Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 62.6 kB
Pages: 3
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 633 Words, 3,622 Characters
Page Size: 622 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/34820/195-4.pdf

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 62.6 kB)


Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:05-cv—00292-JJF Document 195-4 Filed 05/15/2006 Page 1 013
EXHIBIT C

Case 1 :05-cv—00292-JJF Document 195-4 Filed 05/15/2006 Page 2 of 3
Atlanta Sen Diego
Denver LP $3;] Frggyjgiggg
Attorneys ill Ltzwt
L-¤¤ Aussie t90o K Street, NW · Washington, DC 20006 W¤¤ht¤a¤¤¤. 0G
202.·196.7500 • Fax: 202.496 7756
Philadelphia w·wwnmg§(gnng§gng_€gm Bmssels
GASPAR5 J BONO EMAIL ADDRESS
(202) 4954211 ghooo@mckenna1ong com
May il, 2006
By E—MAlL
Glenn W. Rhodes, Esq.
Howrey I...1..P
550 South Hope Street, #1 100
Los Angeles, CA 9007l·26Z7
Re; LG P/iiltps LCD C0 , Ltd v Timing Co o]f`.·*lrrrericn er of ; CA No. 05—292—J.i1*
Dear Glenn:
I write in response to your letter of May 8, 2006 regarding, LPL’s withdrawal of its claims
under the ‘t21 patent. We disagree with much of your letter, and specifically we do not agree to
your demand that [Pls stipulate to a dismissal with prejudice of its claims under the ‘i2l patent.
Alter correctly reciting what LPL has done (ie., withdrew its claims under the ‘l2,I
patent), you say you do not believe that is what Judge Farnan intended at the hearing on April
25. We think it is precisely what Judge Farnan intended
At the hearing, the Judge said this:
The tirst issue that we're going to deal with presented by the parties is the 'l2i patent.
And i’rn going to order that counsel for the plaintiff make a determination whether or not they
want to pursue infringement claims under that patent by Monday, May l. You can drop the
patent from the case.
Transcript, April 25, 2006, at 70:22 through 71 :4 (emphasis added).
in withdrawing the claims of infringement under the ‘l21 patent from the case, LPL did
nothing more and nothing less than “drop the patent from the case." Withdrawal of those claims
is not tantamount to dismissing them under Rule 41, and certainly not tantamount to dismissing
them with prejudice. Rather, withdrawing the claims is the iitnctional equivalent of amending
the complaint under Rule i5. We believe that Judge Farnan’s statement on April 25 was
effective authorization for LPL to amend the complaint. We think Judge Faman’s intentions in
this regard are crystal clear.

Case 1 :05-cv—00292-JJF Document 195-4 Filed 05/15/2006 Page 3 of 3
Glenn W, Rhodes
May ii, 2006
Page 2
Since there are no longer claims of infringement under the ‘l2l patent in the case, any
affirmative defenses related to that patent are moot. Discovery related to any of those
affirmative defenses is also moot That was the whole point of the choice Judge Farnan
presented to LPL ·—— pursue claims under the “i2i patent with some additional discovery related to
defenses, or drop claims under the °l2l patent and eiiminate that discovery. He surely did not
intend to force LPL to drop its claims under the ‘i2l patent but then also face additional
discovery related thereto.
We believe that any attempt by defendants to inject claims as to the validity and
enforceability of the ‘12l patent into the case at this time would not be well received by the
Court. We have real doubts as to whether any court would now find a case or controversy with
respect to those issues. We have no doubt, however, that Judge Farnan will not allow defendants
to pursue, in this case headed for a trial in two months, a validity claim where there is no
corresponding infringement ciaim or an enforceability claim where no enforceability defense has
yet been pleaded.
Sincerely,
// /
aspare .li_ no
G.lB:ea
cc: Matthew W. King, Esq. {by e-matt;
Julie S. Gabier, Esq. ray ernuilt
RiCilEtI”Ci DA i<.lI`i<, HSC] (hy e-mail)