Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF Document 1098 Filed 07/25/2008 Page 1 012
Potter
i , Anderson
l David E. Moore
Attorney at Law
1313 North Market Street [email protected]
P.O. Box 951 302 984-6147 Direct Phone
Wilmington, DE 19899-0951 302 6584192 Fax
302 984-6000
WWW.{)i‘ltt€¥3Hd€FSOH.C0fH
July 25, 2008
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
Blank Rome LLP
Chase Manhattan Centre, Suite 800
1201 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et ai.,
C.A. No. 04-1338-JIF gCensolidated)
Dear Judge Poppiti:
On behalf of Dell, this letter replies to I—Ioneywel1's letter of July 18th concerning the
dismissal of Dell from this litigation. Like many of the Affected Defendants, all of Dell’s
manufacturers of Accused Products have been licensed. These licenses between Honeywell and
Del1‘s manufacturers are clear on their face—and inure to the benefit of the manufacturers
customers, like Dell. The letters submitted today by Apple and Sony aptly address licensing
issues that are cornmon to all customer defendants, and Bell agrees with and joins the positions
set forth in those letters.
As previously noted it its letter of July 18th, Deli has agreed to provide a declaration
verifying the manufactures of De11’s accused products. The only apparent point of disagreement
between Honeywell and Dell is who should bear the burden of obtaining a declaration from the
manufacturers that Honeywell has licensed under the patents-in-suit. Honeywell alone is in the
position to judge whether the declarations are sufficient to meet its needs and Honeywell alone
should bear the burden of obtaining those assurances from the manufacturers. That said, Dell is
certainly willing to engage its manufacturers in a dialogue about this matter and assist Honeywell
in obtaining the necessary declarations. In fact, Dell has already contacted each manufacturer in
an effort to facilitate these discussions however, Dell is limited in its ability to obtain
manufacturer assurances where Honeywell will judge the sufficiency of the assurances. Because

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF Document 1098 Filed 07/25/2008 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Vincent I. Poppiti
July 25, 2008
Page 2
Honeywell negotiated the licenses, Honeywell is in the best position, not Dell or the other
Affected Defendants, to negotiate and obtain these declarations.
Respectfully,
/s/ David E. Moore
David E. Moore
DEWmsb
376083 /28596
cc: Clerk ofthe Court (via hand delivery)
All Counsel ofReco1*d (via electronic mail)