Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv—00833-KAJ Document 180 Filed 12/13/2005 Page 1 of 2
Ast-nav & GEDDES
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW TELEPHONE
302-B54—IB8B
222 DELAWARE AVENUE
FACSIMILE
P. O. BOX |I5O aca-sua-zoev
w|LM|NGTON, DELAWARE |9899
December 13, 2005
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
United States District Court
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., LLC v. Sicor Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 04-833-KAJ
Dear Judge Jordan:
We represent defendants Sicor Inc. and Sicor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, "Sicor")
in the above-referenced patent dispute, and we write to briefly address plaintiff s December 9,
2005 letter to the Court.
During the November 8, 2005 telephonic conference, the Court ordered full briefing on
the parties’ respective privilege assertions. (Ex. A at 26:17-19). A schedule for privilege-related
motions has now been agreed to by the parties and is awaiting the Court’s approval, and the
Court will thus have an opportunity to rule on each of the privilege issues with the benefit of full
briefing, rather than just an exchange of letters from the parties.
Plaintiff s implication that Sicor has improperly concealed the bases for its privilege
claims over the documents attached as Exhibits A through C to Sicor’s in camera submission is
simply not true. First, on October 24, 2005, Sicor informed the Court in writing of its decision to
assert an advice of counsel defense to plaintiff s willful infringement claim and, in so doing,
explicitly set forth the legal bases for its privilege position with respect to Exhibits A through C,
and the fact that Sicor was continuing to withhold these documents as privileged/work product.
(Ex. B). Sicor again expressly summarized its position with respect to those same documents in
its reply brief in support of its bifurcation motion. (D.I. 171). As the Court suggested on
November 8, 2005, the motions presently being briefed, which will address all privilege issues —
including those relating to plaintiff s 14,000—entry privilege log — are the proper vehicle for the
determination of privilege questions.
Finally, as to the timing issues plaintiff raised in its letter, we note that plaintiff was
aware before it filed its opposition to the bifurcation motion that: 1) Sicor would be producing by
November 1 1, 2005 additional documents over which it had previously claimed a privilege; and
2) Sicor was prepared to extend plaintiff s time to serve its opposition until after plaintiff
received and had a chance to review Sicor’s additional production. Plaintiff then rejected Sicor’s
offer to allow plaintiff additional time to amend its opposition in order to address the documents
produced on November l1, 2005.

Case 1:04-cv—00833-KAJ Document 180 Filed 12/13/2005 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
December 13, 2005
Page 2
We are available at the Court’s convenience in the event that Your Honor has questions
or wishes to discuss this matter further.
Respectfully,
/s/ Steven J Balick
Steven J. Balick (LD. #2114)
SJB: nml
Attachments
164581.1
cc: Maryellen Noreika, Esquire (via electronic mail; w/attachment)
Daniel A. Boehnen, Esquire (via electronic mail; w/attachment)
Reid L. Ashinoff, Esquire (via electronic mail; w/attachment)

Case 1:04-cv-00833-KAJ

Document 180

Filed 12/13/2005

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00833-KAJ

Document 180

Filed 12/13/2005

Page 2 of 2