Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:O4—cv—O1338-JJF Document 853 Filed 08/O2/2007 Page 1 of 3
Messrs, NlGHOLS, Axes:-1*1* & TUNNEL;. LLP
1201 Noam Mnxxm ·Srrs.zs·1·
PI). Box E3é7
Wnxrxomw, Duuwluoz }.9B99-0.347
302 558- 9200.
Tuomas C. Gamer 658 3989 FAX-
scz ssa ssss
stm ms sam not
[email protected]¤m
July 26, 2007
Public Version Filed: August 2, 2007
VIA }Z—~FIL¥,NiG
PUBLIC VERSION
The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge
United States Distriet Court
the District of Delaware
-844 North King Street
WilmingtQH,‘DE 1-9801
Re: Honeywell International Inc., et aL v. Apple Computer; Inc. et al.
CMA. No. 0¢l~l338—*** (Consolidated)
Deer Magistrate Judge Thynge:
I write- on behalf of Plaintiffs Honeywell International Inc. and Honeywell
Intellectual Properties Inc. (collectively "Honeywell’·? in response to Fuji’s motion. regarding
Honeywellis teardown reromess and collected date. ‘Contrary to Fuji’·s assertions, Honeywell
has not withheld any factual irnforrnation or documents that were ordered to be produced.
A. 'Feardown information for Settled or Stayed Parties
Most fundamentally, the parties disagree as to whether Honeywell was to provide
tesrdown information for the customer defendants who are now stayed and those defendants who
have settled with Honeywell, or if the ruling was limited tothe accused products of the current,
non-stayed defendants. HoneyweH’s understzmdirrg was that it hed to produce the infommtion
for the current active.defe1idants, and it has done so.
’ We are surp1·ised_‘thegt‘ Fuji is pressing this issue at this time. Honeywell responded toFuji’s
letter on illlllé 22, 2007. Fuji, however, never responded hor requested to meet and confer to
discuss this issue. As such, the first time this issue resurfaeed was three weeks later, when Fuji
filed its motiorron July 12, 200.2

Case 1:O4—cv—O1338-JJF Document 853 Filed 08/O2/2007 Page 2 of 3
The Honorable Mary Pat Thyme
July 26, 2007
Page 2
There is no basis on which Fuji can assert that the teardown information for those
entities who are no longer parties to this suit is relevant to its defense. To date, Honeywell has
provided detailed infringement contention iatezrogatory responses (Exhibit A, pp. 4~8), the
teardown data that is the basis for those interrogatory responses (Exhibit B), and even
photographs of the tearclowns that relate to the accused modules (eg., Exhibit C, a set of
photographs for one of Fujfs-products). As such, there is absolutely oo basis for Fuji’s assertion
that it: needs the requested additional infomation to understand the scope of HO¥1G_YW€;l’S
infringement claims.
Inaddition, Fujiiarid the remaining tlefeodants have continuously and successfully
fought-Ho_neywel1’s-attempts to openrop discove1*y"witi1._ the stayed defendants. It cannot be that
Honeywell is requiredto produce documents relating to the stayed defendants while Honeywell
continues to be prevented from pursuing its own discovery requests- regarding those defendants
and their products.
B. Information Beyond Iioneywelfs Contentious
Fuji argues that Honeywell was required to provide all infomation captured
during the teardowza process. 'l`he· Court’s·l\»Iay 17, 2007 Ruling, however, is not as broad as Fuji
asserts.- "Your Honor ruled that the information that relates to Horzcywelfs inffagemenr
contentions must be produced. 5fl7!0'? transcript pp. 36:19-25, 37:8-13, 17-25. Honeywell, as
ordered, has produced that information.
Fuji, however, complains that it is entitled to additional information. Each of its
requests lack merit. First, Fuji requests that Honeywell provide the dates the teardowns were
performed. This complaint is meritless because Honeywell has already provided that
information in its contention ioterrogatory responses, as well as in December 2006 during the
derfendamts’ 30{b)(6) deposition on their laches defenses. (See eg., Exhibit D).
Second, Fuji requests- all of the optical testing results obtained during the
teardowo process. However, the referenced optical testing-- is not- related to nor disclosed in
l-Ioneywell’s infringement contentions. As such, Fuji is not entitledto tliatioformation.
Third, Fuji requests that Hooeywelfs production include the names of the people
that performed each speciflc teardown. However, the beardovm spreadsheet does not contain this
infomation. it has therefore not been withheld. Honeywell is not obligated to create documents
for Fuji that do not exist.
C. Form of Spreadsheet
Fuji*s iinal complaint relates to the format ofthe spreadsheet. Fuji complains that
Honeywell created the spreadsheet specifically for the production. This is a knowing
mischaractetizatiou. We made clear to Fuji in our June 22 letter that the spreadsheet was not

Case 1 :04-cv-01338-JJF Document 853 Filed 08/O2/2007 Page 3 of 3
The Honorable Mary Pat Thyme
July 26, 2007
Page 3
created for this production. Instead, as Fuji requested during the May 17, 2007 hearing,
Honeywell took its existing. teardowo spreadsheet and merely hid the columns and rows
containing the-in:Formarion_that Honeywell was not required wproduce since it is not relevant to
Honeyweifs infringement corqntions or is seams protected by the attorney client or work
producqndvilege. Mr. Rosenthal aolorowledged that Honeywell could reformuiate the Excel
spreadsheet when he previously argued that Honeywell facm no burden because of the ease with
whieh irre1evant.inforroation could be excluded from the spreadsheet. Sill 'JVO? transcript p. 27:3-
7. Accordingly, Honeywell did not "biatant[ly} di`sregard" this Court"s order, as Fuji asserts.
The information that has been produced that relates to Honeywell? infringement
contentions is extensive. For all of the foregoing reasons, Fuji”s request for additional
information should be denied.
Respectfully,-
/5/ Thomas C. Grimm (#1098)
Thomas C. (#1.093)
oc: Manufacturer Defendants (via e-filing)
Matthew L. Woods, Esq. (via email)
Qsosro.1