Free Joinder - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

David W. Denenberg GIBBONS, DEL DEO, DOLAN, GRIFFINGER & VECCHIONE, P.C. One Pennsylvania Plaza 37th Floor New York, New York 10119-3701 (212) 649-4700 [email protected] Brett L. Dunkelman, AZ Bar #006740 OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. 2929 North Central Avenue Suite 2100 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2794 (602) 640-9000 [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendant Systemax, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Lemelson Medical, Education & Research Foundation, Limited Partnership, Plaintiff, vs. CompUSA, Inc., et al., Defendants. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Defendant, Systemax, Inc. ("Systemax") respectfully joins in defendant Liz Claiborne, Inc.'s ("Claiborne's") cross-motion to add condition upon dismissal moves for an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No. CIV 00-0663 PHX (HRH) DEFENDANT SYSTEMAX, INC.'S (1) JOINDER IN DEFENDANT LIZ CLAIBORNE, INC.'S CROSSMOTION TO ADD CONDITION UPON DISMISSAL AND (2) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 42(A)(2)

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 721

Filed 01/19/2006

Page 1 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Systemax does not contest the dismissal of Lemelson's latest amended complaint, but respectfully urges this Court to condition that dismissal upon awarding Systemax its attorneys' fees and costs in defending this case, which include fees incurred in preparing non-infringement and invalidity defenses, defending Systemax since the inception of this case, providing opinions and costs related thereto.
I.

BACKGROUND1 This lawsuit, dated April 4, 2000, is one of five simultaneously filed in the

District of Arizona by Lemelson - - over five years ago. Lemelson's complaints accused hundreds of companies of infringing various patents issued to the late Jerome H. Lemelson in the early 1990's, for which Lemelson claimed the benefit of the filing dates of two patent applications submitted by Mr. Lemelson to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 1954 and 1956. According to Lemelson, those patents purportedly encompassed bar code scanners and similar "machine vision" equipment like that developed and sold by manufacturers such as Symbol Technologies, Inc. ("Symbol") and Cognex Corporation ("Cognex"). Rather than suing Symbol, Cognex or any other manufacturers, Lemelson's lawsuits in Arizona targeted numerous manufacturers and resellers, like Systemax, which had no role in either making or designing the scanning technology at issue. Accordingly, Lemelson's claims of infringement in the instant lawsuit were only derivative. Prior to the commencement of the Arizona lawsuits, and in response to letters sent by Lemelson to their customers alleging infringement, Symbol and Cognex filed their own actions against Lemelson in the District of Nevada, seeking a declaratory judgment that, inter alia, Lemelson's patents were invalid or unenforceable under the equitable doctrine of prosecution laches. See Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Lemelson

This portion is adapted from defendant Claiborne's response to plaintiff's motion to dismiss case and cross-motion to add condition upon dismissal.
2

1

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 721

Filed 01/19/2006

Page 2 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Med., Educ. & Research Found., Ltd. P'ship, No. CV N-99-00397 (D. Nev. filed July 21 1999); Cognex Corp. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found., Ltd. P'ship, No. CV-N-99-00533 (D. Nev. filed Sept. 27, 1999). In light of the prior pendency of these manufacturer declaratory judgment actions, which were later consolidated before the U.S. District Court of Nevada on March 21, 2000,2 Systemax and numerous other defendants moved to stay the instant lawsuit in October 2000, pending a final determination of the validity of the same "bar code" and "machine vision" patents at issue here. Of course, Systemax had to develop its noninfringement and invalidity defenses so that it could defend this action and continue selling its accused products without the fear of facing treble damages for willful infringement. In its November 6, 2000 response to the defendants' stay motions, Lemelson conceded that it made "little sense, as a matter of judicial administration or cost to the parties, to litigate this case in parallel with the other actions." Accordingly, on April 3, 2001, the court stayed this action pending the entry of a final non-appellable judgment in the Symbol/Cognex litigation pending in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the "Nevada District Court" or the "Nevada court"). Following extensive pretrial proceedings and an interlocutory appeal to the Federal Circuit, the consolidated Symbol/Cognex litigation was tried before the Nevada District Court from November 18, 2002 through January 17, 2003. Symbol, 301 F.Supp. 2d at 1150. After five and one-half months of additional post-trial briefing, the Nevada court entered final judgment on January 23, 2004, concluding, inter alia, that Lemelson's alleged patent rights had been forfeited under the equitable doctrine of prosecution laches. Id. at 1154-57.

See Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found., Ltd. P'ship, 301 F.Supp. 2d l147, 1150 (D.Nev. 2004).
3

2

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 721

Filed 01/19/2006

Page 3 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Nevada court also noted that of the five million patents issued in the United States between 1914 and 2001, Lemelson's patents held the top thirteen positions for the longest prosecutions, and that "some of the claims asserted by Lemelson in this case will not expire until 2011, fifty-five years after the 1956 application was filed and forty-eight years after the application issued as a patent." Id. The Nevada court enunciated that Lemelson's "culpable neglect" in ignoring "the duty to claim his invention promptly" resulted in a "prejudicial effect ... suffered by the public, and privately by Symbol and Cognex and others, which were denied the ability to distinguish that which is claimed by Lemelson from that which is not." Id. Lemelson subsequently unsuccessfully appealed the district court's decision to the Federal Circuit. Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found., Ltd. P`shp, 422 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005). After first explaining that because there may be several "legitimate" reasons for refiling a patent application, the doctrine should be used "sparingly" and "only in egregious cases of misuse of the statutory patent system," the Federal Circuit noted: [R]efiling an application solely containing previously-allowed claims for the business purpose of delaying their issuance can be considered an abuse of the patent system. * * * In particular, multiple examples of repetitive refilings that demonstrate a pattern of unjustifiably delayed prosecution may be held to constitute laches. Taken singly, the delay in the prosecution on any one particular application will surely not appear to merit relief by the courts in equity. On the other hand, an examination of the totality of the circumstances, including the prosecution history of all of a series of related patents and overall delay in issuing claims, may trigger laches. The district court here heard considerable evidence that that was what occurred in this case. * * * The court also found that Lemelson had engaged in "culpable neglect" during the prosecution of these applications and
4

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 721

Filed 01/19/2006

Page 4 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
B.

it recognized the adverse effect on businesses that were unable to determine what was patented from what was not patented. * * * Under those circumstances, we can hardly conclude that the court abused its discretion in holding the involved patents unenforceable ... The court thoroughly examined the facts and the equities, and it exercised its discretion reasonably. Symbol, 422 F.3d at 1385-86 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). 3 On December 22, 2005, Lemelson filed its motion to dismiss this lawsuit pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).
II.

ARGUMENT
A.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), the court may order the plaintiff

to pay defendant's costs and attorneys' fees. Defendants incurred attorneys' fees and costs in defense of this

suit, which plaintiff knew and should have expected when bringing this suit. As provided above, plaintiff strategically brought this suit against numerous manufacturers and resellers of bar code scanners and similar machine vision equipment manufacture. Lemelson brought this suit despite that a prior litigation, before the Nevada court, was commenced by the manufacturers of the "machine vision" equipment, Symbol and Cognex." The complaint brought against Systemax involved United States Patent Nos. 4,969,038; 4,979,029; 4,984,073; 5,119,190; 5,119,205; 5,128,753; 5,144,421. These patents and the applications related thereto claim the benefit of the filing dates of two patent applications submitted by Mr. Lemelson in 1954 and 1956. Later, on panel rehearing, the Federal Circuit amended its opinion to extend the district court's laches holding of enforceability of the 76 patent claims asserted by Lemelson to all of the claims contained in the 14 patents at issue. Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found., Ltd. P'ship., 429 F.3d 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
5
3

