Free Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD., Plaintiff, v. CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS CORPORATION; CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS USA, INC.; AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION; AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA; TATUNG COMPANY; TATUNG COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.; AND VIEWSONIC CORPORATION, Defendants. PLAINTIFF LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT VIEWSONIC CORPORATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS June 15, 2007 THE BAYARD FIRM Richard D. Kirk Ashley B. Stitzer 222 Delaware Avenue, 9th Floor P.O. Box 25130 Wilmington, DE 19899-5130 (302) 655-5000 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. OF COUNSEL: Gaspare J. Bono R. Tyler Goodwin Lora A. Brzezynski McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1900 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 496-7500 Civil Action No.06-726-JJF

663001-1

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 2 of 17

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. II. III. IV. V. NATURE & STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING .................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .................................................................... 1 COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................ 3 LEGAL STANDARDS ......................................................................................... 4 ARGUMENT......................................................................................................... 5 A. B. C. D. E. The Complaint Satisfies the Liberal Notice Requirements........................ 5 The Complaint Is More Detailed Than the Official Federal Form for a Patent Infringement Case .................................................................. 6 There Is No Requirement that the Complaint Identify Specific Accused Products....................................................................................... 7 The Complaint Sufficiently Alleges Inducement of Infringement .......... 10 Recent Patent Infringement Complaints Filed By ViewSonic's CoDefendants Against LG.Philips Do Not Identify Infringing Products.................................................................................................... 11 ViewSonic's Attempts to Bootstrap Rule 11 Into a Rule 12 Motion Are Inappropriate and Should Be Disregarded........................................ 12

F. VI.

CONCLUSION.................................................................................................... 13

-i663001-1

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 3 of 17

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page

CASES Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Micromuse, Inc., No. 04 Civ. 3090, 2004 WL 2346152 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2004) ................................ 10 Applera Corp. v. Thermo Electron Corp., Civ. A. No. 04-1230, 2005 WL 524589 (D. Del. Feb. 25, 2005) ............................... 5, 9 Catapano v. Wyeth Ayerst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 2d 27 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) .............................................................................. 11 Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957).......................................................................................................... 4 DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................ 4, 11 Emory Univ. v. Nova BioGenetics, Inc., Civ. A. No. 1:06-CV-0141, 2006 WL 2708635 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 20, 2006) ................. 11 Gen-Probe, Inc. v. Amoco Corp., 926 F. Supp. 948 (S.D. Cal. 1996).......................................................................... 10, 11 Jackson v. Ill. Bell Tele. Co., No. 01 C 8001, 2002 WL 1466796 (N.D. Ill. July 8, 2002) ..................................... 8, 11 LG Elec., Inc. v. Asustek Computers, 126 F. Supp. 2d 414 (E.D. Va. 2000) ............................................................................. 8 MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon, Corp., 420 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................ 4, 11 Ondeo Nalco Co. v. EKA Chem., Inc., Civ. A. No. 01-537, 2002 WL 1458853 (D. Del. June 10, 2002)............................. 9, 10 Pa. Psychiatric Soc'y v. Green Spring Health Servs., Inc., 280 F.2d 278 (3d Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................... 5 Phonometrics, Inc. v. Hospitality Franchise Sys., Inc., 203 F.3d 790 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................................... 5, 6

-ii663001-1

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 4 of 17

Rollins Envtl. Servs. (FS), Inc. v. Wright, 738 F. Supp. 150 (D. Del. 1990)..................................................................................... 6 Soli-Tech, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., C.A. No. 91-CV-10232-BC, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19602 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 25, 1993) ............................................ 7 Symbol Tech., Inc. v. Hand Held Prods., Inc., Civ. A. No. 03-102, 2003 WL 22750145 (D. Del. Nov. 14, 2003) ...................... 2, 8, 12 STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .......................................................................................................... 12 35 U.S.C. § 100................................................................................................................... 4 RULES Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) ............................................................................................................. 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ........................................................................................................... 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.......................................................................................................... 2, 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)....................................................................................................... 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 84................................................................................................................ 6

