Free Reply Brief - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00418-SLR Document 314 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC, )
Plaintiff, )
v. g Civil Action N0. O4-418-SLR
CORNICE, INC. )
Defendant. )
CORNICE'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION [NO. 2] TO PRECLUDE SEAGATE
FROM ASSERTING INFRINGEMENT WITH RESPECT TO ACCUSED 4.0 PRODUCTS
Notwithstanding the Court’s three rulings that Cornice’s 4.0 gigabyte products are not
part of this case, Seagate argues that the Court must not have intended to preclude Seagate from asserting
infringement against the 4.0 products (D.I. 246, p. 9). Seagate asserts that "had the Court intended to
preclude Seagate from pursuing its infringement action [against the 4.0 products] in any of these three
rulings, it would certainly have given due notice .... " Id. Remarkably, Seagate missed the point of those
three rulings. During the discovery conference on June 28, 2005, the Court stated:
[J]ust because I’m not letting this discovery go forward in this case does not
mean you can’t bring another suit at sometime in thefuture 0n the 4.0. All I’m
trying to do is close the record so we can bring whatever you have. Whatever the
basis was for your bringing this suit in the first instance, we can bring it to a close
and get it resolved.
(D.I. lll, p. I5) (emphasis added).
The Court’s statement that Seagate could bring a separate suit on the 4.0 products in the
future could hardly have been a clearer indication that Seagate is precluded from asserting infringement
against those products in this case. Furthermore, the Court’s statements at the discovery conferences on
May II and June 28 provided ample notice that the 4.0 products are not in this case. Even after the June
hearing, the Court gave Seagate the opportunity to obtain and present further evidence. The Court found
that evidence insufficient (D.I. 123).

Case 1:04-cv-00418-SLR Document 314 Filed O1/17/2006 Page 2 of 3
Seagate also argues that the Court should deny Comice’s motion because of substantial
disputes of material fact. Seagate already presented these "facts" to the Court in August (D.I. 120). The
Court denied Seagate’s request on the basis that "the court is not persuaded . . . that any such products are
presently in the market as commercial products." (D.I. 123). There is no basis for the Court to reconsider
that ruling.
Finally, contrary to Seagate's position, Cornice’s motion was not one for summary
judgment. Even though the Court has already ruled that the 4.0 products are not in this case, Seagate’s
expert reports included those products. Comice felt that it was necessary to confirm — for a fourth time —
the 4.0 products are not part of this case.
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
/s/ Julia Heaney
Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
Julia Heaney (#3052)
_ 1201 N. Market St.
OF OOONSEL- 1>.o. Box 1347
. Wilmington, DE 19899
Vernon Winters (302) 6588200
Steven Carlson `b1umenfeld@mant com
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP ih t `
201 Redwood Shores Parkway J C2m€y@mm `com _
Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Attorneysfor Defendant and Counterclazm
(650) 8023000 Plaintm’C0rnice, Inc.
Russell Wheatley
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
700 Louisiana, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77001
(713) 546-5000
Alan J. Weinschel
David C. Radulescu
Arlene Hahn
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York,NY 10153
(212) 310-8000
January 17, 2006
2

Case 1 :04-cv-00418-SLR Document 314 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Julia Heaney, hereby certify that on January 17th, 2006, I electronically filed the
foregoing, which will send notification of such filing(s) to the following:
William J. Marsden, Jr., Esquire
Fish & Richardson, P.C.
and that I caused copies to be served upon the following in the manner indicated:
William J. Marsden, Jr., Esquire
Fish & Richardson, P.C. One (1) Electronic Version by Email
919 N. Market Street and One (1) Hard Copy for Hand Delivery
Suite 1100 on Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Wilmington, DE 19801
[email protected]
Ruffin B. Cordell, Esquire One (1) Electronic Version by Email
Fish & Richardson, P.C. and One (1) Hard Copy by Federal Express
1425 K Street, NW, Suite 1100 Delivery for Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Washington, DC 20005
[email protected]
/s/ Julia Heaney (#3052)
Julia Heaney (#3052)
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
1201 N. Market Street
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899
(302) 658-9200
[email protected]

Case 1:04-cv-00418-SLR

Document 314

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00418-SLR

Document 314

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00418-SLR

Document 314

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 3 of 3