Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cv-00519-JJF Document 22 Filed O3/10/2008 Page 1 of 2
tter
Andqgrgon Richard L. Horwitz
r Part -
Corroon the Milly at Law
1313 North Market Street [email protected] ..
P.O. Box 951 302 984-6027 Direct Phone
Wilmington, DE 19899·095l 302 6584192 Fax
302 984-6000
W\‘\"W`.p01Z‘iT€l‘2%I'l(I(%l‘S€'3Il.C0l’Il
March 10, 2008
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
United States District Court
844 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Symbol Technologies, Inc., et al v. Aruba Networks, Inc.
C.A. No. 07·-519-JJF
Dear Judge Farnan: l
We represent plaintiffs in the ahove—referenced action. We write in response to the letter
from clefendant’s counsel of last Friday, and in further support of plaintiffs’ request that the
Court set up a scheduling conference in this case. Plaintiffs respectfully submit that defendanfs
tiling of a reexamination request concerning one ofthe four patents-in—suit should not delay
setting the entry of a schedule herein.
This case was commenced last August. Defendant waited more than six months to tile a
reexamination request concerning only one of the four patents-in-suit. The Patent Office has not
yet determined when it will act on it let alone whether reexaniination will be granted. The letter
from defendant’s counsel states that defendant intends to tile for reexamination as to the other
three patents~in·suit. We do not know when the requests will be filed, when the PTO will act on
the requests if they are filed, and whether the requests will be granted.
With respect to the merits of a motion to stay that defendant apparently intends to rnake,
plaintiffs will respond if and when such a motion is made. ln the meantime, plaintiffs
respectfully subrnit that there is no just reason for delaying the entry of a schedule in this action.
Finally, det`endant’s letter criticizes our prior characterization of discussions among
counsel leading upto the tiling of our letter requesting the scheduling conference. The facts are
these - we raised the issue of a proposed scheduling order with defendant’s lead counsel on
February 22. When we heard nothing in response through that route, we contacted defendant’s
local counsel on February 26, and were told that counsel would discuss the issue with their
client. Hearing nothing by the following Monday, we informed counsel on March 3 that we

Case 1:07-cv-00519-JJF Document 22 Filed O3/10/2008 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnen
March 10, 2008
Page 2
would tiie our request for a scheduling conference that Wednesday, March 5. It was only when
we informed them of that deadline that we were informed that defendant was going to seek a stay
of this case.
Respectfuily submitted,
/s/ Richard L. Horwitz
Richard L. Horwitz
RL}-I/msb .
853820 / 32106
cc: Clerk ofthe Court (via hand delivery) .
All Counsel of Record (via electronic inaii)

Case 1:07-cv-00519-JJF

Document 22

Filed 03/10/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00519-JJF

Document 22

Filed 03/10/2008

Page 2 of 2