Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

4 Case 1 :04-cv-00875-GIVIS Document 331 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 1 014 _. . _ A
·_ e_ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. A _ :_ V ·
_ . ‘ FORTHEDISTRICI OFDELAWARE V 3 ; 1 - V A 2 ·
, ‘ V REDACTED PUBLIC V V
TELCORDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 1 . ) VERSION V V
. V V ~ ) A `
·_ ‘Plai1iti&7C¤unterelaim Defendant, V ) . -.
- LUCENT TECHNOILOGIES INC., Action N0. 04-875-GMS V ‘-
I V V Defendant/Oounterclaim Plnimiil V )V A · _ _ ‘— _
TELCORDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., V A ) A V _V
_ I Plaintiif/Counterclaim Defendant, ) ` ` · V
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., V ) Civil Action N0. 04-876-GMS V V
. A ~ ) ~ 4
V Defendm1t!C0i1nfercl¤iln Plaintii ) A `
4_ ) A A
V · V TELCORDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF _V V ·. V
IN SUPPORT OF TELCORDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION HVLEMVE NO. 3: w I _
MOTION TO DEFENDANT CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. FROM OFFERING
A ARGUMENT, TESTINIONY, OR EVIDENCE REGARDING THE AMOUNTS V` ·
‘ _ V DEFENDANT PAID FOR PRODUCT TESTING - . · _`
V V- A V Asimvacannas - ·
_ R . Steven L B¤1ick(I.D. #2114) _ "· 4
Of Counsel: V " John G. Day (ID. #2403) ` `
4 _ V #4261)
A Donald R. Dunne: 500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor - 4
Steven M. Ainzalcne P.O. Box 1150 V `· V
Griffin B. Price A · Wilmington, Delaware 19899 ·
James T. Wilson A 4 (302) 654-1888 r A ‘ - _ V “
John M. Williamson sbaLi l;y-geddes.e0m ‘ A . ‘· V ’
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, ]`day@,zg_hbjggeddes.c0m V
GARRBTT & DUNNER, L.L.P. Imaggj by-geddes.com V
901 New York Ave., NSW. " V V » . .
Washington, D.C, 20001 Aztcrneysfbr Plaimjf A V
· (202) 408-4000 IA Telccrdia T echnnlcgics, Inc
U Dated: March 1, 2007 V V V ‘ V

Case 1 :04-cv—00875-GIVIS Document 331 Filed 03/08/2007 Page of 4 _.
l. THE DOLLAR A1\IOUNTS'PAH) TO TEIiCORDIA DDR PRODUCT r ··
` TESTING ARE IRRELEVANT T0 THE HYPOTHETICAL z
· NEGOTIATION AND HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL WHEN INVOKED OUT - _
OF CONTEXT,. _ ` ° "
A The dollar amounts Cisco estimates that it paid Telcordia have no relevance to I
hypothetical negotiation between Telcordia and Cisco. For purposes ofthe g I ”
. ` negotiation, the relevant evaluation ofthe commercial relationship includes whether the l — V
competed in the same- territory in the same line. of business, or they were inventor and l
promoter; See Procter & Gamble Co. in llaragon Trade Erands, lnc., 989 F. 547, 610 (D. `
_ . Del. 1997); Joy Technologies, Inc. v. Flair; Inc., 954 P.Suppl 796, 807 (D. 1996). ’ .— ’
' The case cited by Cisco, Intel Corp. v. Broadcom Corp., focuses on the competitive ‘ ’
versus the cooperative nature ofthe relationship, not contractual or amounts. N0. Civ. A. = l
00-796, 2003 WL 360256, *2S·26 (D, Del. Feb. 13, 2003). In1}1tel,'the court found thatthe - J
I defendants’ references to a joint development agreement with the were not for a E
a new trial. Id lt was the existence ofe-not details related to--an between parties _
A that issue. Specifically, the court found that “lLi1B fact that they a joint development _
agreement, were cooperating partners, and that Broadcom may have thought licensed
A l ‘may well be relevant to willfnlness."’ Id at *26. Q In addition, the court found that “[t]his `
business relationship is also relevant to determining a hypothetical reasonable royalty rate for .
purpose of determining damages. Cooperating partners are more likely negotiate lower _
` royalty rates." Id.° Thus, it was only the fact that the parties had an agreement and the general "
nature of the agreement the court found relevant. A 2 " = - ··
* Here,A'l`e1cordia does not seek to preclude Cisco from discussing nature of 4 l ·
relationshipr Cisco may introduce evidence that it contracted for services iiom Telcordia. It ll · Il
prnay show the nature, scope, and duration of these services. It may even establish that it paid X _

