Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03117/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03117-53/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

sf-2430057

Writer’s Direct Contact

415.268.6615

JasonBartlett@mofo.com

425 MARKET STREET

SAN FRANCISCO

CALIFORNIA 94105-2482

TELEPHONE: 415.268.7000

FACSIMILE: 415.268.7522

WWW.MOFO.COM

MO RRI SO N & F O E RST E R L L P N E W YO R K , SA N F R A N C I SC O , L O S A N G E L E S, P A L O A L T O , SA N D I E G O , WA SH I N G T O N , D .C . N O RT H E R N V I R G I N I A , O R A N G E C O U N T Y, D E N V E R, SA C R A ME N T O , WA L N U T C RE E K

T O K YO , L O N D O N , BE I JI N G , SH A N G H A I , H O N G K O N G , SI N G A P O RE , BR U SSE L S November 30, 2007

By Messenger

Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., et al. v. Roche Diagnostics Corp., et al.

Case No. 05-3117 MJJ

Dear Magistrate Judge Zimmerman:

Defendants are in receipt of the Court’s order of yesterday sustaining Defendants’ objections 

to Abbott’s response to Bayer’s interrogatory regarding the location of the “measurement 

zone.” The Court agreed that “Abbott still has failed to identify precisely where it contends 

the measurement zone is located” in the accused devices. As a remedy, the Court struck a 

portion of Abbott’s amended interrogatory answer. 

Defendants write to request that the Court clarify its ruling by also striking the words “the 

relevant portion of” from page 3, line 1, and the words “an area that includes” from page 3, 

line 7. Defendants are concerned that, like the language that the Court has ordered Abbott to 

strike, this language also renders Abbott’s contention regarding the location of the 

measurement zone imprecise. Abbott could rely on this ambiguous language as an “escape 

route from its interrogatory answer” in contravention of this Court’s order of October 26. 

Counsel for Abbott represented both in its letter of November 20 and during the telephonic 

hearing that this language only “refers to the additional area that would be included in the 

measurement zone under Defendants’ interpretation . . .” See Abbott’s Letter of November 

20 at 2. As the Court held yesterday, however, any discussion of Abbott’s view of 

Defendants’ contentions is unnecessary, nonresponsive and argumentative. Defendants met 

and conferred with Abbott regarding the additional changes requested in this letter, but the 

parties were unable to reach an agreement 

Defendants thank the Court for its attention in this matter. 

Sincerely,

Jason R. Bartlett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

DENIED

Judge Bernard Zimmerman

Dated: 12/6/2007

Case 3:05-cv-03117-WHA Document 631 Filed 12/06/07 Page 1 of 1