`
`PHILLIPS, GOLDMAN, MCLAUGHLIN & HALL, P.A.
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`JOHN C. PHILLIPS, JR. PENNSYLVANIA AVE. AND BROOM ST.
`ROBERT S. GOLDMAN 1200 N. BROOM STREET
`LISA C. MCLAUGHLIN
`
`
` WILMINGTON, DE 19806
`JAMES P. HALL ___________
`DAVID A. BILSON
`MEGAN C. HANEY
`
`
` (302) 655-4200 (P)
`
`
`
`
`
` (302) 655-4210 (F)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`August 24, 2016
`
`
`VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`United States District Court for the District of Delaware
`844 N. King Street
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`
`
`
`Re: Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., C.A. No. 16-116 (RGA)
`
`Dear Judge Andrews,
`
`Sound View Innovations, LLC submits this letter in connection with the discovery
`
`dispute conference scheduled for August 26, 2016 at 11:00 am. The dispute concerns a
`restriction that was inadvertently included in the Scheduling Order regarding Sound View’s
`initial infringement contentions—specifically, the last sentence of paragraph 3(a)(iii)—which
`provides: “No more than 20 total claims shall be asserted by Plaintiff.” (D.I. 21). Sound View
`respectfully requests that the Court strike that provision because it was not actually agreed to by
`Sound View, and is over-limiting and unfair at this stage of the case.
`
`Facebook included the 20-claim restriction in the Scheduling Order, but the parties never
`discussed the restriction, and Sound View never specifically agreed to it. Had Facebook brought
`it to Sound View’s attention, Sound View would not have agreed to a 20-claim limit at the outset
`of this seven patent case; it does not make sense, and is particularly unfair given that Sound
`View specifically identified 49 infringed claims in its Complaint. Nor is it fair to limit the
`number of claims that Sound View may assert for infringement without also limiting the number
`of prior art references on which Facebook may rely for invalidity.
`
`Sound View told Facebook that the restriction was inadvertently included and sought to
`resolve the issue without Court intervention. But Facebook will not agree to remove the 20-
`claim restriction, or even to increase the claim limit to 49 claims—the number of claims
`specifically listed in the Complaint.
`
`The scheduling conference was held on June 3, 2016, and the parties are in the very early
`stages of fact discovery. If the Court is interested in having a broader discussion regarding
`streamlining the case, Sound View welcomes a comprehensive trial management discussion,
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 42 Filed 08/24/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 709
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`
`Page 2
`August 24, 2016
`although Sound View believes that discussion would be more productive after the conclusion of
`fact discovery. For the foregoing reasons, Sound View respectfully submits that the last sentence
`of paragraph 3(a)(iii) of the Scheduling Order should be stricken.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ John C. Phillips, Jr.
`
`John C. Phillips, Jr. (No. 110)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`All counsel of record (via CM/ECF & email)
`
`
`
`
`
`cc:
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
