Free Remark - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01507-SLR Document 243 Filed 06/29/2006 Page 1 of 2
E-Mail Request for Emergency Relief
1. Case Number: 04--cv- 1507 SLR
2. Check the box that applies:
I:] Requesting a teleconference with the parties and the court
E Requesting an in-person conference with the parties and the court
J Requesting either ofthe above listed options at the court’s determination
3. BRIEFLY describe the reason for this emer ency request:
Tomorrow, Markman and opening summary judgment briefs are due. Although fact
discovery closed 5 months ago, defendant Bath 8. Body Works ("BBW') today
produced for the first time certain documents that are relevant to the issues to be
briefed tomorrow. Specifically, the asserted patent claims compositions containing
orange oil and other components. BBWs products contain 6 raw materials with
orange oil in them that were not produced during discovery. As a result, LP
Matthews' expert was forced to make assumptions about the orange oil content of
these raw materials. The documents produced by BBW today reveal for the first time
the orange oil content of 3 of the 6 raw materials. Because of this 11th hour
revelation, LP Matthews respectfully requests a one-week extension of the claim
construction and summaryjudgment briefing schedule to permit it to review and
digest BBW‘s last-minute document production before filing its claim construction
lbrief and summary judgment motions. The request will not affect any other dates.
*Any text added beyond the limits of this space will be disregarded by the court.
4. Name of opposing counsel contacted about this request: John Ward· David Moore
5. Res onse of 0 osin counsel to this re uest:
BBW does not oppose LP Matthews' request. The Kao defendants oppose the
_ request, stating "we do not think it is proper to impose a new schedule upon the Court
at this late date" and "Kao will be filing its papers on the schedule currently in place."
6. Name of local counsel making this request:John G. Da
7. Today’s Date: June 28 2006
itittittiiiiltHi1ttk*tHtHt*Hih **H*H**Hi*tl%i+ii*iE&it***HHttt**iH*i*tHfH*H
For court use only:
|:\ A teleconference will be held on to be coordinated and
initiated by
[II An in-person discovery conference will be held on:
lj Other: alarm ,,,,,,.i.U.,4,;,,~ j,,.‘L{.‘,U ,,i,,,_ ,j,(j_,_'_ ·5,,,·...·...~1 \}.,A\1~»-f brrffirj
Ave, {fury 6 , Joao _

Case 1:04-cv-01507-SLR Document 243 Filed 06/29/2006 Page 2 of 2
Opposing CounseI's Response to E-Mail Request for Emergency Relief
1. Case Number: {
2 ¥?tB!EF.¥Y S.t@$s..x2vr rs§r;.<1¤.&s..*9 the sr¥1s£s»¤¤.9y;s9¤¤St meaés.l2x2e>9%i¤.s1.1=99¤§2ls...
%This is a dispute between BBW and LPM and does not involve Kao. Nonetheless, it E
iis Kao's understanding that the recently produced documents (1) are not BBW
Edocuments but are third party documents (BBWs suppliers), (2) have no effect on
iclaim construction and (3) were the subject of subpoenas served by LPM upon .
¥BBW‘s suppliers many months ago. Kao does not believe that this is a sufricient
(justification to impose a new schedule on the Court at this late date. At minimum,
jthere is no need to delay any party's claim construction briefing. Kao stands ready
gand will Hle its briefs regardless of whether the Court believes an extension is
Qappropriate for any of the briefing requested by LPM.
*Any text added to beyond the Iimitslof this space will be disregarded by-the M R
3. Name of local counsel submitting this response: Richalrd__il,,gljon§{itg( 4 ____ MQW _ ___nN_
4- T¤¤¤v’S ¤¤¤¤¤’J.v.¤B 2.Q....Q2QQ§.f.Q;".t ( . ..i` QQ. .... L