Free Statement - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00190-SLR Document 76 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 1 ot 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
SIEMENS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS USA, )
INC., )
)
it Plaintiff] ) C.A. N0. 07-190 (SLR)
v. )
I
SAINT-GOBAIN CERAMICS & PLASTICS, )
INC., )
)
Defendant. )
U SIEMENS’S RESPONSE TO SAINT-GOBAIN’S
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
Saint-Gobain’s motion to dismiss for alleged lack of standing raises a single
straightforward question — whether it should be denied outright or whether the Court should
-. require Schlumberger Technology Corporation ("STC”) to join as a plaintiff in this suit, as it is
contractually-required to do, if this Court believes prudential standing concerns require it. Even
Saint—Gobain reluctantly recognizes that those are the only two possible outcomes of its motion.
The parties’ 27 total pages of briefing fully address that question and leave to the Court the
- factual determination of whether there can be a "substantial likelihood" of multiple suits after
STC has stated in writing that it will not pursue a separate suit. lNothing in those briefs suggests
that Saint—Gobain’s motion to dismiss is especially complex or particularly amenable tb oral,
rather than written, explanation. Nor does Saint-Gobain identify any issue that it was unable to
fully and adequately explain in its briefs. As such, Siemens respectfully submits that oral
argument on the motion is unnecessary and would only serve to delay resolution of that issue.
Furthermore, Saint-Gobain elected not to brief or raise this issue prior to the
scheduled hearing last month on Siemens’ pending motion for preliminary injunction, where it
could have been argued if Saint~Gobain felt it worthy of such treatment. To allow Saint—

Case 1:07-cv-00190-SLR Document 76 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 2 ot 3
Gobain’s request to delay the entry of a preliminary injunction against Saint-G0bain’s continued
supply of infringing low—Y LYSO crystals into the marketplace would cause further irreparable
injury to Siemens. Indeed, Saint—Gobain’s motion has no bearing on whether an injunction
* should issue at all, as Saint-Gobain’s relief would at most add STC as a party and not change the
infringement analysis or the balancing ofthe equities in any way.
Should the Court nevertheless believe that oral argument would be helpful in
resolving some aspect of Saint-Gobain’s motion to dismiss, Siemens is of course willing to
` present its argument either in-person or telephonically on any day of convenience to the Court.
Moruus, Nrcnors, Ansnr & TUNNELL LLP
I ack B. Bluminfeld (#1014)
Maryellen Noreika (#3208)
1201 North Market Street
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899
(302) 658-9200
jblument"[email protected]
[email protected]
_ Attorneys for Plointsf
Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc.
Of Counsel:
Gregg F. LoCascio
Charanj it Brahma
Sean M. McEldowney
. ICIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
655 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-5793
(202) 879-5000
December 27, 2007
2

Case 1:07-cv-00190-SLR Document 76 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 3 of 3
_ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on December 27, 2007, I electronically filed
the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such
filing(s) to the following:
. Kelly E. Farnan, Esquire
RICHARDS, LAYToN & FINGER, P.A.
I also certify that copies were caused to be served on December 27, 2007 upon the
following in the manner indicated:
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL and HAND DELIVERY
Kelly E. Farnan, Esquire
Rrcinuzns, LAvroN & FINGER, 1¤·.A.
One Rodney Square
Wilmington, DE 19801
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL I
‘ Frederick L. Whjtmer, Esquire
THELEN Rana BRowN RAYSMAN & Srsmaa LLP
875 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Maryellen Noéika (#3208)