Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 63.9 kB
Pages: 2
Date: July 24, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 424 Words, 2,589 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8228/207.pdf

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 63.9 kB)


Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1 :04-cv—00876-GIVIS Document 207 Filed 07/24/2006 Page 1 of 2
ASHBY & GEDDES
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW TELEPHONE
222 DELAWARE AVENUE °°2`°°4`°°°°
R. 0. Box uso ;,¤;2;;m;'l;,
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899
July 24, 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
Telcordio Technologies, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
QA. No. 04-876-GMS
Dear Judge Sleet:
I am writing on behalf of Telcordia to respectfully request clarification regarding one
issue pertaining to Your Honor’s order Friday afternoon (D.I. 206 in C.A. No. 04-875—GMS, and
D.I. 196 in C.A. No. 04-876-GMS) (the "Order") denying Telcordia’s request to submit expert
reports on the ‘306 patent in the above actions. So as to avoid any possible misunderstanding, I
note at the outset that we understand and fully intend to honor the Court’s ruling, and that this
letter does not represent a veiled attempt to reargue or evade that ruling.
After the issuance of the Order on July 21st — which was the date for service of answering
expert reports — defendants served us with a combined expert non—inf`ringement report on the
‘306 patent. Reply expert reports are due this coming Friday, July 28th. Our question is whether
it was the Court’s intention that Telcordia not only be precluded from serving opening expert
reports on the ‘306 patent but that we also be precluded hom serving a reply to defendants’ non-
infringement report on the ‘306 patent, even if we are able to do so by the July 28th reply
deadline. As noted, this letter is not an attempted end—run around the Court’s Order. However,
out of an excess of caution, we would appreciate clarification as to whether we are permitted to
serve a timely ‘306 patent reply report limited to the issues raised in defendants’ report.
Respectfully,
/s/ Steven J Bolick
Steven J. Balick

Case 1 :04-cv—00876-GIVIS Document 207 Filed 07/24/2006 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Gtregory M. Sleet
July 24, 2006
Page 2
SJ B/dmf
171535.1
cc: Donald R. Dunner, Esquire (via electronic mail)
John W. Shaw, Esquire (by hand, and via electronic mail)
Steven C. Cherny, Esquire (via electror1ic 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)