Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv—00876-GIVIS Document 235 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 1 of 2
Asn-nav & GEDDES
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW TELEPHONE
302-$54-IBB8
222 DELAWARE AVENUE
P. 0. Box uso aolzzimgfsy
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899
September 15, 2006
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
United States District Court
844 King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: T elcordia Technologies, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.,
C.A. No. 04-875-GMS
T elcordia Technologies, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
C.A. No. 04-876-GMS
Dear Judge Sleet,
We are writing in response to the defendants’ September 14, 2006, letter characterizing
the Federal Circuit’s September 13, 2006, decision in The Massachusetts Institute of Technology
v. Abacus Software, 05-1142, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2006) (Ex. A to D.I.s 247 and 234 in
C.A. Nos. 04-875 and 04-876, respectively).
Telcordia disagrees with defendants' contention that the MIT case indicates "there should
be a fully-developed record on summary judgment reflecting all potential bases to support the
judgment? (D.I.s 247 and 234)(emphasis added). In fact, the AIIT case supports the opposite
proposition—namely, the judgment should be limited to those claim construction rulings which
are dispositive because of an absence of disputed issues of fact. Specifically, the Federal
Circuit indicated it will decline an invitation to "opine on a range of` claim construction issues
even though the judgment of the district court is not based on the resolution of` those issues."
Slip op. at 7. Instead, the Court of Appeals "limit[s] [its] consideration to issues presented by the
judgment under review." Id. The Federal Circuit explains that "[a]n appeal is not an opportunity
to bring before the appellate court every ruling with which one of the parties disagrees without
regard to whether the ruling has in any way impacted the final judgrnent." Id.
As explained in Telcordia's submissions relating to summary judgment, there is no reason
for this Court to consider "potential bases to support the judgment" where Telcordia has already
conceded judgment as to two dispositive claim construction issues and where def`endants’
other "potential bases to support the judgment" are not case-dispositive because they
involve disputed issues of fact for the jury to resolve. In accordance with Telcordia’s proposal,
the final judgment in this case will be based on two specific claim construction rulings for which
there are no disputed factual issues. With respect to those two dispositive rulings, the parties will

Case 1 :04-cv—00876-GIVIS Document 235 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
September 15, 2006
Page 2
fully develop the factual record as to the nature of the accused devices during the summary
judgment briefing process.
As a result, Telcordia’s proposal is more in keeping with the Federal Circuit’s decision
because it avoids an appeal where the "judgment does not identify which of the many claim
construction rulings are dispositive," and where "the record does not disclose the nature of the
accused devices." Slip op. at 8.
Respectfully,
` /s/ Steven J Balick
Steven J. Balick
SJB/nml
173233.1
c: 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)