Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 95.1 kB
Pages: 2
Date: July 20, 2007
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 1,161 Words, 7,070 Characters
Page Size: 622 x 790 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/31947/333.pdf

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 95.1 kB)


Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1 :98-cv-00197-SLR Document 333 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 1 of 2
Youno Couawar Sraaonrr & Tnrton, usr
iatt“at·S°tti;Et" Tl“lEBRANDYWlNE B¤¤L¤r~¤ tt%t§'tttt;ti‘r" tt$tt11t;atEtL*2"E"
iuvsitmmix LEVINE Jeliuix. \\’.atT£ WES’y STR_EE’[" §'7‘[‘H FLGOR Sa:~:1ar HI{;\TN:\G¤\ll Josevun M»\i..l’lT»\N0
Rncnnrumix Z.·\i'l'¤\ Bas>:rC.sniu=1=1;u _ Dos:iu.nJ tAowsmx,J1z. .u>u|n ts ai.utru:l;i.u
Frutnrancr; W. zousr Daxmr.P.Jor1r~:soea `\/VlLIvl lNGTON, DEL!\\\'.#\Rl: 19801 Mncueru siiauasrrn Dlsorcm; Mrcuiuu. W Mcmzrmorr
1ur1m1m1l.M0su;n CRAIGD Gm;-ue Jai=r|t|2~r“t'. Cixsruunwo ?m.i>:·r L. Mlaxzctn
D,w:uC M•:t3rt2 Tuiorirvliir llousuat i’.O. BOX 391 Esxu,x1l,xgss1oxuCoigu! Elixanrisglnii. x11>:sz.L.a
5 J =· M ?: ZMIARTINS ESSNER , .· , , ; ’1r r-N `,t,v,xt‘olu £'.u.nm in ON nurox
Ccishldlix I{r\`llSNlTZ t’ixut1:~¢|zt£ Moamrc wu‘Mll"G]Ol"' 9El"`w"\m“‘ l[)Sq9`G39l Mixiciansxt Dittiarcm D Phu Mtsrmsmlm-W:xu;na
ltaarwxl \*.’u.1.out1uur C BAILR Frutu 39-,} 5-»H_( (UO Main' F Da;n,w Jzzswuiz it Nom,
Josv W lscmnucotr N.xr,xs.|a\VoL|¤ ( _ “ U Eau: tE:>u·,uu>s :\D:\hl W Porr
asrncmy G FLTNN Lisa is Goormixrc (S(1(l)2¤3-2234 (DE ONLY) KENNI£TtI.l. Enos Sunil tuairiiarrneiao
JEszosnaK.Gu0s$xmr¢ JOHN W Suiuv FAX; (3U2)5·]l_l253 l,·.: Eunexaa D2l·au:z1o !.mr;sl·.&luonus..la 1imssJ.GixLaasiizau Cusurrn.Siwr.-unsure
Ja:uasL l'i\TTt.2·N.Jit lsnwuu lliuuiox ""'“""""`_` Su:u¢T Gacecuaa _ tNJ&t*A Ostri
tc = LT si sn ·· r·1.r~J¤: ..... ,, ,,· ‘ - s.·=t.!l.-,··=.· Mnrratsuus
ttlttlilrs il§*1.llla u.&lll’a D. nil? HN he *’¤~¤_Sr **¤- U l>Tl€§l7&aa"*’"` ult»...it..i·
Tmornr J. snzruuu RDLIN P. BlSSEl.l. P-U· Hm 1*94 Kixusu E Kssttasz Camo 1-; C Srorrau
a»m»:m.. sxuwmis scmm. new qm,m,;T¤u»N_ D€L_.,u-ARE germ :¤~~¤¤=r»¤m. lestes mus iz ‘¤·»=¤c¤w
WILLEAM W EBOWSER JOHN T. DORSEY _, , - EDWARILI KDShlD\\'SlLl Al`ll7\\’lS `i`UIlNlZR
L.-xaavi Taummcos M t1|.,ucr;Cz,mur (30-} 8*("3:’7l Jou:¢C kinase:. MARGr\ttl£T1! \\'ilITEAl:\N
Jl1C`lli\ll!J A [3i1.|aERr0.5t< Ctlnlsrmx DOuoaixs\va1¤ur {$(u};25§.]33.t ([){§{}m_~,·; _ puma: lsxxrz Suixuors M Zuid
ee ’‘`" E ,
it i , A * Ha N |u.1i>:M.I> r= , , , , , , , . . 5i=a*,LC =:<.·= .`2zr<1oaCo1.::<:a
Cilligiil R iiEEN·\`€. N€)ll?L~\l‘:ILL “ “ xx " GU:`°GCGl\°:\“ A`] IOM J01INz§[§lCLi2EG;i‘iilN,Jl( ClJEt`l'I5J £`ltU\\’T7lliil
Nauru a.iuu.rz.—; wtxtsu teuuzx L. tbxscue
DERECI. DI _\L_ (30-)) 5.H 6554 t*.1ra1cr,—. A wmuoss 0r=Cou>:sr21.
‘ · ·· ' tuuscu At Srixuoiirr
DIRECT FAX: (302)57L'1-3467 Srnauzrts Youncs
kkc]]ul.@),CSt_mm nawntn tl Mvxxwaus. Zrcu
July 20, 2007
BY CM/ECF
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
844 N. King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 1980l
Re: Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scierxtyic Corp., C.A. No. 98—197—SLR
Dear Judge Robinson:
I write on behalf of Boston Scientific in response to Cordis’s July ll, 2007 letter
submitting the new case of Young v. Lumenis, F.3d , 2007 WL i8278¢l5 (Fed. Cir. June
27, 2007) as supplemental authority. D.l. 332.
Cordis argues that Yozuzg now enables it to distinguish the “Cl11”€” standard of Ro/im &
Hons Co. v. Crgvsml C/xemicctl Co., 722 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1983), because Young distinguished
Rohn: & Hons on the grounds that Ro/un & Hons "involved a false affidavit, rather than a non—
disclosure, and [Young] further held that the cure for a prior omission is a timely submission.
Young at *l0-l l." D.I. 332 at 1.
Cordis’s reliance on Young is misplaced. Unlike Young, this is not a case that involved
only non—disclosure of material information which could be cured by later disclosing the
information in time for the examiner to consider it. Young, 2007 WL ’18278¤l5 at *10-*1 l. Dr.
Fischell did not merely intentionally withhold the Hillstead reference during the parent ’3 12
prosecution. He also repeatedly and falsely told the examiner that the prior art did not disclose
the undulating longitudinal feature that was critical to patentability, when, in fact, that feature
Dau: :2»t21*c05.i 054152.100l