-iii663001-1

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 5 of 17

Plaintiff LG.Philips LCD Co., LTD. ("LG.Philips") respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to Defendant ViewSonic Corporation's ("ViewSonic") Motion to Dismiss ("ViewSonic's Motion"). I. NATURE & STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING On April 6, 2007, ViewSonic filed a Motion to Stay and Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement. (D.I. 23.) ViewSonic then withdrew the motion. (D.I. 35.) On May 1, 2007, ViewSonic moved again as to the same issues, but this time in three separate motions: first, a Motion to Stay (D.I. 37), to which LG.Philips has already filed an Answering Brief (D.I. 52); second, a Motion for a More Definite Statement (D.I. 39), to which LG.Philips has also filed an Answering Brief (D.I. 51); and third, the instant Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 41). II. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 1. Rather than a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6), ViewSonic's Motion suggests, at most, a request for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e). Indeed, as noted above, ViewSonic also filed a Rule 12(e) motion addressing (often verbatim) the same perceived failures with LG.Philips's Complaint as this Rule 12(b) motion. Both motions should be denied for the reasons set forth below and in LG.Philips's response to the other ("alternative") motion. (D.I. 51.) 2. ViewSonic's Motion should be denied because it ignores (a) the federal

notice pleading standards, (b) the presumptive sufficiency of the model patent infringement complaint in the Appendix of Forms for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and (c) the fact that discovery ­ not a Rule 12 motion ­ is the proper vehicle for obtaining additional detail regarding a plaintiff's claims.

1
663001-1

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 6 of 17

3.

ViewSonic's primary argument is that LG.Philips's Complaint is

somehow flawed under Rule 12 because it does not identify specific products accused of infringing the patents in suit. ViewSonic does not, however, even acknowledge that this precise argument has been rejected in this District. See Symbol Tech., Inc. v. Hand Held Prods., Inc., Civ. A. No. 03-102, 2003 WL 22750145, at *3 (D. Del. Nov. 14, 2003) (D.J., Robinson). 4. ViewSonic sprinkles its Rule 12 motion with various references to Rule

11. However, in Symbol Technologies, which ViewSonic ­ ironically ­ fails to cite to the Court, Judge Robinson explicitly rejected "attempts to bootstrap Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 requirements into Rule 8." Id. at *3 n.1. 5. Finally, the lack of merit to ViewSonic's Motion is reflected in the

pleading practices of ViewSonic's own co-defendants. Just last week, for example, AU Optronics Corporation ("AUO") filed an answer with the Court to the very allegations that ViewSonic claims are so vague it is impossible to frame a response. (D.I. 72.) Additionally, since LG.Philips's Complaint was filed, Defendants AUO and Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation ("CMO") have filed patent infringement complaints against LG.Philips in other jurisdictions. Neither identifies specific accused products.

III.

COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS On December 1, 2006, LG.Philips filed suit against ViewSonic and five other

Defendants for infringement of the patents in suit. (D.I. 1.) At issue is LG.Philips's 2
663001-1

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 7 of 17

patent rights related to semiconductor and liquid crystal display ("LCD") backplane technology, in particular United States Patent No. 5,019,002 ("the `002 patent"), United States Patent No. 5,825,449 ("the `449 patent"), and United States Patent No. 4,624,737 ("the `737 patent") (collectively, "LG.Philips's patents in suit"). LG.Philips's patents in suit are very detailed, described in the Complaint, and attached as exhibits thereto. (D.I. 1, ¶¶ 17-19 & Exs. A-C.) As the Complaint explains, "[t]he technology at issue involves the design and manufacture of Liquid Crystal Display modules (`LCDs'), which are a type of flat panel display that are incorporated into at least LCD portable computers, LCD computer monitors, and LCD televisions." (D.I. 1, ¶ 3.) "LG.Philips has invested substantial time and money in designing, developing, manufacturing and producing LCD products that incorporate [this] patented LCD technology." (D.I. 1, ¶ 22.) The Complaint further states that LG.Philips is the owner of each patent. (D.I. 1, ¶¶ 1, 17-20 & Exs. A-C.) The Complaint clearly identifies each Defendant, including ViewSonic and manufacturing defendants, and for each patent in suit alleges that Defendants infringe by "making, using, causing to be used, offering to sell, causing to be offered for sale, selling, causing to be sold, importing, and/or causing to be imported products that are made by a method that infringes one or more claims of the [identified patent] in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States." (D.I. 1, ¶¶ 5-10, 24, 32, 37, 42.) The Complaint further explains that the action is being brought "under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq., and in particular §§ 271, 281, 283, 284 and 285." (D.I. 1, ¶ 11.)

