Free Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado


File Size: 52.9 kB
Pages: 4
Date: November 3, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Colorado
Category: District Court of Colorado
Author: unknown
Word Count: 687 Words, 4,493 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cod/26263/227.pdf

Download Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado ( 52.9 kB)


Preview Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado
Case 1:04-cv-01769-MSK-CBS

Document 227

Filed 11/03/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 1:04-cv-01769-MSK-CBS A MAJOR DIFFERENCE, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff, v. ERCHONIA MEDICAL, INC., an Arizona corporation, ERCHONIA MEDICAL LASERS, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company, ERCHONIA PATENT HOLDINGS, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company, Defendants.

ERCHONIA PATENT HOLDINGS, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company, ERCHONIA MEDICAL, INC., an Arizona corporation, Counter-Claimants and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. A MAJOR DIFFERENCE, INC., a Colorado corporation, ROBERT E. MORONEY, an individual, ROBERT E. MORONEY, L.L.C., a Colorado limited liability company, MIKI SMITH, an individual, KMS MARKETING, INC., a Colorado corporation, and STARGATE INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Colorado corporation, Counter-Defendants and Third-Party Defendants.

A MAJOR DIFFERENCE, INC.'S RESPONSE TO ERCHONIA'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF A MAJOR DIFFERENCE, INC. OBTAINED OR RELIED ON OPINION OF PATENT ATTORNEY RE: NONINFRINGEMENT OF ERCHONIA'S PATENT [DOCKET #211]

Case 1:04-cv-01769-MSK-CBS

Document 227

Filed 11/03/2006

Page 2 of 4

Defendants Erchonia Medical, Inc.'s, Erchonia Medical Lasers, L.L.C.'s and Erchonia Patent Holdings, L.L.C.'s (collectively "Erchonia") Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence that Plaintiff A Major Difference, Inc. Obtained or Relied on Opinion of Patent Attorney Re: Noninfringement of Erchonia's Patent ("the Motion") [Docket No. 211] Motion is predicated upon three facts and one assumption: Fact 1: Plaintiff A Major Difference, Inc. ("AMD") obtained opinion of counsel in connection with its decision to continue selling allegedly infringing products ("Accused Products"). Fact 2: Erchonia sought production of information concerning those opinions. Fact 3: AMD asserted the attorney-client privilege and declined to produce the opinions. Based on these uncontested facts, Erchonia assumes that AMD will assert it obtained and relied upon opinions of patent counsel and therefore that its infringement is not willful at trial. AMD has made no such claim and has not indicated to Erchonia that it plans to rely upon opinion of legal counsel to defend against Erchonia's claim of willful infringement. At this point, AMD proposes that the Court simply take Erchonia's Motion in Limine under advisement, and see what transpires at trial. If AMD attempts to affirmatively assert receipt and reliance upon opinion of patent counsel as a defense to Erchonia's claim of willful infringement, the

2

Case 1:04-cv-01769-MSK-CBS

Document 227

Filed 11/03/2006

Page 3 of 4

Court would seemingly be justified in excluding or striking the testimony. However, at this point, Erchonia is simply not entitled to the requested advisory opinion. Respectfully submitted,

Dated: November 3, 2006

By:

s/Robert R. Brunelli Robert R. Brunelli [email protected] Scott R. Bialecki [email protected] Paul S. Cha [email protected] SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. 1560 Broadway, Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80202-5141 Telephone: 303-863-9700 Facsimile: 303-863-0223 E-mail: [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR A MAJOR DIFFERENCE, INC., ROBERT E. MORONEY, ROBERT E. MORONEY, L.L.C., MIKI SMITH, KMS MARKETING, INC. AND STARGATE INTERNATIONAL, INC.

3

Case 1:04-cv-01769-MSK-CBS

Document 227

Filed 11/03/2006

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 3rd day of November, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses: Richard L. Gabriel, Esq. [email protected] Holme Roberts & Owen, LLP 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4100 Denver, Colorado 80203, John R. Mann, Esq. [email protected] Charles R. Ledbetter, Esq. [email protected] Valerie A. Garcia, Esq. [email protected] Kennedy Childs & Fogg, P.C. 1050 17th Street, Suite 2500 Denver, Colorado 80265 Ira M. Schwartz, Esq. [email protected] DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy, P.C. 7310 N. 16th Street, Suite 330 Phoenix, Arizona 85020

s/ Lori R. Brown Lori R. Brown Assistant to Robert R. Brunelli SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. 1560 Broadway, Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80202-5141 Telephone: 303-863-9700 Facsimile: 303-863-0223 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]
J:\4888\-10\PLEADINGS\RESPONSE MTN LIMINE OPINION OF PAT COUNSEL.wpd

4