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 721

Filed 01/19/2006

Page 5 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

To defend this action, Systemax, by its attorneys, was required to develop noninfringement and invalidity defenses against these patents. That required a further study of the patents, the technology, the accused devices, and the file histories of the patents-in-suit. Literally, it required study of nearly 50 years of file histories. In defending a patent infringement suit, a defendant must make a good faith inquiry and study of the patents-in-suit to assert defenses of non-infringement and invalidity. Moreover, for a defendant to limit potential liability for willful infringement, the defendant must have a good faith opinion, defense or basis to assert non-infringement and invalidity. Since this action was commenced against Systemax, over five and one-half years ago, Systemax continued its business. To continue reselling the accused devices, Systemax was required to incur attorneys' fees in developing its noninfringement and invalidity defenses. Those fees included developing noninfringement and invalidity positions for two purposes: (1) to be in a position to assert non-infringement and invalidity defenses; and (2) to continue reselling the accused devices based on a good faith belief in those defenses thereby limiting exposure to charges of willful infringement. Some five and one-half years after this case was commenced, Lemelson now voluntarily dismisses the actions. Lemelson must be ordered to pay those attorneys' fees and costs which Lemelson expected, or reasonably should have expected, would be incurred by the defendants in the formulation of good faith defenses and in limiting exposure to willful infringement. Plaintiff moved to dismiss this case in its entirety, with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) states:

6

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 721

Filed 01/19/2006

Page 6 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Rule 41. Dismissal of Actions (a) Voluntary Dismissal: Effect Thereof. (2) By Order of Court. Except as provided in paragraph (1) of this subdivision of this rule, an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim has been pleaded by a defendant prior to the service upon the defendant of the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the action shall not be dismissed against the defendant's objection unless the counterclaim can remain pending for independent adjudication by the court. Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph is without prejudice. [emphasis added]. Under Rule 41(a)(2), courts generally require that the plaintiff pay the defendant the costs of the litigation. Belle-Midwest, Inc. v. Missouri Property & Cas. Ins. Guar. Ass'n., 56 F.3d 977, 978 (8th Cir. 1995) (Condition that plaintiff pay costs in cases of voluntary dismissal is typical. The appellate court would not reverse the order to pay costs because the plaintiff had not shown that prejudice would result); see, Beard v. Sheet Metal Workers Union, Local 150, 908 F.2d 474, 476 (9th Cir. 1990) (The trial court's order granting the plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss the complaint was conditional upon the plaintiff's payment of the defendant's costs and attorneys' fees, even though the order did not provide so explicitly); see, Davis v. McLaughlin, 326 F.2d 881, 882-83 (9th Cir. 1964); Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125, 127-134 (5th Cir. 1985) (granting of attorneys' fees is preferred and denial thereof requires articulating a good reason therefor). One leading commentator explained: The court may dismiss without conditions if conditions have not been shown to be necessary, but usually at least should require the plaintiff to pay costs of the litigation.
7

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 721

Filed 01/19/2006

Page 7 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2366, at pages 305-06 (2nd ed. 1995). It should be noted that imposing conditions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) is not limited to ordering the payment of taxable costs, but may require the plaintiff to compensate for all of the expense to which the defendant has been put.4 (emphasis added). See, Pathe Labs, Inc. v. Technicolor Motion Picture Corp., 19 F.R.D. 211 (S.D.N.Y. 1955). This should apply with special force here as the litigation has been prolonged for over five years and involved efforts to be coordinated among numerous defendants.
III.

CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Systemax's cross-motion should be granted and this

Court should set a submission schedule for Systemax to submit its proofs of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defending this action and limiting its liability for willful infringement.

DATED this 19th day of January, 2006. GIBBONS, DEL DEO, DOLAN, GRIFFINGER & VECCHIONE, P.C. By:_s/David W. Denenberg David W. Denenberg One Pennsylvania Plaza 37th Floor New York, New York 10119-3701

This should include the expenses incurred in developing noninfringement and invalidity defenses and opinions.
8

4

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 721

Filed 01/19/2006

Page 8 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 19, 2006, a complete, duplicate copy of this document was forwarded directly to Judge Holland by Express Mail, at the following address: Judge H. Russell Holland United States District Court 222 West 7th Avenue, Unit 54 Anchorage, Alaska 99513

s/ Susanne Wedemeyer I further certify that on January 19, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CMECF registrants: Louis J. Hoffman, Esq. Peter C. Warner, Esq. Victoria Gruver Curtin, Esq. Steven G. Lisa, Esq. 14614 North Kierland Blvd., Suite 300 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Jennifer P. Nore, Esq. Michael R. Ross, Esq. Meyer Hendricks & Bivens, P.A. P. O. Box 2199 Phoenix, Arizona 85001 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant American Retail Group, Inc.