3
663001-1

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 8 of 17

Finally, the Complaint alleges that "Defendants have, upon information and belief, infringed and are infringing the [patents in suit] with knowledge of LG.Philips' patent rights and without a reasonable basis for believing their conduct is lawful," and that such infringement "has been and continues to be willful and deliberate." (D.I. ¶¶ 35, 40, 45.) IV. LEGAL STANDARDS Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires only that a complaint contain a "short, plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." A complaint is not required to allege affirmatively every aspect of the claims, but only to present sufficient facts to allow the opposing party to conduct discovery and prepare a defense. E.g., Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-48 (1957). Under Rule 9(b), "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally." For a claim of inducement of infringement, a patentee may establish specific intent, inter alia, by showing that the accused infringer knew of the patent. E.g., DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2006); MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon, Corp., 420 F.3d 1369, 1378 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. When considering such a motion, the Court must accept as true all allegations in the complaint and must draw all reasonable factual inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. The burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted rests on the movant. E.g., Pa. Psychiatric Soc'y v. Green Spring Health Servs., Inc., 280 F.2d 278, 283 (3d Cir. 2002). 4
663001-1

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 9 of 17

V.

ARGUMENT A. The Complaint Satisfies the Liberal Notice Requirements

"The Rule 8 standard does not change in an action for patent infringement." Applera Corp. v. Thermo Electron Corp., Civ. A. No. 04-1230, 2005 WL 524589, at *1 n.1 (D. Del. Feb. 25, 2005) (D.J., Sleet). As the Federal Circuit has explained, "a patentee need only plead facts sufficient to place the alleged infringer on notice." Phonometrics, Inc. v. Hospitality Franchise Sys., Inc., 203 F.3d 790, 794 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Therefore, in Phonometrics, the Federal Circuit reversed a dismissal of a patent infringement complaint because: Phonometrics' complaint alleges ownership of the asserted patent, names each individual defendant, cites the patent that is allegedly infringed, describes the means by which the defendants allegedly infringe, and points to the specific sections of the patent law invoked. Thus, Phonometrics' complaint contains enough detail to allow the defendants to answer. Id. 1 Consistent with Phonometrics, LG.Philips's Complaint contains each of these five allegations. First, the Complaint alleges ownership of the patents in suit. (D.I. 1, ¶¶ 1, 17-20) Second, it clearly identifies ViewSonic (and other parties) as Defendants. (D.I. 1, ¶¶ 5-10.) Third, it clearly identifies the three patents in suit (D.I. 1, ¶¶ 1, 17-19) and appends complete copies of the `002, `449, and `737 patents. (D.I. 1, Exs. A-C). Fourth, for each of these patents, the Complaint (as quoted above) describes the means by which Defendants are alleged to have infringed each patent. (D.I. 1, ¶¶ 32, 37, 42.) Fifth, the

1

ViewSonic never mentions the widely cited Phonometrics in its opening brief.

5
663001-1

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 10 of 17

Complaint states that it is invoking Title 35 of the United States Code and "in particular §§ 271, 281, 283, 284 and 285." (D.I. 1, ¶ 11.) According to the Federal Circuit, "Rule 12(b)(6) requires no more." Phonometrics, 203 F.3d at 794. B. The Complaint Is More Detailed Than the Official Federal Form for a Patent Infringement Case

The illustrative forms appended to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are exemplars of the "short and plain statement of the claim" required by Rule 8(a). The Federal Rules themselves codify the sufficiency of these forms: "The forms contained in the Appendix of Forms are sufficient under the rules and are intended to indicate the simplicity and brevity of statement which the rules contemplate." Fed. R. Civ. P. 84; see also Rollins Envtl. Servs. (FS), Inc. v. Wright, 738 F. Supp. 150, 155 (D. Del. 1990) (D.J., Roth) (citing Rule 84 and noting that a plaintiff "should be commended, not penalized" for following the forms). Form 16 provides, in its entirety: Form 16 ­ Complaint for Infringement of Patent. 1. 2. Allegation of jurisdiction. On May 16, 1934, United States Letters Patent No. ___ were duly and legally issued to plaintiff for an invention in an electric motor; and since that date plaintiff has been and still is the owner of those Letters Patent. Defendant has for a long time past been and still is infringing those Letters Patent by making, selling, and using electric motors embodying the patented invention, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this court. Plaintiff has placed the required statutory notice on all electric motors manufactured and sold by him under said Letters Patent, and has given written notice to defendant of his said infringement.

