Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv—00875—G MS Document 202 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 1 of 2
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
§é:%?t¥E§£E“°“‘ }iEiE§`§I;xi’E\n;E);PER THE BMNDYWINE BUILDING °“L° S
SHeLooNN. SANDLER NETLL1 MULLEN WALSH ]()()() WEST STREET 17TH FLOOR GRzooRvJ. BAHCOCK ANDREW A. LuNpcRaN
RICHARD A. Lavmz JANET Z. CHARLTON ’ JOSEPH M. BARRY MA'lTHE\V B. LLJNN
RICHARD A. ZARRA ROBERT S. BRADY WILMHQGTON, DELAWARE 1980 l SEAN M. BEACH JOSEPH A. MALmANo
FREDERICK W. Ionsr Joe:. A. WAITE DONALD J. BowMAN, JR. A¤RrA B. MARTINELLI
RICHARD H. MoRsE BRENT C. SHAFFER P.O. Box 391 TIMOTHY P. CAXRNS QTICHAEL Wi ¥{ZDER.\1OTl"
it .' . ;',' E ...irE' ’ T. .lI!*·.
l?E;§iE2.$ii?L§E.t;tiEE 2t25§E*Té§2§°` W¤M¤¤¤T¤~E ¤EL·~~V-ARE *9899-0391 §$§a?t>§E§;2.E%‘“ ED§Pi0ElEP9N1ORTOELLA
CRAR; A. KARSNITZ TIMOTHY JAY Hous&Ax. (3 07) 5-716600 NIARGARET M. DIBIANCA D. FON MU'l'l'A.\1ARA—\\'ALi(.ER
BARRY M. \VlLLOUGHBY BRENDAN LTNEHAN SHAN>:oN _ " MARY F. DUGAN JENNIFER IL NOEL
Josv w. INGERSOLL MART1N S. LESSNER (800) 2J3-2234 (DE ONLY) ERIN EDWARDS JoHN J. PAscHtETro
A.\THON`¤’ G. FLY?~·N PAULINEKMORGAN FAX; (302) 5714253 J.ENos ADAM W. Pow
JEROME K. GRossxiAN C. BARR FLINN JAN S. FREDERICKS SETI-I J. REIDENBERG
EUGENE A. DIPRIEQZIO §ATAé.lE \VOLF Y ·T_·—; I;lLggE.g.é\§SHER ETIQEETSEJSEEHANNEA
l£€§i¥t‘i'}`E&T;E§“* iéi12»vY5§’»$§$““ W)“V~YOUNGCONAW-\Y·€0M SIQANT. GREECHER TEEEE E SQUIRE ‘
""““`*?‘ "?“”“°” lE";\§i‘} §‘i§S5i"‘ §Ei€2’§i‘iéE§*““" iéfiif-r§iiE§”°“°
SIE:;l?§l§EIN MlCHl·\El.. R NESTOR DIRECT DIAL; (302) $71-6689 RicHARn4S.iuL1e MAEGARET B. wH1TaMAN
¥‘“‘*}‘lP‘B°`2f§ ?$‘i$'i?’E“‘“*“ D“‘E?‘" mi l3°2)”6‘333" 5Eii:$;¥%{%i%5‘£EE §S5l%£*G‘2?§€L*S"'*'°*"
RJ\§-ll·:RD.~T•?%’lilBERTO, E. EEEEEE E.El?§;‘?E“ JSh¤w@>’¤St·¤¤m EDW_ARDl_Ik0S510\\’$K1 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
Mr.1.ANtE K. SHARP JoHN T. DORsEY OF COUNSEL
CAssANT>RA F. ROBERTS M. BLAKE CLEARY SPECIAL COUNSEL STUART B. YouNc
10HN D. MCLAUGHLIN, JR. EDWARD B. MAXWELL, 2ND
ELENA C. NORMAN (NY ONLY)
KAREN L. PAscA1.E
PATRICIA A. Wmuoss
July 12, 2006
BY CM/ECF
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
United States District Court
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Telcordia Techs. Inc. v. Lucent Techs.. Inc.. C.A. No. 04-875-GMS
Dear Judge Sleet:
While we hesitate to add to the letters recently sent by the parties concerning Telcordia’s
International Trade Connnission ("ITC") action, Lucent feels constrained to respond to certain asser-
tions in Telcordia’s July 11 letter to the Court. (D.I. 201).
Until yesterday, Telcordia declined to tell us why it had commenced a proceeding in the ITC
on the same patents that are before this Court. Telcordia now cites the alleged availability of "addi-
tional relief ’ in the ITC as the basis for multiplying the proceedings between the parties. That "add-
itional relief’ (exclusion orders that Telcordia contends are not as easily stayed pending appeal as
judicial injunctions) was equally available to Telcordia in July 2004, when it commenced this action.
But Telcordia waited until the very end of fact discovery, and shortly after the Markman hearing, to
seek such "additional relief" Telcordia also asserts that parallel filings in the ITC are common.
That is certainly not the case when the District Court action has been litigated for two years, and dis-
covery and claim construction have been completed. Given the expiration dates ofthe ‘306 and ‘763
patents, if Telcordia believed the relief available from this Court was somehow insufficient, it would
not have waited two years to seek exclusion orders from the ITC.
Telcordia states that it was planning to advise the Defendants that it would drop the ‘306
patent from its ITC action. In fact, Telcordia refused to tell the Defendants just that. Last Friday, a
week and half after Defendants asked (and one business day before Defendants had to decide
whether to move for a stay), Telcordia responded:
T elcordia has not decided whether it will proceed with its allegations of
iry'ringeme1zt of the ‘3 06 patent before the ITC. Before it does so, it will need to
DB02;5421469.1 0572241004

Case 1:04-cv—00875—G|\/IS Document 202 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 2 of 2
Youno CoNAwAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
July l2, 2006
Page 2
know whether tlze defendants will seek t0 stay the district court litigation under 28
U.S.C. § 1659, an election which must be made within 30 days after a party was
named as a respondent in the ITC proceeding.
See Attachment 1. Telcordia’s position was that it would not tell Defendants its intentions regarding
the ‘306 patent in the ITC until Defendants decided whether to seek a stay of this action.] In any
event, Lucent is pleased that Telcordia now has decided to drop its parallel ‘306 patent action.
Defendants have asked Telcordia for a written proposal on the Rule 54(b) Judgment it desires
on the ‘306 patent, setting forth each ofthe claim limitations Telcordia concedes it cannot establish.
Telcordia has not provided the requested stipulation. Defendants will consider Telcordia’s proposal
when it arrives. In the meantime, Defendants will comply with the existing schedule, including the
expert discovery and summary judgment date with respect to all the patents at issue in this action.
Respectfully submitted,
Jo W. Shaw (10 N0. 3362)
JWS/prt
cc: Clerk of the Court (by hand delivery and CM/ECP)
Steven J. Balick, Esquire (by CM/ECF)
Don O. Burley, Esquire (by e-mail)
Steven C. Chemy, Esquire (by e-mail)
l If Telcordia had intended to withdraw the ‘306 patent hom the ITC case, it would not matter
whether the Defendants sought a stay. Therefore, Telcordia’s intention must have been that
if all the Defendants sought a stay, Telcordia would have proceeded on the ‘306 patent claim
in the ITC despite its admission that none of the Defendants infringe the patent.
DB02:542l469.l 0572241004