Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :98-cv-00197-SLR Document 331 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 1 of 2
ASHBY 8. GEDDES
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW TELEPHONE
302-654-·IBBB
500 DELAWARE AVENUE FACSIMILE
P. O. BOX Il5O $02-654-2067
WILMINGTON. DELAWARE |9899
January 2, 2007
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
United States District Court
844 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientyic Corp.,
C.A. 98-197-SLR
Dear Chief Judge Robinson:
Cordis respectfully submits this response to Boston Scientific's letter to Your Honor of
December 22, 2006 (D.I. 330), in which BSC opposes Cordis' request (D.I. 327 at 9-10, 11) that
the Court consider the opinion of BSC's counsel Oliver Arrett and documents relating to the
Trellis action, either by judicial notice or sua sponte reconsideration of the denial of Cordis'
motion to supplement the record. The denial in 2002 of Cordis' motion to supplement the record
with these materials (D.I. 256) should not give BSC license to make incorrect arguments that run
counter to documents in its possession.
The statement in BSC's letter that Mr. Arrett "did not interpret the Lau patent to disclose
undulating longitudinal[s]" is at odds with Mr. Arrett's opinion that claim 22 ofthe Fischell '370
patent is "invalid as anticipated by Lau (EP) 540 290 A2," i. e., that Lau discloses every
limitation of claim 22, including undulating longitudinals. (Ex. A at 14, to D.I. 237). Cordis
urges the Court to review Mr. Arrett's opinion (Ex. A to D.I. 237) in order to place BSC's
arguments concerning Lam in their appropriate factual context.
Similarly, documentary evidence shows that the patents Dr. Fischell discussed in his
1996 deposition testimony in the Trellis case were the patents that were assigned to Isostent in
1993, i. e., patents related to "treatment of restenosis through application of . .. radioactive
isotopes." Ex. C to D.I. 237 at 11 3(c). A later amendment that broadened the scope of the
assignment to include patents on "devices for the treatment of any obstruction of any vessel of
the human body by any means" (Ex. D to D.I. 23 7) does not alter what Dr. Fischell was
discussing in his deposition testimony two years before the assignment was broadened. Again,
Cordis urges the Court to review the relevant documents (Ex. B, C and D to D.I. 237) to place
BSC's arguments in their appropriate factual context.
Respectfully,
/s/ John G. Day
Jolm G. Day

Case 1 :98-cv-00197-SLR Document 331 Filed O1/O2/2007 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
January 2, 2007
Page 2
cc: Karen E. Keller, Esquire (via electronic mail)
George C. Badenoch, Esquire (via electronic mail)
l