3.

4.

6
663001-1

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 11 of 17

Wherefore plaintiff demands a preliminary and final injunction against continued infringement, an accounting for damages, and an assessment of interest and costs against defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P., App. of Forms, Form 16. Here, LG.Philips's Complaint alleges that (1) this Court has jurisdiction, (2) LG.Philips owns the patents in suit and (3) Defendants, including ViewSonic, have infringed LG.Philips's patents in suit. (See D.I. 1, ¶¶ 11-21, 24, 32, 37, 42.) LG.Philips also has given notice of the patents in suit by, inter alia, filing the Complaint. (See D.I. 1.) ViewSonic does not, and cannot, dispute that the Complaint is as detailed as Form 16 and, on that basis alone, ViewSonic's Motion should be denied. 2 See, e.g., Soli-Tech, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., C.A. No. 91-CV-10232-BC, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19602, at *9 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 25, 1993) ("[T]he Amended Complaint provides more information than the model complaint for patent infringement suggested by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, Defendants' argument that the Complaint is insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss is, under the Federal Rules, without merit.") (citation omitted)). C. There Is No Requirement that the Complaint Identify Specific Accused Products

In light of the Federal Circuit's decision in Phonometrics and the contents of Form 16, it is not surprising that ViewSonic's Motion lacks support for its primary argument ­ that LG.Philips's Complaint should be dismissed because it does not identify specific accused products.

2

ViewSonic's opening brief is also silent as to Form 16.

7
663001-1

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 12 of 17

Indeed, numerous cases are contrary to ViewSonic's position. These decisions have upheld patent infringement complaints containing allegations similar or identical to those found in LG.Philips's Complaint. E.g., Jackson v. Ill. Bell Tele. Co., No. 01 C 8001, 2002 WL 1466796, at *3 (N.D. Ill. July 8, 2002) (holding that the averment "includes all the factual specificity that is required under the notice pleading standard," where complaint alleged "[e]ach of the defendants has infringed the patent in suit either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement"); LG Elec., Inc. v. Asustek Computers, 126 F. Supp. 2d 414, 417-18 (E.D. Va. 2000) (holding that a complaint "sets forth facts sufficient to allege a patent infringement claim," where the complaint alleged "each defendant infringed one or more claims of the patents by making, selling, offering to sell, using or importing into the United States computer systems embodying the claimed inventions of the patents"). In addition, cases from this District clearly support the sufficiency of LG.Philips's Complaint. In Symbol Technologies, for instance, the complaint alleged infringement of "one or more claims of each of the [12 asserted patents]." 2003 WL 22750145, at *2. 3 The defendant filed motions to dismiss and for a more definite statement, arguing that the complaint was "facially defective" under Rule 8(a) because it did not identify specific accused products. Id. at *3. In denying both motions, Judge Robinson observed that the moving party (as with ViewSonic here) had "failed to cite any precedent biding upon [the] court that requires a complaint to identify the basis of an infringement claim with such particularity." Id. As Judge Robinson explained: "It is established law that liberal

3

As noted in the argument summary, ViewSonic does not cite Judge Robinson's decision in Symbol Technologies.

