Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00305-SLR Document 89 Filed 08/01 /2005 Page 1 of 2
Youuo CoNAwAv STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP ‘
§§}é%?$LS¥t2“°A" %%2§‘?Jai€2£"“ THE BRANDYWINE BUILDING %t2:ti¥‘§.§r2>‘ ELAK §é;%;*;$sFt;§€:E“‘
SHELDON N. sAs¤LER NErLL1 MULLEN WALSH 1000 WEST STREET 17TH FLQOR sem M. BEACH JOSEPH A. MALmA¤:o
RICHARD A. LEVINE JANET Z. CHARLTON ’ DONALD J . BowsrAN, JR. GLEKN C. M.Ar~1:>A1.As
RICHARD A. ZAPPA ROBERTS. BJLADY WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801 Txsiomv P. CA1i>.· FREDERICK W. Jossr JOEL A. VVAITE Cutzris J. Cnowmmz MICHAEL W. McDEm»1or·r
$$**8 ‘$¢€é$§ E"§?§t°p?$‘£é2 PO B°X39l %§`%’§2$§§é‘§°‘B“““* %l§ Jo—sEi¤Ii~1x1iN1cHoLsoN Ciuio D. CREAR I WU-"’“NGTON~ DEL*“VA*‘E 198990391 J. Exos D. Eos: MUI"I`A.\lAE.A-YVALKER
CRAIG A. KAi>.si~:1Tz TIMOTHY JAY HousEA1. 307) 5716600 JAN S.Fr=.EoER1cxs JENNIFER R. NoEL
BAxRY xi. WILLOUGHBY BRENDAN Lum-1AN SHANNON ( - " JAMES J. GALLAGHER JOHN J. PAscuErro
Josy W. INGERSOLL smarts s. LESSNER (800) 253-2234 (DE ONLY) DANIELLE Grass Ar>A·»iw.Po1=1=
ANTHONY G. Ftwm PAULJNE K. NIORGAN FAX; (302) 5714253 ALISONG.I\1.GOODMAN Seri-1 J. REIDENBERG
JEROME K. Gnossm.-oz C. BARR FLJM: SEAN T. GREECHER rruxcxs J. SCHASNE
?““E*?.‘1s ‘¥F5i"t$° E2E%‘*éBLS’$S.a _‘””` §i&1ii“rB%E§’”° i}iE3‘i'gi?»“§$§`5éE£a1»
ifdd‘EJzrL.fruos1.As A Jox-is W. SHAW I W“0)'—YOUNGCON·A))’·AY·CO*'l Rici~1Aiu>`s. JULIE JoHwE.TiiAcEv
""“‘*`*E”‘§‘*“““°" t`\"?i‘}‘ 22%*5% "" Eiiiéiifttfius %£?§‘§%“:€l€s£?$t‘2?2i%T¤HT
g§u?:TEH1i. SILYE-F?§`?ElN Jsiidx-iAEi. J(.NEs:ron DIRECT DIAL? (302) 571*6689 Enxiunm ikoslsiowsxr SHARON Stzteo A
E’iLL1.§i;_V. Bowsggz ESSQEEEE Diner FAX; (302) 576-3334 Joes C. KUFFEL
Rifiiis .§‘$?€I§aim.iR. Smmasiy JS¤¤w@>*¤St·¤¤m $1>Ec1ALCou>:sEL OF COUNSEL
NIELANIE K. SHARP JoHN T. DoRsEY Jeux D. MCLAUGHLIN, JR. STUART B. YOUNG _
CAssA:m1LA F. Roaeizrs M. BLAKE CLEARY E1.EwA C. NORMAN (NY ONLY) E¤wAm:• B. MAwwELu. 2**
PATRICIA A. wionoss
August 1, 2005
BY CM/ECF AND HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
United States District Court"` i ” A ‘
844 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: DeKalb Corp. v. Syngenta Seeds, [nc., No. 05-355-SLR
Monsanto v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., No. 04-305-SLR
Dear Chief Judge Robinson:
We are submitting this letter to briefly explain Syngenta’ s request for bifurcation of damages
and willful infringement, and for an early motion for summary judgment, as set forth in the proposed
Scheduling Order submitted Friday. Monsanto and DeKalb refused to include this brief explanation
and we are, accordingly submitting our explanation under separate cover.
Syngenta proposes bifurcation for three reasons. First, Monsanto and DeKalb only com-
pleted their document production in response to Syngenta’s initial document requests on July 8,
2005, even though the scheduling order in the 04-305-SLR action required completion of document
production on or before March 18, 2005. Monsanto produced fully one—half of its documents after
the cut-off, and one-quarter of its documents between June 1 and July 8. This late production is sig-
niticantly impairing Syngenta’s ability to prepare for and to take even the technical depositions be-
fore the discovery cut—off of September 30, 2005.
Second, consolidation ofthe DeKalb and Monsanto actions adds two patents to the litigation,
for a total of three to be tried. Bifurcation of damages and willful infringement will aid in making a
coherent presentation to the jury in the time originally allotted for trial. Third, Syngenta recently
consented to plaintiffs’ request to add a ninth defendant to the litigation. Accordingly, to maintain
the May 30, 2006, trial date and the remaining schedule, Syngenta proposes bifurcating issues of
damages and willful infringement.
In addition, as was permitted in the original scheduling order in the 04-3 05-SLR action,
Syngenta proposes (under {T 7) that it be permitted to tile an early summary judgment motion for
non-infringement of the two patents involved in the DeKalb action, U.S. Patent Nos. U.S. Patent

Case 1:04-cv-00305-SLR Document 89 Filed 08/O1/2005 Page 2 of 2
YoUNc CoNAwAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP ` ‘
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
August 1, 2005
Page 2
Nos. 6,013,863 ("the ’863 patent") or 5,538,880 ("the ’880 patent"). The independent claims of
these two patents recite processes for transforming com using a "bombardment" approach.
Syngenta—as admitted by DeKalb—-—has never used such a "bombardment" approach to prepare
GA21 corn. DeKalb, nevertheless, argues that Syngenta infringes certain dependent claims in these
two patents. Syngenta argues, as a matter of law, that it cannot infringe dependent claims where it
has not infringed the corresponding independent claims, particularly where the steps of the
independent claims were not carried out during the term of the patent. Thus, Syngenta believes the
infringement inquiry for the ’863 and ’880 patents turns on pure questions of law that are
appropriately resolved on summary judgment.
We thank Your Honor for your consideration in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
/iCil\i\ g{é{g,ry44:.MA¤1Dk*J<$
John W. Shaw (M +*32)
(No. 3362)
JWS:pt
cc: Clerk of the Court (by hand delivery)
Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire (by hand delivery and CM/ECP)

Case 1:04-cv-00305-SLR

Document 89

Filed 08/01/2005

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00305-SLR

Document 89

Filed 08/01/2005

Page 2 of 2