Free Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00360-JJF Document 276 Filed O9/29/2006 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
AFFINION NET PATENTS, INC., )
P1ainti1`1Q ) Cirvii Action No. O4~360~.T.TF
)
v. )
)
MARITZ INC., )
)
Defendant. )
ANSWERING BRIEF OF DEFENDANT MARITZ INC. IN OPPOSITION TO
AFFINION’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER 2
Rudeif E. Hutz (#484)
Patricia Smink Rogowslci (#2632)
(`iONN{)T,I.Y BOVE LODGE & PHETZ LLP
The Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange Street
P.O. Box 2207
Wilmington, DE 19899
(302) 658~9l41
J. Bennett Clark
David W. Harlan
Jennifer E. Hoekel
Mare W. Vander Tuig
SENNIGER POWERS
One Metropolitan Square, 16th Floor
St. Louis, MO 63102
(314) 23i»5400
Dated: September 29, 2006 Attorneys for Maritz Inc.

Case 1 :04-cv-00360-JJF Document 276 Filed O9/29/2006 Page 2 of 4
I. NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDING .
Trial in this matter is schcduied to begin on October 23, 2006. The parties filed motions
in limiae on September 20, 2006. As set forth in Section XI.l ofthe Joint Proposed Pre-Trial
Order (DJ. 227), the parties have agreed that answering briefs for motions in limirze be filed by
today, September 29, 2006.
II. ARGUMENT
At`iinion's motion should be denied as moot. Aftinion is correct that there is no dispute
that it is the assignee ofthe ‘4l2 patent. The question of ownership ofthe patent is essentially an
equitable one that the court can take up separately from the jury. Maritz does not anticipate
needing to address at triai the standing of Aftinion to bring this patent case. Therefore, there is
no need for the court to determine, at this stage, whether Maritz is entitled to put on evidence that
Radisson is the proper owner of the *412 patent.
It is worthy to note that Aftinion does not, by its Motion in Ltmine No. 4, move to
exclude the evidence supporting Maritz’s statements. The statements in Maritz’s Brief
Statement of `What Maritz intends to Prove at Trial (I).I. 228 Exh. I3) cited by Alllnion were
made in support of Maritz’s equitable defenses of inequitable conduct, unclean hands, and
misuse. While there is no dispute regarding the assignment of the ‘4l2 patent, Aftinion can not
argue that the evidence supporting lV[aritz’s equitable defenses should be excluded.
2

Case 1 :04-cv-00360-JJF Document 276 Filed O9/29/2006 Page 3 of 4
III. CONCLUSION
Maritz requests the court deny Affi1'l101‘1’S motion as moot.
Respectfully submitted,
CONN BOVE LODGE HUTZ LLP
_ __.. -
Rudolf E. H ’ tz (#484
Patricia Sminjx Rogowski (#2632)
The Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange Street
P.O. Box 2207
Wilmington, DE 19899
(302) 658-9141
J. Bermett Clark
David W. Harlan
Jennifer E. Hoeicel
Marc W. Vander Tuig
Michael J. Hartley
SENNIGER POWERS
One Metropolitan Square, 16th Floor
St. Louis, MO 63102
(314) 23145400
Attorneys for Maritz Inc.

Case 1 :04-cv-00360-JJF Document 276 Filed O9/29/2006 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, hereby certify that on September 29, 2006, I electronically filed ANSWERING
BRIEF OF DEFENDANT MARITZ INC. IN OPPOSITION TO AFFINIOEWS MOTION
IN LIMINE NUMBER 2 with the Court Clerk using CM/ECP which will send notification of
such fi1ing(s) to J ack B. Blumenfeld and Maryellen Noreike.
I hereby further certify that on September 29, 2006, I have also served this document on
the attorneys of record at the following addresses as indicated:
Via Hand Delivery Via Federal Exgress
J ack B. Blumenfeld Steven Lieberman
Maryellen Noreika Sharon L. Davis
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel} LLP Rothweil, Figg, Ernst & Menbeck, P.C.
1201 N. Market Street 1425 li Street, NW.
PD. Box 1347 Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19899-11347 Washington, D.C. 20005
-'·r=`- . `
Patricia Srnink ' gowski 632)
4

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF

Document 276

Filed 09/29/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF

Document 276

Filed 09/29/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF

Document 276

Filed 09/29/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF

Document 276

Filed 09/29/2006

Page 4 of 4