9

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 721

Filed 01/19/2006

Page 9 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Richard A. Halloran, Esq. Lewis and Roca LLP 40 North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85004-4429 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Avnet Michael A. Beale, Esq. John A. Micheaels, Esq. Beale & Micheaels, P.C. 1440 East Missouri Avenue, Suite C-150 Phoenix, Arizona 85014 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys or Defendants Ann Taylor, Inc. Cheryl Lee Johnson, Esq. Squire Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P. 801 South Figueroa Street, 14th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-5554 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Bax Global, Inc. Donald A. Wall, Esq. Mark A. Nadeau, Esq. Squire Sanders & Dempsey, LLP Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 2700 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4441 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Arrow Electronics and BAX Global, Inc.

10

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 721

Filed 01/19/2006

Page 10 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Douglas W. Seitz, Esq. Timothy J. Casey, Esq. Jennifer H. Dioguardi, Esq. Laura Jean Zeman, Esq. Michael K. Kelly, Esq. Bradley W. Petersen, Esq. Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. One Arizona Center 400 East Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Best Buy, Ingram Industries, Micro Warehouse, Inc., Nash-Finch, and Target Paul E. Bums, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson, LLP Collier Center 201 East Washington, Suite 1600 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2382 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Consolidated Stores Robert R. Brunelli, Esq. Sheridan Ross P.C. 1560 Broadway, Suite 1200 Denver, Colorado 80202 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Corporate Express, Inc. Barry R. Sanders, Esq. Michael S. Rubin, Esq. Mariscal, Weeks, McIntyre & Friedlander 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 200 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Email: barry@sanders mwmf.com michael@rubin mwmf.com Attorneys for Defendants Corporate Express, Inc., 7-Eleven, Inc., Smart & Final, Inc.
11

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 721

Filed 01/19/2006

Page 11 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Jonathan M. James, Esq. Perkins Coie Brown & Bain PA P.O. Box 400 Phoenix, AZ 85001-0400 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Genuine Parts Company Peter J. Brann, Esq. Brann & Isaacson, L.L.P. P. O. Box 3070 Lewiston, Maine 04243-3070 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants L.L. Bean, Inc. and Talbots, Inc. Ray K. Harris, Esq. Fennemore Craig P.C. 3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 2600 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2913 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Haworth, Inc., L.L. Bean, Inc., and Talbots, Inc. Benjamin C. Thomas, Esq. Susan Elizabeth Irwin, Esq. Thomas & Elardo, P.C. 2700 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Walmart

s/ Susanne Wedemeyer I further certify that on January 20, 2006, I served the attached document by U. S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following, who are not registered participants of the CM/ECF System: Andrew Abraham Burch & Cracchiolo PA PO Box 16882 Phoenix, AZ 85011-6882
12

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 721

Filed 01/19/2006

Page 12 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Hugh A Abrams Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP Bank 1 Plaza 10 S Dearborn St. Chicago, IL 60603 Robert E B Allen Mariscal Weeks McIntyre & Friedlander PA 2901 N Central Ave, Ste 200 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2705 Larry C Boyd Ingram Micro Inc 1600 E St Andrew Pl Santa Ana, CA 92705 Kenneth R Chiate Pillsbury Winthrop LLP 725 S Figueroa St Ste 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5406 J Bennett Clark Senniger Powers Leavitt & Roedel 1 Metropolitan Sq, 16th Floor St Louis, MO 63102 Kevin B Collins Venable Baetjer Howard & Civiletti LLP 1201 New York Ave NW, Ste 1000 Washington, DC 20005-3917 Jennifer E Cook Senniger Powers Leavitt & Roedel 1 Metropolitan Sq, 16th Floor St Louis, MO 63102 William D Coston Venable Baetjer Howard & Civiletti LLP 1201 New York Ave NW, Ste 1000 Washington, DC 20005-3917
13

