Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case1:04-cv-01338-JJF Document 901-5 Filed 11/01/2007 Page1 014

‘ 2 · i- 1 1 ; ¤ .
G°€"c‘L%%@ 195*4-E\»?8?Z»a¥@i’.i’1%M Document 901-5 Pneen 1 1/01 /2007 Page 2 er 4
` QUG 13 2337 14:53 FR|RKMC LLP 317 237 3233 TO 1733413222o P.B1
800 Bonsrow s-rusr
asm nmol
ROBINS- KAPLA · MU-]-E R & CIRESI M 6,.12 ..
www.rkmc.com
V Arroiwsys sr nw
l FROM: Alan E. McKenna
The information contained in this facsimile message is privileged and confidential information intended for the
use of the addressee listed be ow and no one else. If you are not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
responsible to deliver this message to the intended recipient, please do not use this transmission in any way, but
contact the sender by telephone.
DATE: August 13, LOG?
TO: NAME: l FACSIMILE N O.: TELEPHONE NO.:
John F. Prelper, Esq. (703) 413-2220
Oblon, Spi ak, McClelland, Maier
& Neustad:lP.C.
FILE NO.: 019896.02%
NUMBER OF PAGES INC` UDING COVER SHEET: 3
If transmission problems dfcur, or you are not the intended recipient, please call 617-267-2300 or
contact Lorraine Scully at [617) 859-2707.
MESSAGE:
Please see attached letter. l
Original Will Follow By Re lar Mail TD
. ·-···· "F•T'* VYV'?" p V, 6
rox U;./T\:Z\]:-V. 76
i AUG l 3 2007
I OBLCN, STEVAK, >AcCl¥Ql.lANi'>
1 MAIER & NEUSTADT, RC1.
i
Anmrs nosrou I tos Aussies mzmimous tmtss slum mn. wssumemn. nc.
I

Case 1:04-cv-01§338—J.LF Document 901-5 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 3 of 4
RUG 13 2227 14:53 FR RKMC LLP . 317 237 3233 TO l?@34l3222@ P.@2
. l
soo Bonsrox Smmr
. ___ X . ., . _ _--_ .1 25111 Fwon
ROBlNb, l\APLAl\l. M l LLE li Qi L.,lRE‘;vl 1.t 1· ¤¤=t¤~·MA¤2¤·=·¤
me sw-z·sv.zz.oo 1=AX:617·267~828B
www.rltm€.C0m
Arrotmsrs AT LAW
} ALAN E. MCKENNA
617-059-2719
, August 13, 2007
VIA FACSIMILE D U.S. MAIL
John F. Presper, Esq.
Oblon, Spivak, McCl lland, Maier & Neustad, P.C.
1940 Duke Street ;
Alexandria, VA 2231
Re: Han ell International, Inc. et aL v. Apple Computer, Inc., et aL
Civil ction No. 04-1338 (KA.!) (consolidated)
Dear John: i
I write in r nse to your letter of August 3, 2007, wherein you ask that Honeywell
supplement its respo ses to Optrex’s Second Set of Requests for Admissions as well as to
Optrex’s Fourth Set 0 Interrogatories.
We disagree `th the assertion in your letter that Honeywell's responses are inadequate.
Honeywell stands by ts objections and responses. As you know, the discovery requests at issue
seek admissions 5*0 Honeywell that specific Optrcx modules do not infringe the ‘37l patent.
Honeywell’s respons s to these discovery requests are based upon the limited and selective
discovery that Optrex has provided for these modules. As you will recall, Optrex identifted these
modules and produc one to two pages of lens sheet drawings for each module in question.
Based upon these li 'ited technical documents, Optrex expects Honeywell to admit that these
modules do not in ge the ‘37l. Such limited information does not allow Honeywell to
respond more fully han it already has, and certainly does not allow Honeywell to make
determinations as tot e technical aspects of each of these modules.
In addition, it ppears that Optrex’s requests are based on its assertion that these modules
do not contain rotat lens sheets (which assertion is based, apparently, on the one or two lens
sheet drawings prod ced by Optrex). The value of the limited discovery provided by Optrex
regarding these mod es, however, is further diluted by the testimony of Optrex’s own technical
witness, Mr. Kobaya `, who testified that Optrex employs a tolerance level of +/- l° of rotation
in its lens sheet/BE iilms. (See Kobayashi, Vol. 3, at 269:19-270:272:1.). Moreover, Mr.
Kobayashfs testimo highlights the impropriety of the discovery requests at issue. If Optrex ·
believes I-Ioneywell’s responses require supplementation, we request that you provide complete .
discovery for each of e modules referenced in your Request for Admissions nd Interrogatories.
Please let us know w ether Optrex is willing to provide complete discovery on these modules.
I E
BN1sso40ssc.1 lr l
\TLAHTA nusruu Losn GBLBS-MtNNsAPOLlS·NAPLE5·5A1N‘rPAUL-wAsn1NuTON.D.C.,

Case 1:04-cv-01338-d~JF Document 901-5 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 4 of 4
sue 13 ZBGY 14:53 FR RKMC LLP e1? 257 ezee TO 1?ao41a222a p_¤g
John F. Presper
August 13, 2007
Page 2 _
In addition, ur letter and the underlying discovery requests from Optrex raise the
question as to how trex was able t identify the modules for which it chose to seek an
admission of non-in 'ngement. Did trex undertake a review of all of its LCD modules and
then "cherry pick" fr that list? ls Op ex willing to provide discovery for all of its modules, or
at least for all modul s that it examined n coming up with the list of modules contained in these
discovery requests? Optrex reviewed l of its modules, did it identify any additional modules
that it has not yet dis losed to Honeywe l? As you are well aware, Honeywell has long sought a
consistent approach the scope of di eovery in this case. Optrex and the other defendants,
however, have eonti ually sought to ow the ease. Given this history, it is improper for
Optrex to "che1·ry pil k" those module of interest from its portfolio when it is unwilling to
inform Honeywell w at else is out ther that would act as a counterweight to Optrex’s "cherry
pieking."
I look forwar to hearing from y u.
Very truly yours,
I ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
“ 5%/Q
Alan E. McKe
cc: Thomas C. 'mm, Esq.
I
I
I
I I
I .
sm 350405BO.l `
I xx TOTQL PQGE.B3 **