Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cv—00349-GIVIS Document 97 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 1 of 2
at CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE 8:: HUTZ L.iL..P
·"*m*r·M “WW‘m""""‘—"""";""“""'””““*‘““”“‘*""”""““"“"*m*‘_“" ‘“‘‘ “““’“““'“““` The Nemours Buiicléng
J A ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1007 North Orange Street
P.0. Box 2207
Witmington DE 19899
490tGY 9 $0**9 tatsozi ees 9141
Partner mx (302) 658 5614
re- (302) 888-6241 1990 in sneer, uw, scare soo
"‘”" @2) 656*9072 Washington oc zones
Emma. jb0ve@cb|h.C0m tt1.{202} 331 Till
‘ n2s·:.v1·o Wilmington Oflice mx(202) 293 6229
S€p{6{}}i)@f 5, Weits Rego Center
South Tower, Suite 3150
355 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles CA 90071
rsL(213) 787 2500
BY Fm (213) 687 0498
wee www.cb%h.com
The i·lonorable Gregory M. Sleet
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
U.S. Courthouse
844 N. King Street
Lockbox 19
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Tetlecris Biothempeutics, [nc., er .:1/. v. Baxter Int? Inc., at al.,
D. Del., CA. No. 05-349-GMS
Dear Judge Sleet:
On September 2, 2006, pursuant to Section 5(a) ofthe Scheduling Order in the
abovoreferenced action, counsel for Plaintiffs requested a discovery teleconference with
the Court. In anticipation of that teleconference, scheduled for September 7, 2006 at 9:30
a.m. (EDT), the parties jointly submit the following items that they wish to present to the
Court:
P§ai11tiffs’ Issues:
• Improper assertion of privilege related to experiments correlating anticoinpietnent
activity to solvent/detergent treatment, including submissions to the European
Patent Ofiice and certain defenses in this litigation.
• issues relating to the plant inspection.
• Deficiencies in Defendants document production discovered during recent
depositions, including in particular the following categories: tinancial and
marketing, regulatory, and documents from Baxter’s senior rnanageinent.

Case 1:05-cv—00349-Gl\/IS Document 97 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
September 5, 2006
Page 2
lZ)efcnda11ts’ Issues:
• Plaintiff's/Counterdefenda1its' deficient document production, including more
specifically; all license agreements relevant to Plaintiffs claim for reasonable
royalties; all critical technical documents, including data supporting the results
shown in Tables 6 and 7 ofthe patent-in—suit, certain laboratory notebooks, and
meeting minutes; all experimental data and notebooks supporting Alonso's 2000
Biologicals pnblication; all critical technical documents (such as the CMC section
of a BLA/PLA, process flows, product specifications, etc.) for other
ininninoglobnlin products sold by Plaintiffs using both a solvent/detergent step
and an incubation step; all responsive marketing and financial documents.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jejjiey B. Bova
IBB/IMM Jeffrey B. Bove (#998)
cc: Philip A. Rovner, Esquire (via email)
Bradford 5. Badke, Esquire (via e-mail)