Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 54.4 kB
Pages: 2
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 406 Words, 2,518 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8228/338-1.pdf

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 54.4 kB)


Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1 :04-cv—00876-GIVIS Document 338 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 1 of 2
Moknrs, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
1201 N ORTH MARKET STREET
P.O. Box 1347
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899-1347
302 658 9200
302 658 3989 FAX
JACK B. BLUMENEELD
302 351 9291
302 425 8012 FAX
_jblume¤[email protected] 26,
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet VIA E-FILING
United States District Count
for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: T elcordia Technologies, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.
C.A. No. 04-875 (GMS)
T elcordia Technologies, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
C.A. No. O4-876 (GMS)
Dear Judge Sleet:
At the March 30, 2007 Pretrial Conference, there was a discussion of revisions to
the Preliminary Jury Instructions. At Your Honor’s urging, the parties agreed to revisit the
disputed instructions and attempt to reach an agreement as to the form. The two disputed issues
were the definition of prior art in the "Parts of a Patent" instruction, and the presentation of
disputed issues in the "Summary Of The Patent Issues" instruction. Early this week, Defendants
provide counsel for Telcordia with a "redline" doctunent reflecting their proposal as to these two
disputes; in both cases, Defendants made minor textual edits to Telcordia’s proposed instruction
in an effort to achieve the objectives agreed upon at the Pretrial Conference. Although
Defendants requested that Telcordia respond promptly with its views on their proposal,
, Defendants have not heard back from Telcordia.
Because the jury will be selected and preliminarily charged tomorrow morning,
Defendants are providing the Court with their proposed language. Accordingly, we attach for the
Court’s convenience: (1) a redline reflecting Defendants’ proposed changes as sent to Telcordia
earlier this week (Ex. A); and (2) a clean copy of the preliminary jury instructions without the

Case 1 :04-cv—00876-GIVIS Document 338 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
April 26, 2007
Page 2
parties’ objections (Ex. B). We are also hand delivering a CD containing a WordPerfect version
of these documents.
Respectfully,
aca Ml
ck B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
JBB/dlb
Enclosure
cc: Clerk of Court (by hand; w/ encl.)
Steven J. Balick, Esquire (by e-mail and hand; w/ encl.)
John W. Shaw, Esquire (by e-mail and hand; w/ encl.)
John Williamson, Esquire (by e—mail; w/ encl.)
Steven Cherny, Esquire (by e-mail; w/ encl.)
Edward R. Reines, Esquire (by e-mail; w/ encl.)
812140.1