Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00874—G|\/IS Document 69 Filed 12/13/2005 Page 1 of 2
Youuo Couawr-xr STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
iéiééiil THE BRANIIWINE BUILDING $$5‘7§LE.i§r3ii“*’*°E’°“mi l°3ZB$H$éFii&Gaa
SHELDUTJ x NElLLlXlL`LLE>£\\`AL$H ]Q()() \\/EST STREET ]'7TH FT_()0R Gaacortri Briecoci; ixxonzwa LLNDGELEN
Ri('H&EiOr-\ LE\—’1?:arZ CH.aaLTox ` _ loseeu xl BARRY XlAT1”HE\‘.`B Lum
iucaqao A ZMIM ROBERTS BRADY VVILMINGTON, DEl.A\\’.e\RE l980l SEAN M. Bama Joserui-x xtruntaxo
Faeo2suct.\\` toast JOELA \\’.¤.ITE Dovxatoi BO\‘·`M;·.>£.1R .~xoa1aB.M.aaTmzLL1
Ricsaaao H Moase BREHC Suareea PO. Box 39l T1>.ioTi~iY P. Crain? x1tcnAEL W. MCDERLXOTT
·xI.‘· x 55 P :.‘s .‘ > I - · - K. .HA. BOND, ’E Maz. "T‘L\1N‘ L;
2;.256; é§;.2J" II IIIII¤¤t¤~- DMI-IRE IQSQQ-MI C$§$.aE;m§“ Erriztthtiorloit `
Ca.¤.1oA Kraizsrsitz Tl§·lDTH\` JAY HOIJSEAL (307) ;7l_66OO M».Ro1~xRETM. D1B1A>;cA D Fox Xll]T'l`A}·l.·\R.R·\\’F~.LKEY<
B.aHHT\l \\`lLl.OLGHB`:` Baixoax L:xaiaA::x1FERR NOEL
Josww IRGERSOLL M.=tari>:$ Lessxea (SOO) 2J3·223~l (DE ONLY) Erm: Eoxuizos Jouxl PASCHETTO
mi lm 57I·I253 E?$§E?§§¤§§i‘2i$ §§€r§‘3`lLtl§§iraG
Ei;»;e>`£.»\ Dwzaistzio N1·2T.·2LlE \\'oLF —"·*‘_" James} G:iLL.ioHea Frcxxcisl Sctraxxe
III’I"E$II’I*_E_$Im §l§§$$$S§55iai“
w1Lr.z.·ia`1D lozaxsros 1.=t>.ies P Huouasisi PO Box TN Stetniaxie L Hiaxsex xlicwtatv smrroao
·l`E`.l(`>TH`¤'.l Srwoea Eowixl Hrxmox GgORGEq·O\\·y_ DEE_·_“·ARE T99.;7 DAWN xt roses Joax E ra.=,cav
BEMJCEI1 stueastiax \llCi·lAELl°» Nestea ,0.). 8,6 _.,l R1cHAitt>S Jute x1,xtto.»titEtB \\`lilTE7·l.-XA
\\‘iLLz;i>.1\\` Bowsea xl;rL‘aeE>¢D Lute le ·l 3 ‘·"’ KARENE KELLER Ciaaisrtax Dot‘oL-xs \\’a1ouT
l..¤.zam‘1 TARABICOS Roux?. BisseLL t800)255-2234 ([)EO>;1_Y) JENNIFER Xl kixxcs suarzor: xt ZIEG
ri .- 222* . ` ",— L .. ~ ~, · M E JK sr. vi;
’ ?§§é&`¤‘32i$§t» FM- <-—<>~IS>6-M D ° ‘°`° ‘
Lass.»zxt>a.¤`F Roeears Xl Bmxi CLEARY Www.\.OUXGCOXA“,r\Y.COM SPECIAL COUNSEL OFCOENSEL
10uxD }·lCLAljGl·lLlN..lR Stcamu Youso
DIRECT DHL GO-,) i7l_6i§4 ELENAC N.1AN (NYONLY1 Envxaaou \‘l.¤~.X\‘·ELi._ zxo
r i · · · ·· K·=.aE>;L P.¤is€=iL2
D1RECT FAX; (302) 576·3~l67 turaicuwt wioooss
kl ‘ =r December 13, 2005
BY CM/ECF
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
United States District Court _
844 North King Street
\\’ilmington. DE 19801
Re: Telcordicr Technologies, [nc. in Alcatel USA., [nc.
Civil Action No. 04-874—GMS
Dear Judge Sleet:
ln preparation for the teleconference scheduled on December 15, 2005. at l 1:30 ain.,
Alcatel submits this letter agenda.
Alcatel’s Issues
1) Telcordia’s unseasonable assertion of additional claims
a) Telcordia should be precluded from adding new claims at this late date because Telcordia
has long known ofthe functionality ofthe allegedly third—party infringing integrated
circuits in the accused products
2) Telcordia’s Document Production
al) Telcordia’s refusal to provide any discovery on Alcatel’s ‘052 patent. including any sales
information on the Telcordia products that Alcatel has accused of infringement
b) Telcordia’s withholding of Telcordia’s documents relating to the testing and certification
ofthe specifically accused Alcatel products under Telcordia’s OSMINE process

Case 1:04-cv-00874—Gl\/IS Document 69 Filed 12/13/2005 Page 2 of 2
Youuo CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
December 13, 2005
Page 2
c) Telcordia’s failure to provide relevant license agreements
d) Telcordia’s withholding ofl: ore Systems pleadings, depositions, and other court
submissions from the Fore Systems case as Fore Systems confidential
3) The Alcatel/Telcordia Protective Order
a) Alcatel proposes that Alcatel’s proposed "source code" protection provisions are
sufficient
b) Alcatel proposes including European Patent Attorneys in the definition of`in—house
counsel
c) Alcatel opposes the inclusion of`Telcordia employees who are actively involved in
Telcordias day-to-day licensing negotiations as persons permitted to view Alcatel
confidential material
4) Discovery From Alcatel
a) Telcordia should be precluded riom seeking Alcatel’s financial information related to _
Alcatel`s sales to the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) and AT&T. because
Telcordia has conceded that those sales are not infringing and has stated that it would not
seek damages for those sales
ectfully Submitted.
Karen E. Keller (#4489)
cc: Steven J. Balick, Esq. (by CM/ECE)