Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—OO343-JJF Document 799-6 Filed 10/O1/2007 Page1 of 4
EXHIBIT E

Case 1:04-cv—OO343-JJF Document 799-6 Filed 10/O1/2007 Page 2 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
L.G. PHiLLlPS LCD CO., LTD.,
Plaintiff`, C. A, No. 04—343··J.lF
v.
TATUNG COMPANY; TATUNG
COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.; AND
VIEWSONIC CORPORATION,
Defendants.
SPECIAL MAS'I`ER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ON THE MOTTON OF TATUNG COMPANY AND TATUNG COMPANY OF
AMERICA TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITTON OF REBECCA RUDICH
This matter comes before me, as Special Master,} on the motion of Defendants Tatung
Company and Tatung Company of America (collectively, "'i`atung") to compel the deposition of
Rebecca Goldman Rudich, Esquire. In particular, Tatung seeks to depose Ms. Rudich regarding
her representations to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in connection with the *079 Patent
Application and the IBM prior aft reference. (D.l. 728, 745, 748, 753, 768, 775) Plaintiff LG
Philips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPL") opposes Tatung’s request. (Di. 744, 769, 773).
Having read and considered the papers submitted by the parties, and having heard and
considered the oral arguments made before the Special Master, the Special Master
RECOMMENDS that Tatung’s request to compel the deposition of Ms. Rudich be GRANTED
for the reasons set forth herein and on the record,
l The Order Appointing Special Master, dated February 25, 2005 is docketed as item
number 178 in the above~captioned case.

Case 1:04-cv—OO343-JJF Document 799-6 Filed 10/O1/2007 Page 3 of 4
BACKGROUND
1. On February 27, 2007 Tatung issued a subpoena to Ms. Rudich. Tatung then
withdrew the subpoena to Ms. Ruclich during a hearing before the Special Master on March 8,
2007. Counsel for the Tatung Defendants later attempted to revive its request for a subpoena
limited to Ms. Rudiclfs response to a certain Office Action in the *079 Patent Application.
Shortly thereafter, the Tatung Defendants offered that a declaration by Ms. Rudich might suffice
in iieu of her deposition being taken. Alter months of negotiation regarding a proposed
declaration, the parties were unable to reach an agreement on the wording of the declaration to
be provided by Ms. Rudich. 'iatung subsequently brought its motion to compel Ms. Rudich’s
deposition testimony and sought to expand the scope of the testimony (based on documents
recently produced by LPL) to inciude alleged inequitable conduct.
2. LPL resists the motion to cornpei on the basis that Ms. Rudich’s testimony
regarding the ’079 Patent Application is not relevant, she was not involved in prosecution of the
patents-in~suit, and Ms. Rudich is not the most knowledgeable individual regarding "l"atung’s
inequitable conduct defense. (D.I. 744, 769, 773)
3. Tatung posits that Ms. Rudich’s testimony is necessary to address an apparent
discrepancy between representations made by LPI, in the course of the prosecution of the ‘079
Patent Application and LPL’s litigation position on the patents—in·-suit as related to the IBM prior
art reference. The Tatung Defendants have withdrawn their request that Ms. Rudich testify
regarding either the patents~in-suit and/or any alleged inequitable conduct based on LPL’s
clarification that she had no material rote in connection with the patents»in—suit.
4. On August 27, 2007, the Speciai Master heard final orai argument from the parties
on "l"atung’s motion.
- 2 -

Case 1:04-cv—OO343-JJF Document 799-6 Filed 10/O1/2007 Page 4 of 4
SPECIAL MAS'I`ER’S CONCLUSIONS
5. As noted on the record, the Special Master concludes that Ms. Rudich’s
deposition should be required. In particular, Tatung should be permitted to question Ms. Rudich
regarding prosecution of the ‘079 Patent Application limited to her representations to the Patent
and Trademark office regarding the IBM prior art reference.
6. Ms. Rudich’s deposition has been narrowly tailored to address those topics she
has knowledge about, namely prosecution of the ‘0'/9 ?atent application relating to the IBM
prior art reference. Tatung has withdrawn its request to depose Ms. Rudich regarding the prior
art recently produced by LPL and has instead requested a 30(b)(6) deposition of McKenna, Long
& Aldridge, LLP, which request is the subject ofa separate Report and Recommendation. In
light of the foregoing limitations on the scope of the topics to be addressed during Ms. Rudiclfs
deposition, the Special Master hereby determines that Tatung should be permitted to take Ms.
Rudiclfs deposition.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Special Master RECOMMENDS that
Tatung’s motion to compel the deposition of Ms. Rudich should be GRANTED.
The Special Master’s Report and Recommendation will become a final order ofthe
Court unless objection is taken within ten calendar days from the date of this Order.
ENTERED this égday of` Q' in T J , 2007.

~
Vi nt]. Poppiti L: · #l006l4)
Special aster
- 3 -

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 799-6

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 799-6

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 799-6

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 799-6

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 4 of 4