Free Objections - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 785-22 Filed O9/17/2007 Page1 0f 3

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 785-22 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 2 of 3
222 D15: Axrzxiur Avigwus Swine 900
PO. Box 25150
\l{/l1.l\IlNG`lC)N, DE 19899
Zur Lj<>1>n* Fon 1)IiI.|\Ir1:11»; 19801
A T T O N E S MEÂ¥2ETi\S l./RW E-lit Wfllilllk-`.'ll>Â¥;
\\‘\\'\\' l)1ly1ll'(liill`H7 COR]
coNrAINs HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL M,
FILED UNDER SEAL \W,.m,.S(?65§(E2
rkirk@bayardf1rm._qg>_;1_1
August 28, 2007
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
Blank Rome LLP
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: LG.PhilqJs LCD C0., Ltd. v. ViewSonic, C.A. N0. 04-343 JJF
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPL") reiterates its objection to any Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP ("McKenna"). Tatung Company’s ("Tatung") request for a
McKenna deposition is untimely, its proposed topics are extremely overbroad and seek
information proprietary to McKenna, and Tatung has waived its right to take such a deposition
having failed to notice a deposition of McKenna or any prosecuting attorney for the Patents-in-
Suit during fact discovery. At a minimum, LPL also states that a McKenna deposition is
premature given that Your Honor has ordered LPL to resubmit to a deposition on certain issues
relating to Defendants’ claims of inequitable conduct concerning a Lucky Goldstar product, LG
LC05 6Nl. Defendants’ topics for LPL’s deposition include topics relating to LPL’s knowledge
of this product and the NEC litigation; thus, a McKenna deposition would be unnecessarily
cumulative. Accordingly, LPL respectfully requests that Your Honor delay entry of an order
compelling a McKenna deposition until after LPL is deposed and Defendants make a subsequent
case for a McKenna deposition.
Alternatively, if Your Honor proceeds to order a deposition of McKenna at this time,
LPL maintains that Tatung should not be permitted to depose a McKenna witness regarding the
LG 500 LC monitor. Tatung has known about the LG 500LC monitor since at least March 21,
2007, when Tatung first produced documents in this case relating to that monitor. (Ex. A.) In
addition, Tatung deposed multiple LPL witnesses about the LG 500LC monitor in March of
2007 and then decided not to participate in the deposition of third party LG Electronics, U.S.A.,
Inc., which related almost entirely to the LG 500LC monitor, on April 20, 2007, as evidenced by
the Notice of Deposition and the transcript itself. (Exs. B-C). Specifically, Tatung questioned
both Mr. John Kim (Ex. D at 879-892) as both inventor and LPL Rule 30(b)(6) witness on March
23, 2007, and Mr. Young Un Bang (Ex. E at 14-16) of LPL on March 29, 2007, extensively
about the LG 500LC monitor. During the Kim deposition, Tatung also marked the LG 500LC
User Guide, an exploded view drawing, and a wiring diagram as deposition exhibits 68-70.
In between the depositions of LPL and LGE, on March 30th, Tatung served its Second
Set of Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff s Second Set of Interrogatories and supplemented its
invalidity contentions (Interrogatory No. 8), but not its inequitable conduct allegations
668644-1

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 785-22 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 3 of 3
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
THE BAYARD FIRM August 28, 2007
Page 2
(Interrogatory No. 15), to include the LG 500LC. (Ex. F.) Subsequently, on June 8th, Tatung
served its Third Set of Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories and
finally supplemented its inequitable conduct allegations (Interrogatory No. 15) to include the
"LG 500LC monitor manufactured by LG Electronics, Inc." (Ex. G.) Tatung presented
absolutely no basis for its inequitable conduct allegation regarding the LG 500LC monitor.
More than one month later, Tatung served its Fourth Set of Supplemental Responses to
Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories on July 16th setting forth in detail its invalidity
contentions, which only allege the LG 500LC product to be a prior art reference in the alternative
"if it is determined that a display case is not inherently disclosed . . . under section 103 . . . it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the remaining teachings
of this reference [Sharp LQ5AWl 16] with the display case structure[] disclosed in . . . LGE
500LC . . . and other similar references." (Ex. H.) Importantly, Tatung is not presently asserting
that the LG 500LC alone practices the invention because it has not asserted the LG 500LC
monitor as an anticipatory prior art reference. Instead, after deposing multiple LPL witnesses,
electing not to participate in the deposition of LGE, not relying on the LG 500LC monitor as an
anticipatory prior art reference, and setting forth absolutely no basis for its inequitable conduct
allegation regarding the LG 500LC monitor, Tatung is now unjustifiably using LPL’s recent
supplemental document production as a pretext to untimely depose McKenna. The supplemental
document production contains no new information related to the LG 500LC that necessitates
Tatung’s deposition of a McKenna witness on this subject. Accordingly, LPL requests that Your
Honor deny Tatung’s request to depose a McKenna witness concerning the LG 5 00LC product.
Further, if Your Honor orders a deposition of McKenna at this time, LPL states that it
must also be permitted to depose Defendants’ law firms, Greenberg Traurig LLP and Connolly
Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP on the following topics: a) Their policies and procedures relating to
patent prosecution for the time frame of April 1998 to December 2002, including any policies or
procedures implemented by them to ensure that its patent prosecution attorneys and clients
comply with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.56; and b) The custom and practice employed by
their prosecution attomeys during the time frame of April 1998 to December 2002 in connection
with researching, obtaining, investigating, evaluating, and disclosing prior art to the Patent
Office during prosecution. These are the same general broad topics that Your Honor found were
appropriate to ask McKenna. Because Defendants will surely attempt to argue that McKenna’s
policies and procedures are inadequate, LPL must be given an opportunity to present evidence to
the jury that McKenna’s practices and procedures are fully appropriate and commensurate with
the policies and procedures of other law firms, including Defendants’ own law firms. LPL must
be able to defend the practices and procedures of McKenna through depositions of Greenberg
Trauri g and Connolly Bove. Accordingly, if Your Honor orders a McKenna deposition, LPL
requests that any order also include LPI/s right to proceed with Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of
Greenberg Trauri g and Connolly Bove.
Respectliilly submitted,
Ar./élcwg/Q//»
/s/ Richard D. Kirk (rk0922)
cc: Counsel as shown on the attached certificate
6686444

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 785-22

Filed 09/17/2007

Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT 21

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 785-22

Filed 09/17/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 785-22

Filed 09/17/2007

Page 3 of 3