as-•-zoo?
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899
January 8, 2007
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
United States District Court
844 King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: T elcordio Technologies, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.,
C.A. No. 04-875-GMS
T elcordio Technologies, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
C.A. No. 04-876-GMS
Dear Judge Sleet:
The purpose of this letter is to inform the Court of j oint proposals the parties have agreed
upon with the goal of helping to streamline the pre-trial order and trial of the above—captioned
cases. The joint proposed final pretrial order is due on February 16, 2007, and the pretrial
conference is scheduled for March 15, 2007. We respectfully submit this letter to request
guidance from the Court as to whether these proposals are acceptable.
The parties are in agreement that consolidation of these two cases for purposes of trial
would be most efficient given that both trials involve the same patents and that the defendants in
both actions have submitted joint expert reports as appropriate. Accordingly, unless the Court
prefers otherwise, the parties propose to submit a double-captioned joint proposed final pretrial
order that contemplates a single consolidated trial of these cases, rather than two largely
redundant separate proposed pretrial orders.
The Court has set aside a full six weeks for trial of these cases (from April 16, 2007
through May 25, 2007). Although the parties will be prepared to propose and discuss the length
of time needed for trial in greater detail in their joint proposed final pretrial order and during the
pretrial conference, at this stage we are pleased to report our consensus that we should not need
six weeks for trial — particularly if the Court decides to pennit the proposed consolidation. lf
acceptable to the Court, the parties propose that trial of these cases begin on April 30, 2007,
instead of April 16, 2007.

Case 1 :04-cv—00876-GIVIS Document 284 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
January 8, 2007
Page 2
The parties also believe that given their respective positions on summary judgment of
noninfringement of the ’306 patent, it would be most efficient for all concerned to forego trial of
’306 patent infringement issues} Accordingly, unless the Court prefers otherwise, the parties
propose to exclude ’306 patent infringement issues from their joint proposed final pretrial order.
The parties would be grateful for the C0urt’s guidance as soon as comfortably possible as
to whether the parties’ proposals are acceptable, and we would welcome the opportunity to
discuss this issue during a teleconference if Your Honor would fmd that helpful.
The parties appreciate the Court’s consideration of these requests.
Respectfully,
/s/ Steven J Balick
Steven J. Balick
SJ B/dmf
176549.1
cc: Donald R. Dunner, Esquire (via electronic mail)
John W. Shaw, Esquire (by hand, and via electronic mail)
Steven C. Chemy, Esquire (via electronic mail)
David A. Nelson, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esquire (by hand, and via electronic mail)
Edward R. Reines, Esquire (via electronic mail)
1 Specifically, the parties agree that summary judgment of noninfringement of the
’306 patent is appropriate under the Court's construction of that patent. The parties differ with
respect to the grounds for that judgment.