8
663001-1

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 13 of 17

pleading requirements are designed to put the parties on notice generally as to the nature of the cause of action. . . . [I]t is through the discovery process that the parties refine and focus their claims." Id. (emphasis added) (citations omitted). The Court further noted that there were "a finite number of claims and a finite number of infringing products[, and therefore] . . . traditional mechanisms of discovery [were] the proper tools to refine the scope of [the] litigation." Id. (emphasis added). Similarly, in Applera Corp., the plaintiffs alleged infringement of a patent "directed to a mass spectrometer and a method of operating the mass spectrometer." 2005 WL 524589, at *1. In challenging the sufficiency of the complaint, the defendant argued that it could not "determine the issues in the case because the plaintiffs failed to identify which of its ninety-three mass spectrometers, in sixteen product lines, that it has manufactured since 1990 allegedly infringe[d]" the patent at issue. Id. Judge Sleet, however, rejected this argument, noting that the defendant's "desire to narrow the issues of this litigation as early on in the process as possible[] . . . [was] best achieved through the use of traditional mechanisms of discovery." Id. (emphasis added). Significantly, ViewSonic cites only one case from this jurisdiction in support of its argument. See Ondeo Nalco Co. v. EKA Chem., Inc., Civ. A. No. 01-537, 2002 WL 1458853 (D. Del. June 10, 2002) (D.J., Robinson). But Ondeo was decided by Judge Robinson over a year before she decided Symbol Technologies, discussed above. In addition, in Ondeo, the complaint, unlike the complaint here, apparently did not set forth sufficient limiting parameters regarding the scope of the products at issue. 2002 WL 1458853, at *1. By contrast, LG.Philips's Complaint sets forth limiting parameters regarding the scope of any infringing products. The Complaint, for instance, is clear that

9
663001-1

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 14 of 17

the products at issue are LCDs that are designed and manufactured using the technology covered by the patents in suit, as well as LCD products incorporating such modules, including LCD portable computers, LCD computer monitors, and LCD televisions. (D.I. 1, ¶¶ 3, 24.) The only other case cited by ViewSonic on this issue ­ Gen-Probe, Inc. v. Amoco Corp., 926 F. Supp. 948 (S.D. Cal. 1996) ­ is plainly distinguishable. Not only did the complaint there have multiple deficiencies that not even ViewSonic suggests are present here, but the case was decided before the Federal Circuit issued its leading decision in Phonometrics (discussed above). 4 Here, as shown above, the allegations in LG.Philips's Complaint are simple, direct, and concise. Indeed, co-defendant AUO has already answered LG.Philips's Complaint. (See D.I. 72.) ViewSonic ought to be able to frame a responsive pleading. In any event, LG.Philips will make the detailed disclosures that ViewSonic desires in accordance with the appropriate discovery rules. ViewSonic's attempt to bypass those rules has no merit. D. The Complaint Sufficiently Alleges Inducement of Infringement

ViewSonic's argument that LG.Philips has failed sufficiently to allege intent to induce infringement must fail. As discussed above, LG.Philips has alleged intent. (D.I. 1, ¶¶ 32, 35, 37, 40, 42, 45.) As a result, ViewSonic's argument must fail. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); DSU Med. Corp., 471 F.3d at 1304; MEMC Elec., 420 F.3d at 1378 n.4; see also
4

LG.Philips notes that one of the cases on which ViewSonic relied in its motion for a more definite statement, Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Micromuse, Inc., No. 04 Civ. 3090, 2004 WL 2346152 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2004), specifically rejected the argument that a complaint must identify infringing products in order to state a claim. 2004 WL 2346152, at *3-4 (denying Rule 12(b)(6) motion).

10
663001-1

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 15 of 17

Emory Univ. v. Nova BioGenetics, Inc., Civ. A. No. 1:06-CV-0141, 2006 WL 2708635, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 20, 2006); Jackson, 2002 WL 1466796 (denying motion to dismiss complaint alleging that "[e]ach of the defendants has infringed the patent in suit either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement"). The cases cited by ViewSonic underscore why its Motion should be denied. GenProbe does not hold that a plaintiff must specifically allege facts showing intent to induce infringement. Instead, the complaint in that case was so muddled that its allegations "even if proven, would not support a claim for inducement of infringement." 926 F. Supp. at 954-55. Similarly, in Catapano v. Wyeth Ayerst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 2d 27, 31 (E.D.N.Y. 2000), the inducement claim was dismissed because it was based solely on the defendants' knowledge that the products they distributed were being used by others in an infringing manner. 88 F. Supp. 2d at 31. Here, however, LG.Philips has alleged that ViewSonic has caused acts of infringement and acted willfully, deliberately, with knowledge of LG.Philips's patent rights, and without a reasonable basis for believing its conduct is lawful. These allegations, if proven, support a claim for inducement. E. Recent Patent Infringement Complaints Filed By ViewSonic's CoDefendants Against LG.Philips Do Not Identify Infringing Products.

