Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 940

Filed 12/13/2007

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. and HONEYWELL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES INC., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE COMPUTER, INC., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 04-1338-*** CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC VERSION

LETTER TO THE HONORABLE MARY PAT THYNGE FROM THOMAS C. GRIMM REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY CONCERNING LG PHILIPS MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP Thomas C. Grimm (#1098) Benjamin J. Schladweiler (#4601) 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 (302) 658-9200 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs

OF COUNSEL: Martin R. Lueck Matthew L. Woods Stacie E. Oberts Denise S. Rahne Peter N. Surdo Marta M. Chou ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P. 800 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015 (612) 349-8500 Anthony A. Froio Marc N. Henschke Alan E. McKenna Michael J. Garko ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P. 800 Boyleston Street, 25th Floor Boston, MA 02199 (617) 267-2300 Confidential Version Filed: November 20, 2007 Public Version Filed: December 13, 2007

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 940

Filed 12/13/2007

Page 2 of 6

Dear Magistrate Judge Thynge: I. Samsung SDI's Request to Disclose Enumerated Details In-House Counsel Should be Denied a. REDACTED REDACTED Hitachi raised the same issue in January, 2007. The parties exchanged numerous correspondence, and had numerous telephone conversations regarding this issue since February, 2007. REDACTED REDACTED to

or any summary of it, and how Samsung's "need" outweighed Honeywell's right to protect the information pursuant to the Protective Order.

REDACTED (emphasis supplied.) When Honeywell demanded factual support for its claim of patent misuse, Samsung provided no basis whatsoever. REDACTED Rather, it then sought to disclose a summary of key portions in the form contained on Page 2 of Samsung's letter brief (the "Summary"). Samsung erroneously argues that Honeywell has provided "no justification" for its claim that the alleged facts contained in Samsung's Summary are appropriately designated as "Highly Confidential ­ Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only." REDACTED

The best Samsung can REDACTED could potentially form the basis for a patent misuse claim, yet do is allege that the refuses to detail how and misstates the terms of the agreement. b. Samsung's Proposed Summary Misstates the Terms of the REDACTED

Samsung's proposed Summary misstates the provisions of the REDACTED Specifically, Samsung's statement regarding paragraph 3 of the Summary is false, and an intentional misreading of the agreement. REDACTED

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge November 19, 2007 Page 2 REDACTED

Document 940

Filed 12/13/2007

Page 3 of 6

In fact, a reading of § 2.9 as originally drafted in the 2003 License makes no sense whatsoever. REDACTED

referenced by Samsung corrected the error in § 2.9, and otherwise reinforced the remaining provisions of the REDACTED Samsung has offered no evidence whatsoever to contradict Honeywell's explanation and understanding of these provisions. Tellingly, Samsung has undertaken no other discovery in this regard. REDACTED

position that any patent misuse claim is baseless and without merit. Samsung's citations to United States v. Krasnov and United States v. Besser Mfg. Co. are inapposite. c. Samsung's Request is Untimely and Prejudicial to Honeywell

Because Samsung has no basis for its REDACTED

Samsung's request at this late date should be denied because it is untimely and prejudicial to REDACTED Honeywell. Samsung, and other defendants, first raised issues relative to the disclosure of REDACTED well over 9 months ago and have just now sought relief from this Court. Even if Samsung could provide a factual basis to assert a patent misuse claim against Honeywell, the time to amend its pleadings has long since passed. In fact, discovery is currently scheduled to close on December 20, 2007. Allowing Samsung to now amend its pleadings and assert any such claim would be prejudicial to Honeywell and should be denied. II. Honeywell's CommunicationsREDACTED Are Protected By The Common Interest Privilege

Honeywell has properly withheld on the grounds of privilege a number of communications between itself REDACTED that relate to the common interest Honeywell REDACTED share regarding the `371 patent. The common interest doctrine extends attorney-client privilege to communications between clients and attorneys "`allied in a "common legal cause"' . . . because it is reasonable to expect that parties pursuing common legal interests intended resultant disclosures to be [protected]." Corning Inc. v. SRU Biosystems, LLC, 223 F.R.D. 189, 190 (D. Del. 2004), quoting In re Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 101 F.3d 1386, 1389 (Fed. Cir. 1996). This common interest may arise where two entities share a common legal or definable commercial interest and, therefore, share legal advice with respect to that common interest. See, e.g., Hewlett Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 115 F.R.D. 308, 309 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (finding a common interest between Bausch and Lomb and GEC,

