Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv—00876-GIVIS Document 146 Filed 05/01 /2006 Page 1 of 2
Asn-nav & GEDDES
ATTORNEYS AND c0uNsELL0Rs AT LAW TELEPHONE
302-654-IBOB
222 DELAWARE AVENUE
FACSIMILI
P. O. BOX lI5O aoz-e¤4-zoo?
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE |9899
May 1, 2006
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
United States District Court
844 King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: Telcordia Technologies, Inc. v. Alcatel S.A. and Alcatel USA, Inc.,
C.A. No. 04-874-GMS
Telcordia 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 Delaware counsel to Telcordia, plaintiff in the above three cases, in which a
combined all-day Markman hearing has been scheduled to take place at 10:00 a.m. this
Wednesday, May 3, 2006. I am writing to respectfully seek Your Honor’s guidance regarding
how the Court will allocate time to the parties at Wednesday’s hearing.
The three defendants in these cases are taking shared positions on claim construction
issues, and their briefing was a collaborative effort in which they divided up the issues and
briefed everything collectively — with each defendant briefing certain assigned issues, and the
others simply relying on those submissions rather than offering their own separate versions.
Although defense counsel presumably will split up presentation duties at the hearing as well, the
defendants essentially speak with one voice and will present a single harmonized defense
position on all issues, without overlapping presentations by multiple defendants on the same
issues.
Although we have no co-parties with which to divide duties in briefing or arguing the
issues, Telcordia similarly will be making a presentation on all claim construction issues in all
three cases. Accordingly, since Telcordia will present the plaintiffs position on all issues in all
three cases on the one hand, and defense counsel collectively will present a single, unified
defense position on all issues in all three cases on the other hand, we respectfully submit that the
time should be divided on a 50/50 basis, with half allocated to Telcordia and half allocated to the
defendants collectively. If no defendant is presenting a position on every issue, then there is no
reason why every defendant needs an amount of time equal to what Telcordia needs.

Case 1 :04-cv—OO876-GIVIS Document 146 Filed 05/O1/2006 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
May l, 2006
Page 2
Conversely, if the time is divided into four equal parts (one for Telcordia and one for each
defendant), then Telcordia will not possibly be able to cover many of the issues, and the Cotut
will not have the benefit of presentations by both sides on all issues. We therefore believe that
half the available time should be allotted to Telcordia, as would occur if these three cases had
separate Markman hearings rather than a single combined hearing.
Defendants hopefully will not disagree with the foregoing reasoning, but since raising the
issue with them on April 27th, we still have not received any response. With the hearing nearly
upon us, we did not feel we could wait any longer without seeking the Court’s guidance. As we
finalize our preparations, we would be most grateful if Your Honor please could let the parties
know how the Court wishes to proceed, so that no one is caught by surprise on the morning of
the hearing.
Respectfully,
/s/ Steven Ji Balick
Steven J. Balick
SJ B/dmf
169053.1
cz Josy W. Ingersoll, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Stuart J. Sinder, Esquire (via electronic mail)
John W. Shaw, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Steven C. Cherny, Esquire (via electronic mail)
David A. Nelson, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Matthew D. Powers, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Donald R. Dunner, Esquire (via electronic mail)