Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01338-JJF Document 374 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 1 of 2
Potter
Anderson
Corroon t.u>
l3l3 North llrltukct Street
PO. Box 95}
\‘lilmEngru:1, DE t9S99-0951
392 99+ 6009 Philip A. Revncr
\V\\r`W’ 0lil‘l'l3!ld0l"i0l'l CDH] Partner
{ i ri [J2`GVl'EBl`@'_][}C)llCTZ1Iill{3{'$[)i`1 COIN
302 984-6l40 Direct Phone
302 658-i l92 Fax
March 24, 2006
BY E-FILE
The Honorable Kent A, Jordan
United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
U.S. Courthouse
844 King Street
Wilmington, Delaware i980l
Re: Honeywell International, Inc., er ol., v. Apple Computer, Inc., el rz!. ,
D. Del., CA. No, 04—l33S—KAJ
Honeywell International Inc, , at al. v., Audiovox Communications Corp, ct nl.
D- Del., C.A. No. 04-1337-KAJ
Optrex America, Inc, v. Honeywell International Inc., et nl.,
D. Del., C.A. No. 04·-l536~I Dear Qludge Jordan:
I write on behalf of the Manufacturer Defendants in response to Mr. Grimm’s
letter of earlier today enclosing Honeyweil’s proposed Scheduling Order.
I~·ioneywell’s unilateral submission of its proposal is unfortunate. Counsel for
Honeywell circulated its proposal to the Manufacturer Defendants following the March 13
teleconference with the court; however, at no time did Honeywell’s counsel propose a date by
which it intended to submit its proposed order, much less suggest a date by which it wished to
receive comments from defendants.
Notwithstanding l·loneywell’s continued refusal to appreciate the difficulties
associated with attempting to coordinate a single response from such a large group ofdefendants,
l am pleased to report that there are very few differences between the Manufacturer Defendants’
proposed Scheduling Order and the one submitted by Honeywell earlier today. Had Honeywell
had the courtesy to communicate with Defendants prior to submitting its proposed order, perhaps
even those few differences could have been resolved.

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF Document 374 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
March 24, .2006
Page 2
Regardless, on behalf ofthe Manufacturer Defendants, we enclose for Your
Honor’s review and approval the Manufacturer Det`endants’ Scheduling Order proposal and a
marked version showing the differences between the parties’ competing proposals. As the Court
will note, the only differences between the Manufacturer Defendants’ proposed Order and
plaintiffs’ proposal can be found in paragraphs 9, 16 and 18. We believe that the Manufacturer
Defer1dants’ proposals for those paragraphs more closely reflect the guidance Your Honor
provided during the March l3 teleconference. Most significantly, we believe that, with respect
to the Trial (il 18), the Court specifically limited the trial to issues of validity and enforceability.
The Manufacturer Det`endants’ proposal, which statesjust that, best reflects Your Honor’s
directive.
Respectfully,
Philip A. Rovner
[email protected]
PAR/mes/725124
Enc.
cc: All Local Counsel of Record — By ECP