Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv—00876-GIVIS Document 337 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 1 of 2
ASHBY & GEDDES
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW TELEPHONE
soo DELAWARE AVENUE 3°2`°°4"°°°
FACSIMILE
P. O. BOX I|5O QQ2-$54-2067
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899
April 26, 2007
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
United States District Court
844 King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 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. 04-876-GMS
Dear Judge Sleet:
I am writing in response to the defendants’ request that they each be afforded three
peremptory challenges during jury selection for the trial of the above actions (DI 344).
Telcordia opposes the request because it is unfair to Telcordia and inconsistent with the
manner in which the defendants have litigated this matter. Although the defendants’ letter relies
heavily on the self-evident point that Lucent and Cisco are separate entities, it conveniently
ignores the fact that they have been working cooperatively with each other throughout the course
of this litigation, acting as a single team in defense of Telcordia’s claims. Indeed, last June,
when Telcordia proposed that the parties request a one-week extension of the Court’s deadline to
submit opening expert reports (to allow the parties to digest the Coru*t’s claim construction order,
which had been issued the day before), and then contacted the Court to make the request after
only Cisco responded to its request, Lucent’s counsel took Telcordia to task for treating the
defendants as if they were separate parties: "Your statement is hard to understand given the
Defendants’ consistent course of not sending repetitive responses to requests posed to all
[defendants]." See June 23, 2006 email from Steven Cherny to John G. Day, attached as Exhibit
A (emphasis added). The defendants cannot have it both ways; insisting on being treated as
cooperative parties when it benefits them, but as separate parties when it does not.
The defendants’ reliance on Stumbler v. RSA Security, Inc. etal, C.A. No. 01 -65-SLR
(2003), is also misplaced, as that case involved multiple defendants who did not act as
cooperatively as the defendants have throughout this case. In fact, the defendants in Stumbler
appear to have prepared for separate trials up until the actual day of trial. (See Exhibit A to D.I.
344, transcript at pp. 3-4).

Case 1 :04-cv—00876-GIVIS Document 337 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
April 19, 2007
Page 2
For the reasons set forth above, Telcordia respectfully opposes the defendants’ request,
and asks instead that peremptory challenges be treated as the Court instructed at the pretrial
conference.
Respectfully,
/s/ John G. Day
John G. Day
J GD/mnl
Attachment
180012.1
cc: Donald R. Dunner, Esquire (via electronic mail; w/attachment)
John W. Shaw, Esquire (by hand, and via electronic mail; w/attachment)
Steven C. Chemy, Esquire (via electronic mail; w/ attachment)
David A. Nelson, Esquire (via electronic mail; w/attachment)
Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esquire (by hand, and via electronic mail; w/attachment)
Edward R. Reines, Esquire (via electronic mail; w/attachment)