. Case 1 :04-cv-00875-GIVIS Document 331 4 Iii led 03/08/2007 Page 3 of 4 y .
· T elcordia for these services. Teleordia seeks only to preclude references to the speciic dollar V _ 4
amount- RéCl3ClZ€€ihat Cisco estimates that it paid Telcordia for these services; This ` `
4 amoxmt is irrelevant and adds nothing to Cisco’s argument _ ,
1 4 i Cisco claims that the l` Rgiaclied -—would influence the rate ·. 4
that Cisco would be willing to pay Telcordia during the hypothetical negotiation. (DJ. 304, Ex. . 4-
3 2). But the timeframe ofthe hypothetical negotiation, while disputed, is , R€Cl8Ct6(i 4
4 Rggqcted ‘iThe key element in setting a reasonable royalty . . . is the necessity for retum the ‘ · 4
~ date when the infringement began? Hanson v. Ahwine Valley Ski idreu, Inc., 71 8 F.2d 1075, i
· 1079 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (internal citation omitted). I · e · 4 I 4
Allowing Cisco to argue that the I would have affected the royalty rate is v
· . highly prejudicial. ‘ W A Rai"-acted may sound like alarge amount to a Y
ljvry, but this amount is trivial to a company the size of Cisco, whose annual revenues exceed $20 l
4 billion. Yet has argued that evidence of its and Hnances should be excluded. (D.I. 4
304, Ex. A, at41~2). Clearly, Cisco seeks to invoke the ' I Rédaded; out of context. This h
` · I wouldbe highly prejudicial to Telcordia, as the jury would be unduly impressed hy this amount. · l
- · If Cisco claims that the Redactéd figure is relevant, then it must be placed in context I 4 _
with _Cisoo’s overall size and Enauocs. _ V A 4 4
y Redacted 1

Case 1 :04-cv—00875-GIVIS Document 331 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 4 of 4
1 1]. CONCLUSION t _ ‘
S For the reasons stated above, Telcordia asks this Court to exclude evidence and argument
` related to the that Cisco estimates that it paid to Telcordia for product testing and i
~ other services: , ‘ . 1 ‘
- . ASHBY & GEDDES -
V l _ I /s/ Lauren E. Maguire 1
S Steven J. Balick (I.D. #2114) ‘ I S
( John G. Day, #2403) —
V , Lauren E. Maguire (I.D. #4261)
_ 500 Delaware Avenue, Sth Floor -
S _ l » _ P.O. Box 1150 °
‘ Wilmington, Delaware -19899
. - (302) 654-1888 _
[email protected] ·
j [email protected] · —
. _ lmagg_e' @5 hby-geddes.com r
I ` - Att0r1·¢eys‘f0rPlainI1f§”
Telcardia Technologies, Inc. U
W Counsel: 1 V 1 _
Donald R. Dunne: , —
1 Steven M. Anzalone ‘ r .
· V , Griliith B. Price
James T. Wilson `
_ i John M. Williamson
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,
FARABOW, GARRETT I .
& DUNNER., L.L.P. _
" 901 New York Ave., N.W. e . ' ·
Washington, D.C. 20001 .
(202) 408-4000 .
_ Dated: March `I, 2007 A
178407.1 I