Free Exhibit to a Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00414-SLR

Document 4

Filed 06/30/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ORACLE CORPORATION and ORACLE U.S.A. INC., Plaintiffs, v. EPICREALM LICENSING, LP, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 06-414

EXHIBIT C TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP Mary B. Graham (#2256) 1201 North Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 302.658.9200 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle Corporation and Oracle U.S.A. Inc.

OF COUNSEL: James G. Gilliland Joseph A. Greco Chad E. King Robert J. Artuz Marilee S. Chan TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW LLP 379 Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650.326.2400 Dated: June 30, 2006
527260

Case 1:06-cv-00414-SLR

Document 4

Filed 06/30/2006

Page 2 of 4

EXHIBIT C

Case 1:06-cv-00414-SLR

Document 4

Filed 06/30/2006

Page 3 of 4
AUSTIN

200 1 ROSS AVENUE

D.A, TEX

DAllS

BAKER BOlTS LLP

75201'2980
TEL + 1 214.953.6500 FAX + 1 214.953.6503

DUß¡
HONG KONG HOUSTON
lOO"lDON

ww.bakerbotl5.com

MOSCOW NEW YORK
RIYADH

WASHINGTON

Januar 25, 2006
Larry D. Carlson

TE + 1 214.953.6525
FAX +1214.661.4525

larry.carisonllbokeroolb.com

Mr. Charles Ainswort Clark Lea & Ainswort
P.O. Box 98 Tyler, TX 75710

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL

Re: EpicRealm Licensing, LLC v. Au/of/ex, ef ai" and EpicRealm Licensing, LLC v. Franklin Covey, et al.; Case Nos. 2:05CV00163-DF, and 2:05CV00356-DF

(consolidated); in the United States Distrct Cour for the Eastern District of
Texas, Marshall Division

Dear Charles:
This is in response to your letter of Januar 24.

Our pre-suit investigation for Clark Consulting, Inc. focused on the website ww.clarkconsulting.com. Header responses and other inormation available to us established
that in responding to requests received by this website for webpages containing dynamic content,
Clark generated such pages using Apache and Tomcat servers confgured in a maner that
infinged claims of the epicRealm patents.

In your Januar 24, letter, you advise us of thee additional websites that Clark

owns and operates that you claim use lIS server softare as opposed to Apache and/or Tomcat servers. * In your letter, you ask whether the systems and methods employed by these websites
for managing dynamic webpage generation requests infringe the epicRealm patents. We are not

in a position at this time to provide you with a definitive answers to that question. There are a
couple of reasons why that is so. First, as mentioned above, our pre-suit investigation focused on

ww.clarkconsuIting.com. and header responses generated by that website consistently identified Apache and Tomcat servers and never identified any lIS servers. Second, unlike the open source Apache and Tomcat software, which is in the public domain, lIS server software is
proprietar and not publicly available.
* You appear to have an incorrect URL for the first such site. We believe the correct URL is
.bttp:llsurvevs.clarkconsultine:.comllogin-verificaiion.asp The website you identify-

http://www.cJarkconsuitin~.comlservices/surveys/scchips/index.shnn. - generates a header response that identifies
Apache and Tomcat server software.

Case 1:06-cv-00414-SLR

Document 4

Filed 06/30/2006

Page 4 of 4

BAKER BOlTS LLl'

- 2-

Januar 25, 2006

The contention in the first page of your letter that only systems that utilze Apache

and/or Tomcat web server softare or their equivalent can ininge the epicRealm patents is
incorrect. Certainly, a system or method that employs IIS service softare instead of Apache or Tomcat servers could, if used to generate webpages with dynamic content, be confgured in a way that would infge the claims of the epicRealm patents.
In response to your question whether Clark is "required to provide (epicRealm)

disclosures with regard to web-sites that are IIS softare servers only," we believe the answer is
Yes. Such disclosures, in paricular a complete and full document production, should answer the

infringement issue.

As I stated in our brief phone conversation this afternoon, it is not tre that other defendants have requested an extension of time until Februar 16 to respond to our request for production. No defendant has made such a request. In our phone conversation, you made such a
request on behalf of all defendants. I am not inclined to agree. The reason is that we originally

served our document request on the Autoflex defendants by letter dated June 24, 2005, and on

the Franin Covey defendants (including you) by letter dated September 23, 2005. The
Autoflex defendants have had more than seven months to gather these documents for production.

The Franlin Covey defendants (including you) have had more than four months. That seems
like plenty of

time.
Charles, if

you have any questions, please give me a call.
Very trly yours,

./~ .v1 ¡) ¡; ~
Lary D. Carlson .. / v
LDC:ldm
l':u-s A v z,'h/-?

Py ¡'(/I,?y1,,'jtt,oI'J