Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00519-JJF Document 21 Filed O3/07/2008 Page 1 of 2
RICHARDS, LAYTON St FINGER
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ONE Roomev Soumut
920 NQRTH KING STREET DIRECT DIA!. NUMBER
Fraszoezntczta t., CCDTTRELL \;Vn__M|Ng3·r¤N_ DELAWARE lgggi 302-G5 I·'/509
(302) es:-*2700 C°`"F‘E'·‘·@’“*·F COM
not <:·.c>a> esi-not
WWW.RLF.COM
March 7, 2008
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Joseph .J. Farnan, Jr.
United States District Court
844 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 1980l
Re: Symbol Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Aruba Networks, Inc.
QJA. No. 07—519—J.}F
Dear Judge liarnau:
We represent Defendant Aruba Networks, Inc. ("Aruba"), in the above-captioned case.
We write to respond to the Plaintiffs’ March 5, 2008, letter to the Court requesting a scheduling
conference and submitting a proposed schedule.
As Plaintiffs acknowledge in their letter, Aruba has already cornrnenced reexarnination
proceedings on one of the patents in suit, the *922 patent, and intends to tile a motion to stay this
case shortly. Aruba intends to promptly prepare reexamination requests on the remaining patents
as well.] Conducting a scheduling conference and setting a schedule in this case before the
straightforward threshold issue of a stay of proceedings is decided would be an inefficient use of
the Court’s resources. _
This case is in its earliest stages. None of the issues now before the Patent Office have
been developed during discovery or otherwise addressed. If the Plaintiffs’ patents emerge from
the reexamination proceedings, the parties can proceed at that time with minimal impact on the
case. This is not a case where a stay would frustrate or disrupt ongoing proceedings before the
Court. ln any event, Plaintilfs would not be prejudiced if they had to wait the few weeks it will
take the parties to submit their briefing on the motion to stay. Both parties and the Court would
benefit by first addressing the issue of whether the case will proceed at this time before
expending the resources in an effort to negotiate the details ofa schedule.
In their letter, Plaintiffs suggest that Aruba did not respond to their attempts to confer
about a schedule. That is incorrect. I communicated with local counsel for Plaintiffs concerning
I Thus, Plaintiffs are incorrect in their assertion that Aruba will rely solely on the
reexamination ofthe ‘922 patent.
nrrt-iizsoizz-1

Case 1 :07-cv-00519-JJF Document 21 Filed O3/07/2008 Page 2 of 2
The l~lonorable Joseph .}', Farnan, Jr.
March 7, 2008
Page 2
these issues during the past two weeks. Moreover, Nicholas Groombridge, outside counsel for
Aruba, contacted outside counsel for Plaintiffs by both voicemail and email on March 3, 2008.
In light of the parties' fundamental differences on the issue of a stay, they could not agree on a
schedule.2
Aruba will tile its motion to stay proceedings promptly Because this motion presents a
threshold question about the course of proceedings in this case, Aruba respectfully requests that
the Court consider this motion before proceeding with a scheduling conference,
Respectfully,
ilu./\ { - ieee? has
Frederick L, Cottrell, Ill (#2555)
FLC:srs
cc: Clerk ofthe Court (via hand delivery)
All Counsel of Record (via electronic mail)
2 Aruba disagrees with Plai11tiffs’ proposed schedule even apart irorn the reexamination
issues. Because the debate about the specific dates and discovery limits is subsidiary to the
overarching question of the stay, however, Aruba does not address these details here, If the
Court believes it would be useful, Aruba will be happy to confer about these issues with
Plaintiffs further and submit its own dates if necessary,
rur razsuriza

Case 1:07-cv-00519-JJF

Document 21

Filed 03/07/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00519-JJF

Document 21

Filed 03/07/2008

Page 2 of 2