IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT g
- FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
> I
GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES CORP., )` A
. ) A I ’
Plaintiff, ) Case N0.: 05-27-SLR .
v. ) Z
l . ) Jury Trial Demanded
DELL, INC.; GATEWAY, INC.; )
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY; ACER INC.; ) I `
ACER AMERICA CORPORATION; AOC INTERNATIONAL; )
ENVISION PERIPHERALS, INC.; TPV TECHNOLOGY, LTD.; )
TPV INTERNATIONAL (USA), INC.; ) ,
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION; )i A
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA alk/a ) I
P AU OPTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; ) g
BENQCORPORATION; BENQ AIVIERICA CORPORATION; ) ;
CHUNGHVVA PICTURE TUBES, LTD. a/k/a ) Q
CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES COMPANY; ) 2
TATUNG COMPANY; ) ?
TATUNG COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.; ) ?
BOE HYDIS TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, LTD.; )
BOE HYDIS AIVIERICA INC.; CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS; )
COMPAL ELECTRONICS, INC.; )
HANNSTAR DISPLAY CORPORATION; JEAN CO., LTD.; )
LITE-ON TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION: )
LITE-ON, INC. afk/a LITEON TRADING USA, INC.; ) I
MAG TECHNOLOGY COIVIPANY, LTD.; )
MAG TECHNOLOGY USA, INC.; ) .
PROVIEW INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, LTD.; ) Z
PROVIEW TECHNOLOGY, INC.; ) .
PROVIEW ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.; and ) I
QUANTA DISPLAY, INC. )
) A
Defendants. )
) A
‘ CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBE’S OPPOSITION TO GUARDLAN’S MOTION TO LIFT
. THE STAY D
RI..F1~29B0343~1 - {
Case 1 :05-cv—00027—SLR Document 247 Filed O2/13/2006 Page2 of 4
-Defendant Chunghwa Picture Tube, Ltd. ("CPT") joins with the other remaining
- Defendants in opposing Guardian’s motion to lift the stay against the non-manufacturing
Defendants. In its request to lift the stay, Guardian has not articulated any justification why this J
case should proceed against both CPT and the other Defendants. Guardian can obtain iirll relief
against CPT and will not be prejudiced in anyway should the stay be maintainedi Moreover, C
because maintenance of the stay will permit this case to proceedin an orderly manner and
preserve judicial resources, Guardian’s motion should be denied.
In its Consolidated Opposition to the Defendants’ Motion to Stay (pp. 3, 7-8), Guardian
argued that the case should not be stayed against the non—rna.nufacturing defendants because
some of the manufacturer Defendants such as BOE HYDIS, Hannstar and Quanta might
challenge personal jurisdiction. Guardian argued that if any of those defendants successfully
challenged jurisdiction, then Guardian’s only recourse would be against the non-manufacturing ‘
Defendants. Indeed, that was the basis by which Guardian previously tried to distinguish this U
case nom Honeywelll in which a stay was entered. (See Consolidated Opposition at pp. 7-8
(BOE HYDIS, Hannstar and Quanta did “not, as Seiko Epson did in the Honeywell case, assurell
Guardian that they will stand behind their products and customers?). Guardian, however,
subsequently reached a settlement with all three of those manufacturers. n
In contrast to those three manufacturers, CPT did step up to defend its products and its
customers in this litigation. CPT, a Taiwanese company, voluntarily subjected itself to
jurisdiction in Delaware to defend its products against Guardian’s infringement allegations. G
l Honeywell [nfl, Inc. v. Audiovox Communi'cotions Corp., C.A. No. 04-1337-KA], Slip.
Op. (May l8, 2005) (a copy of this opinion was submitted with the Defendants†motion to stay). I
I ;
aLrr-29s0343-1
Case 1:05-cv—OOO27—SLFl Document 247 Filed O2/13/2006 Page 3 of 4 I
Thus, the reasoning behind the stay in Honeywell is equally applicable here, and with CPT
present there is simply no need for the case to proceed against the other remaining Defendants. P
Given that this case can proceed against CPT, Guardian has failed to identify any
justification to lift the stay. In regard to damages, if Guardian prevails it will fully exhaust its
damages through a recovery from CPT, and therefore could not seek further damages from any .
of the other Defendants. 4 1 i
As to discovery, Guardian makes vague reference in its motion to lift the stay that it r
needs discovery from the other Defendants "to prepare for trial to protect the patents at issue in
this litigation." But Guardian fails to identify what discovery it needs or how it would be
precluded from obtaining such discovery. In its Consolidated Opposition to the Defendants’
Motion to Stay (p. 6), Guardian argued that it needed discovery from the defendants because the D
manufacturers (such as CPT) could not provide details regarding the accused products sold in the
United States. But this Court has already ordered the non—manufacturing Defendants to produce i
such information, and Guardian has failed to point to any inadequacies in that production or to
identify any additional information needed. l
Finally, contrary to Guardian’s assertions, this case will be greatly simplified if the stay is
maintained. With the stay in place, the case will proceed with two parties represented by two
lead counsel, as opposed to twenty parties represented by nine lead counsel. Further, if the case A .
proceeds solely against CPT, the current case management schedule can be maintained. ,
l However, if the stay is lifted against the other Defendants that schedule will likely have to be D
delayed to permit a period of document discovery before deposition discovery commences, l
thereby delaying the entire schedule.
Rrri-2980342-1 _
Case 1:05-cv—OOO27—SLR Document 247 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 4 of 4 i
Therefore, CPT respectfully requests that the stay be maintained and that this case be
permitted to proceed between Guardian and CPT.2 i
[gf: 4..
OF COUNSEL: 5 Robert W. Whetzel (#2288
[email protected] Q
- Daniel T. Shvodian Matthew W. King (#4566) - ‘
Howrey LLP 1
Menlo Park, CA 94025-3434 One Rodney Square, P.O. Box 551 y
650.463.8247 Wilmington, DE 19899
(302) 651-7700 - .
Teresa M. Corbin Attorneys for Defendants/Comiterclaimaiits
Howrey LLP Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. .
525 Market Street, Suite 3600 Z
San Francisco, CA 94105 . 5
4158484900 g
` Dated: February 13, 2006
2 In addition to the reasons set forth herein, the stay should be maintained because A
Guardian and CPT continue to engage mediation with Magistrate Judge Thynge. While
Guardian states in its motion that the mediation did not result in a settlement, Guard.ian’s fails to
inform the Court that the parties have continued to exchange counter-offers through Magistrate
Thynge, with Guardiarfs most recent offer conveyed to CPT on Friday, February 10, 2006.
3
RLFL2980343-1
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms