Case 1:04-cv-00858-SLR
)LVK
5LFKDUGVRQ SF
Document 535
Filed 12/16/2005
Page 1 of 1
6XLWH 1 0DUNHW 6WUHHW SR %R[ :LOPLQJWRQ 'HODZDUH 7HOHSKRQH
! % $ %! ¤9¤ 8"¤ ¤§¤5¢© ¨310 )( 7 6 ¥¡4 2
CB"9STQR @ S @
¢#Gp8gfi#qVpE C U EG HG
¤ ¤#"¤ '& % $!! ¢© ¤¦§¦¤¢ ¨ ¨¡£ ¥£¡
December 16, 2005
)DFVLPLOH :HE 6LWH ZZZIUFRP
a
H P E P QBFCDBI HG E A 8BFCDB@
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson United States District Court 844 King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Re: LML Patent Corp. v. TeleCheck Services, Inc., et al. USDC-D. Del. - C.A. 04-858 (SLR) Dear Chief Judge Robinson: In D.I. Nos. 427 and 497, related to issues of summary judgment in the above-referenced action, Plaintiff LML raises an issue regarding the presentation of expert evidence. Although we do not believe it is necessary under Mash v. Xerox Corp., 2000 WL 1728250 (D. Del.), we attach herewith a Declaration of David P. Kurrasch, placing the excerpts of his expert reports, attached to D.I. Nos., 433, 439, 441, 484, in affidavit form. Respectfully, /s/ Tara D. Elliott Tara D. Elliott
80028892.doc
U X @ @ S TBWVB"¢U3R §9T¢iDPg8G9#"C ` U S S @ h H f SG fDYuvQPBgY8tFCTrV R H E e HG s @ b X P ` TQ¢aV§YH U P e U R H @ Q§#G3dBcC
cc: Richard K. Herrmann Esq. Richard D. Kirk, Esq. Collins J. Seitz, Jr., Esq. Jamie McDole, Esq. Mark Mizrahi, Esq. Mark C. Scarsi, Esq.