Case 1:98-cv-00197-SLR Document 333 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 2 of 2
Youno Coivnwav Srancrvrr & Tnvtoa, LLP
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
July 20, 2007
Page 2
was admittedly disclosed hy Hillstead. After the examiner relied on those false arguments to
allow the ’3l2 claims, Dr. Fischell and Cordis did nothing during the continuation ’3 70
prosecution to correct the impact of those false arguments on the examiner. They did not tell the
examiner that Hillstead disclosed undulating longitudinals or that Dr. Fiscl1ell’s previous
arguments were false. instead, they buried Hillstead among some sixty references, remained
silent, and let the examiner continue to believe that undulating iongitudinals were not disclosed
in the prior art. In view ofthe exaniiner’s prior reliance on the earlier false arguments, this
cryptic disclosure of Hillstead could not and did not cure the prior inequitable conduct. See D.l.
324 at 22—25; D.I. 328 at l0—l4.
Thus, the facts of this case are not like those of Y onng. Rather, they are much closer to
those of Roinn & Hans, which involved an earlier misrepresentation on which the examiner had
previously relied to allow claims. 722 F.2d at 15 72. As the Federal Circuit explained in Rohn:
& Haas, the impact of such a misrepresentation cannot be cured by "1nerely suppllyingl the
examiner with accurate facts without calling his attention to the untrue or misleading assertions
sought to be overcome, leaving him to formulate his own conclusions? Id.
Indeed, the Federal Circuit recognized the applicability of Ronin & Hans and the fact that
this case did not involve only non—disclosure when it cited Ro/nn & Hans and specifically
instructed this Court on remand to address "whether, in light of the context in which the
Hilisteaci patent was disclosed and the applicant’s characterization of the prior art, that disclosure
failed to cure the taint." Corrfis Corp. v. Boston Sctentglc Corp., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS l662l,
"‘l4~‘l‘l5 (Fed. Cir. June 29, 2006) (citing 722 F.2d at l572~`/3). ‘
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Karen E. Ke//er
Karen E. Keller (#4489)
cc: Clerk of the Court (by CM/ECP and hand delivery)
Steven J. Balick, Esq. (hy CM/ECF and electronic mail)
Eugene M. Gelernter, Esq. (by electronic mail)
George E. Badenoch, Esc;. (by electronic rnail)
1>s0i;z42·m0s.i nsns2.1aoi