Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv—00874-GIVIS Document 71 Filed 12/15/2005 Page 1 of 2
ASHBY & GEDDES
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW TELEPHONE
302-6544888
222 DELAWARE AVENUE
FACSIMILE
P. o. Box uso :,°2-,,.,-,°,,
wu.M1NGTON. DELAWARE |9a99
December 15, 2005
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
United States District Court
844 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: T elcordia Technologies, Inc. v. Alcatel USA., Inc.
C.A. No. 04-874-GMS
Dear Judge Sleet:
The parties respectfully submit this joint agenda letter for this morning’s 1 1:30 a.m. call.
Plaintiff’s Issues
A. Claim Construction Issue Common to All Cases
The defendants have not addressed Telcordia’s means-plus—function claims during
the claim construction process. Telcordia respectfully requests an Order compelling Alcatel (and
the other defendants) to provide proposed constructions for all claims and claim terms asserted
by Telcordia prior to the November 17, 2005, deadline for exchanging disputed claim terms.
B. Alcatel’s Claim Constructions
• Alcatel’s conduct in claim construction (identifying 71 claim terms, but only
offering constructions for 24 terms, and offering "ordinary meaning” for 5
terms).
C. Alcatel’s Interrogatory Responses and Document Requests
• Alcatel’s deficient answers to Telcordia’s interrogatories on damages, invalidity
contentions, and infringement contentions.
• Email and financial documents, including documents showing dollar and unit
sales for all Alcatel products accused of infringement.
• Alcatel’s answers do not address the ’633 patent.
• Production of hardware specifications, bills of materials, board layouts, and
schematics for Alcatel’s 7300, 7301, 3600 and 3600+ MainStreet products, the
NewBridge 31670/Alcatel 7470, NewBridge 36177/Alcatel 7270, and Alcatel
7670 RSP products.
D. The Protective Order

Case 1 :04-cv—00874-GIVIS Document 71 Filed 12/15/2005 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
December 15, 2005
Page 2
• Telcordia proposes the same "source code" provisions as in the Lucent and Cisco
Protective Orders.
• Telcordia proposes that "employees" (not just "attorneys") are proper party
designees under the Protective Order.
Defendant’s Issues
1. Telcordia’s Unseasonable Assertion of Additional Claims
2. Telcordia’s Document Production
• Telcordia’s refusal to provide any discovery on Alcatel’s ’052 patent, including
any technical or any sales information on the Telcordia products that Alcatel has
specifically accused of infringement.
• Telcordia’s withholding of its documents relating to the testing and certification
of the specifically accused Alcatel products under Telcordia’s OSMH\IE process.
• Telcordia’s withholding of relevant license agreements.
• Telcordia’s withholding of Fore Systems pleadings, depositions and other court
submissions from the Fore Systems case.
3. The Protective Order
• Alcatel’s proposed "source code" provisions are sufficient.
• European Patent Attorneys should be included in the definition of in-house
counsel.
• Telcordia employees who are actively involved in Telcordia’s day—to-day
licensing negotiations should not be permitted to view Alcatel confidential
information.
4. Discovery From Alcatel
• Telcordia’s improper request for Alcatel’s financial infomation related to
Alcatel’s sales to the Regional Bell Operating Companies ("RBOCs").
Respectfully,
/s/ Steven J Balick
Steven J. Balick (I.D. #2114)
SJB: dmf
cc: Josy W. Ingersoll, Esquire (by hand)
Stuart J. Sinder, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Jolm Williamson, Esquire (via electronic mail)