On March 8, 2007, AUO filed a patent infringement complaint relating to LCD technology in the Western District of Wisconsin against LG.Philips and its subsidiary, LG.Philips LCD America, Inc. ("LG.Philips America"). (Ex. 1, AUO Compl.) 5 Then, on May 4, 2007, CMO filed a patent infringement complaint relating to LCD technology
5

Unless otherwise indicated, all exhibits referenced herein are attached to the Declaration of Richard D. Kirk, filed contemporaneously herewith.

11
663001-1

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 16 of 17

in the Eastern District of Texas against LG.Philips and LG.Philips America. (Ex. 2, CMO Compl.) 6 Neither of these patent infringement complaints identifies specific accused products. Instead, both refer to "liquid crystal display devices," "TFT-LCD panels," and "LCD modules." (See Ex. 1, AUO Compl.; Ex. 2, CMO Compl.) AUO's complaint does not even allege that LG.Philips has knowledge of the patents at issue. (See Ex. 1, AUO Compl.) LG.Philips, by contrast, has alleged this fact and more in its Complaint. F. ViewSonic's Attempts to Bootstrap Rule 11 Into a Rule 12 Motion Are Inappropriate and Should Be Disregarded

Finally, ViewSonic makes various references to Rule 11 in its Rule 12 Motion. These comments are inappropriate, inaccurate, and should disregarded. See Symbol Tech., 2003 WL 22750145, at *3 n.1 ("The court notes that [the defendant] attempts to bootstrap [Rule] 11 requirements into Rule 8, without actually alleging that [the patentee's] complaint is frivolous. In the absence of an actual motion by [the defendant] to the contrary, the court will assume that [the patentee's] counsel has complied with their ethical obligations under [Rule] 11." (citation omitted)). ViewSonic's Motion is clearly without merit and should not have been filed. Such motions are vexatious, inappropriately increase the cost of litigation, and place an undue burden on this Court's busy calendar.

In an order dated May 30, 2007, the Wisconsin court transferred AUO's case to this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). LG.Philips will also request that the Texas court transfer CMO's case.

6

12
663001-1

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 17 of 17

VI.

CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, LG.Philips respectfully requests that the Court deny

ViewSonic's Motion to Dismiss. June 15, 2007 THE BAYARD FIRM /s/ Richard D. Kirk (rk0922) Richard D. Kirk (#0922) Ashley B. Stitzer (#3891) 222 Delaware Avenue, 9th Floor P.O. Box 25130 Wilmington, DE 19899-5130 (302) 655-5000 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. OF COUNSEL: Gaspare J. Bono R. Tyler Goodwyn Lora A. Brzezynski McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1900 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 496-7500

13
663001-1

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 1 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 2 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 3 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 4 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 5 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 6 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 7 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 8 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 9 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 10 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 11 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 12 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 13 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 14 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 15 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 16 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 17 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 18 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 19 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 20 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 21 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 22 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 23 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 24 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 25 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 26 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 27 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 28 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 29 of 29

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 76-3

Filed 06/15/2007

Page 1 of 1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned counsel certifies that, on June 15, 2007, he served the foregoing documents by email and by hand upon the following counsel: Edmond D. Johnson Thomas H. Kovach Pepper Hamilton LLP 1313 Market Street, Suite 5100 PO Box 1709 Wilmington, DE 19899-1709 Karen L. Pascale John W. Shaw Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street, 17th Floor P.O. Box 391 Wilmington, DE 19899-0391 William E. Manning Jennifer M. Becnel-Guzzo Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street, Suite 1410 Wilmington, DE 19801

Philip A. Rovner Dave E. Moore Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP 1313 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19899-0951

The undersigned counsel further certifies that, on June 15, 2007, he served the foregoing documents by email and by U.S. Mail upon the following counsel: John N. Zarian Samia McCall Matthew D. Thayne J. Walter Sinclair Stoel Rives LLP 101 S. Capitol Blvd., Suite 1900 Boise, ID 83702 Kenneth R. Adamo Robert C. Kahrl Arthur P. Licygiewicz Jones Day North Point 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114-1190 Vincent K. Yip Peter J. Wied Jay C. Chiu Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP 515 South Flower Street Twenty-Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Bryan J. Sinclair Karineh Khachatourian Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney 333 Twin Dolphin Drive Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1418

/s/ Richard D. Kirk (rk922) Richard D. Kirk

656846-1