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 721

Filed 01/19/2006

Page 13 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

John H Cotton John H Cotton & Associates Ltd 2300 W Sahara Ste 420 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Rita Coyle DeMeules Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP 2800 LaSalle Plaza 800 LaSalle Ave Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015 Martin I Eisenstein Brann & Isaacson LLP PO Box 3070 Lewiston, ME 04243-3070 Albert E Fey Fish & Neave 1251 Ave of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Lee A Freeman Freeman Freeman & Salzman PC 401 N Michigan Ave, Ste 3200 Chicago, IL 60611 John N Gallo Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP Bank 1 Plaza 10 S Dearborn St Chicago, IL 60603 Jennifer P Goetsch Marshall O'Toole Gerstein Murray & Borun 233 S Wacker Dr, Ste 6300 Chicago, IL 60606

14

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 721

Filed 01/19/2006

Page 14 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Thomas O. Gorman Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP 1919 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Ste 500 Washington, DC 20006 George Gottlieb Gottlieb Rackman & Reisman PC 270 Madison Ave, 8th Floor New York, NY 10016 Lee F Grossman Marshall O'Toole Gerstein Murray & Borun 233 S Wacker Dr, Ste 6300 Chicago, IL 60606 Herbert J Hammond Thompson & Knight LLP 1700 Pacific Ave, Ste 3300 Dallas, TX 75201 John E Hedstrom Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP 1919 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Ste 500 Washington, DC 20006 Jesse J Jenner Fish & Neave 1251 Ave of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Emily S Lau Fenwick & West LLP 2 Palo Alto Sq, Ste 700 Palo Alto, CA 94306 James T Malysiak Freeman Freeman & Salzman PC 401 N Michigan Ave, Ste 3200 Chicago, IL 60611

15

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 721

Filed 01/19/2006

Page 15 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Lisa Meyerhoff Jenkens & Gilchrist PC 1445 Ross Ave, Ste 3200 Dallas, TX 75202 David A Nelson Latham & Watkins 5800 Sears Tower 233 S Wacker Dr Chicago, IL 60606 Bart James Patterson University & Community College 5 550 W Flamingo Rd, Ste C-1 Las Vegas, NV 89103-0137 David Anthony Plumley Christie Parker & Hale LLP 350 W Colorado Blvd, Ste 500 Pasadena, CA 91105 Susan E Powley Jenkens & Gilchrist PC 1445 Ross Ave, Ste 3200 Dallas, TX 75202 Terryl K Qualey Merchant & Gould 3200 IDS Ctr 80 S 8th St Minneapolis, MN 55402-2215 Charles Quinn Fish & Neave 1251 Ave of the Americas New York, NY 10020 James Samuel Rigberg Mariscal Weeks McIntyre & Friedlander PA 2901 N Central Ave, Ste 200 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2705
16

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 721

Filed 01/19/2006

Page 16 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Martin W. Schiffmiller Kirschstein, Ottinger Israel & Schiffmiller, P.C. 489 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, New York 10017 George M Sinlla Pillsbury Winthrop LLP 1600 Tysons Blvd McLean, VA 22102 Stefan V Stein Holland & Knight LLP 100 N Tampa St, Ste 4100 Tampa, FL 33602-3644 Jay Todd Stewart Perkins Coie Brown & Bain PA PO Box 400 Phoenix, AZ 85001-0400 Mark Michael Supko Kenyon & Kenyon 1500 K St NW, Ste 700 Washington, DC 20005-1257 Raymond L Sweigart Pillsbury Winthrop LLP 1600 Tysons Blvd McLean, VA 22102 William M Wesley McAndrews Held & Malloy Ltd 500 W Madison St, Ste 3400 Chicago, IL 60661 Christopher C Winslade McAndrews Held & Malloy Ltd 500 W Madison St, Ste 3400 Chicago, IL 60661

17

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 721

Filed 01/19/2006

Page 17 of 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Darryl M Woo Fenwick & West LLP 275 Battery St, Ste 1600 San Francisco, CA 94111-3305 Donald L Zachary Bass Berry & Sims PLC First American Ctr 315 Deaderick St, Ste 2700 Nashville, TN 37238-0002 Elizabeth L Zepeda 600 Citadel Dr Commerce, CA 90040 Norman H Zivin Cooper & Dunham LLP 1185 Ave of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Thomas Zych Thompson Hine & Flory LLP 3900 Key Ctr 127 Public Sq Cleveland, OH 44114-1216

s/ Susanne Wedemeyer

18

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 721

Filed 01/19/2006

Page 18 of 18