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge November 19, 2007 Page 3

Document 940

Filed 12/13/2007

Page 4 of 6

a prospective purchaser, with respect to a patent opinion letter, even where GEC later decided not to buy the division).
REDACTED

In this instance, Honeywell clearly share a common legal interest in the enforcement of the `371 patent by virtue of the financial provisions found REDACTED Constar Int'l, Inc. v. Cont'l Pet Techs., Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21132, at *5 (D. Del. Nov. 13, 2003), quoting Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc., 397 F. Supp. 1146, 1172 (D.S.C. 1975). In order for the common interest doctrine to apply, the common interest between two parties must be "legal and not solely commercial." Corning, 223 F.R.D. at 190. In Constar, the court held that parties engaging in a cross-license of patents had an identical legal interest in developing the patents to obtain the greatest amount of protection and in exploiting the patents. 2003 LEXIS 21132, at *5. REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED While Honeywell has express , Samsung offers nothing similar to support its own contention that the common interest doctrine protects those communications, yet still asserts that it has sufficiently asserted privilege by means of common interest. (Ex. B.) For the foregoing reasons, Honeywell respectfully requests that this Court deny Samsung's requests to compel production of these privileged documents. Respectfully,

/s/ Thomas C. Grimm
Thomas C. Grimm (#1098) TCG Enclosures cc: Dr. Peter T. Dalleo, Clerk (by hand delivery, w/encls.) Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire (by e-mail & hand delivery, w/encls.) Counsel of Record (by e-mail, w/encls.)

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 940

Filed 12/13/2007

Page 5 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on December 13, 2007, I caused to be served true and correct copies of the foregoing on the following in the manner indicated: BY HAND & E-MAIL: Richard L. Horwitz David E. Moore POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor 1313 N. Market Street P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899 Attorneys for Samsung SDI America, Inc. and Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. BY E-MAIL: Karen L. Pascale YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP The Brandywine Building, 17th floor 1000 West Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Optrex America, Inc. David J. Margules John M. Seaman BOUCHARD MARGULES & FRIEDLANDER, P.A. 222 Delaware Ave., Suite 1400 Wilmington DE 19801 Attorneys for Citizen Watch Co., Ltd. and Citizen Displays Co., Ltd. Philip A. Rovner POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor 1313 N. Market Street P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899 Attorneys for FUJIFILM Corporation and FUJIFILM U.S.A., Inc. Daniel V. Folt Matt Neiderman DUANE MORRIS LLP 1100 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801-1246 Attorneys for InnoLux Display Corporation

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 940

Filed 12/13/2007

Page 6 of 6

Andrew M. Ollis OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C. 1940 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 [email protected] Attorneys for Optrex America, Inc.

Lawrence Rosenthal Matthew W. Siegal STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038-4982 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for FUJIFILM Corporation and FUJIFILM U.S.A., Inc.

Stephen S. Korniczky Elizabeth L. Brann PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 3579 Valley Centre Drive San Diego, CA 92130 stephen [email protected] [email protected] Hamilton Loeb PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 875 15th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 [email protected] Attorneys for Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. and Samsung SDI America, Inc. BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Mr. Seong Yoon Jeong Assistant Manager Technology Planning Group BOE HYDIS TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. San 136-1, Ami-ri, Bubal-eub Ichon-si, Gyeonggi-do 467-701 Republic of Korea

Stuart Lubitz HOGAN & HARTSON LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 [email protected] Attorneys for Citizen Watch Co., Ltd. and Citizen Displays Co., Ltd. Donald R. McPhail DUANE MORRIS LLP 1667 K Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 [email protected] Attorneys for InnoLux Display Corporation

/s/ Thomas C. Grimm
_________________________________ Thomas C. Grimm (#1098)

-2-