Free Reply Brief - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01436-JJF Document 48 Filed 06/24/2005 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY )
CONSULTANTS, INC. )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 04-1436 JJF
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG )
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, L.P., )
MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., )
LTD., MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC CORPORATION )
OF AMERICA, VICTOR COMPANY OF JAPAN, )
LTD., JVC COMPANY OF AMERICA, NOKIA )
CORPORATION, NOKIA, INC., HEWLETT- )
PACKARD COMPANY, EASTMAN KODAK )
COMPANY, )
)
Defendants. )
)
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF TO DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG, MATSUSHITA, NOKIA,
JVC, AND HEWLETT-PACKARD IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO BIFURCATE
AND EXPEDITIOUSLY PROCEED WITH THE OWNERSHIP ISSUE
IN THE PRESENT ACTION
Dated: June 24, 2005
OF COUNSEL: George H. Seitz, III, Esquire (No. 667)
Ronald J. Schutz, Esquire James S. Green, Esquire (N0. 481)
Jake M. Holdreith, Esquire Patricia P. McGonigle, Esquire (No. 3126)
Becky R. Thorson, Esquire SEITZ, VAN OGTROP & GREEN
Carrie M. Lambert, Esquire 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
Kimberly G. Miller, Esquire P.O. Box 68
ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & Wilmington, DE 19899
CIRESI LLP (302) 888-0600
2800 LaSalle Plaza
800 LaSalle Avenue ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ST. CLAIR
Minneapolis, MN 55402 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
(612) 349-8500 CONSULTANTS, INC.
48863 vl

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF Document 48 Filed 06/24/2005 Page 2 of 4
INTRODUCTIONI
In their Answering Brief (D.I. 45), Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, L.P., Matsushita Electric
Industrial Co., Ltd., Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, Victor Company of Japan, Ltd.,
JVC Company of America, Nokia Corporation, Nokia, Inc., and Hewlett-Packard Company
(collectively, "Defendants") agree with St. Clair that bifurcation and an early trial of the
threshold ownership issue in this action is a reasonable way to proceed. (De£’s Br. at 2.)
Bifurcating the ownership claims from the inhingement claims in the present action and
immediately proceeding to litigate the ownership claims likely will offer the most eficient
resolution of this case. Bifurcation will resolve a threshold issue that should either end the
litigation or allow settlement to resolve the case as to most if not all of the defendants. Now that
Defendant Eastman Kodak Company ("Kodak") has purchased Mirage Systems, Inc.’s
("Mirage") alleged "rights" in the patents-in-suit, St. Clair’s bifurcation arguments apply with
even greater force: all parties needed to adjudicate the ownership issue are presently before this
Court.
ARGUMENT
It appears that all parties have reached an agreement in principle, except Kodak. Because
Kodak has brought Mirage’s alleged "rights" before this Court in this action, St. Clair now
agrees to proceed with this litigation with a schedule similar to that proposed by Defendants in
the their joint Rule l6(b) Scheduling Order. Discovery and trial will proceed on the ownership
I Although St. Clair filed one unified Motion to Bifurcate and Expeditiously Proceed with the Ownership Issue in
the Present Action against all Defendants, the above-defmed Defendants tiled a separate Answering Brief (D.I. 45).
Accordingly, this pleading serves as a response to the above-defined Defendants’ Answering Brief only, and an
additional Reply will be tiled in response to Defendant Kodak’s Answering Brief (D.I. 44). This Reply incorporates
by reference the arguments made in Plaintiffs Reply Brief to Defendant Eastman Kodak Company in Support of its
Motion to Bifurcate and Expeditiously Proceed with the Ownership Issue in the Present Action.
48863 vl

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF Document 48 Filed 06/24/2005 Page 3 of 4
issue tirstz and only after this issue is ultimately resolved will the parties begin discovery in the
patent infringement case if any issues remain unresolved by settlement. Indeed, should the Court
grant St. Clair’s Motion to Bifurcate, St. Clair proposes that the parties drait a new scheduling
order with a bifurcated schedule and with ownership discovery beginning immediately. St. Clair
proposes a bench trial within four (4) to nine (9) months as is custom in this Court.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, St. Clair requests that the Court grant its Motion to Bifurcate
and Expeditiously Proceed with the Ownership Issues in the Present Action.
Dated: June 24, 2005
4 I
SEITZ, V fJ ¤ /· GRE &
‘ / ` ai '
OF COUNSEL: By:/s/ Ge · ‘ •
Ronald J. Schutz, Esquire George . . Seitz, HI, Esquire . 667)
Jake M. Holdreith, Esquire James S. Green, Esquire (No. 481)
Becky R. Thorson, Esquire Patricia P. McGonigle, Esquire (No. 3126)
Carrie M. Lambert, Esquire 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
Kimberly G. Miller, Esquire P.O. Box 68
ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & Wilmington, DE 19899
CIRESI LLP (302) 888-0600
2800 LaSalle Plaza
800 LaSalle Avenue ‘
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 349-8500
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ST. CLAIR
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
CONSULTANTS, INC.
2 In fact, St. Clair served interrogatories and doctunent requests related to the ownership issue today, Jtme 24, 2005.
48863 v1

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF Document 48 Filed 06/24/2005 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, George H. Seitz, III, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 24th day of June 2005, I
electronically tiled the following document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF which will
send notification of such filing to counsel of record.
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF TO DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG, MATSUSHITA, NOKIA,
JVC, AND HEWLETT-PACKARD IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO BIFURCATE
AND EXPEDITIOUSLY PROCEED WITH THE OWNERSHIP ISSUE
IN THE PRESENT ACTION
/s/ George ; • 7 r
I jl£—fA€/_ »
George , Seitz, ’ i?Qo. it )
[email protected]
48469vl