Free Objections - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 785-2

Filed 09/17/2007

Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 785-2

Filed 09/17/2007

Page 2 of 4

Hearing Page IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE PHILLIPS, L.G., LCD CO., LTD, Plaintiffs,
) )

) )
)
I

C.A. No. 04-343(JJF)

V. TATUNG CO., TATUNG COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC., and VIEWSONIC CORPORATION, Defendants.
) ) )

) )

Hearing of above matter taken pursuant to notice before Renee A. Meyers, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public, in the law offices of BLANK ROME, LLP, 1201 North Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware, on Friday, April 13, 2007, beginning at approximately 11:45 a.m., there being present: BEFORE: VINCENT J. POPPITI, SPECIAL MASTER

APPEARANCES : THE BAYARD FIRM MARY E. AUGUSTINE, ESQ. 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900 Wilmington, Delaware 19899 for Plaintiffs

CORBETT & WILCOX Registered Professional Reporters 230 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 571-0510 www.corbettreporting.com Corbett & Wilcox is not affiliated with Wilcox & Fetzer, Court Reporters

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 785-2

Filed 09/17/2007

Page 3 of 4

Hearing
Page 2
APPEARANCES (Continued): MCKENNA, LONG & ALDRIDGE, LLP CASS W CHRISTENSON, ESQ REL S. AMBROZY, ESQ. CORMAC CONNOR, ESQ. 1900 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 for Plaintiffs RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER ANNE SHEA GAZA, ESQ One Rodney Square Wihnington, Delaware 1980 1 for Defendant Tatung Co. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP FRANK MERIDETH, ESQ. VALERIE HO, ESQ. AL JANSEN, ESQ. 2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400E Santa Monica, Califo1,nia 90404 for Defendant Tatung Company of Amelica, Inc CONN0LL.Y BOVE L,ODGE & HUT2 L.LP JAMES D. HEISMAN, ESQ 1007 Norlh O~ange Street Wilmington, Delaware 19899 for Defendant ViewSonic Colporation CONNOLLY BOVE L.ODGE & HUTZ LLP SCOTT R MIL.LER, ESQ. 355 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, California 9007 1-3106 for Defendant Viewsonic Colporation

Page
Then we had a hearing on that following Monday, I don't have the dates in mind, that Monday wa in advance of the Friday, March 9 -- somebody correct if my date is wrong -- when we had the hearing in the courthouse that all of you participated in, and I indicated, on Monday, that I would issue an oral decisio on that Friday. Well, when we came to the end of the business day and the question was: Is there anything else for me to attend to today?, we all expected that there wasn't, and, in fact, there was. . . So, not having attended to it on that day, quite frankly, it slipped below the radar screen and it wound up on a sheet that I keep of the 34 applications -- I think we are up to 34 -- that we have been -actually, only up to 30 -- that I have been working on, it wound up as being listed as "resolved." So, it is squarely in my lap that that fell through the cracks and I sincerely apologize. . So, what I want to do first is turn my attention very briefly to that application. Froin my perspective, I think it's fair to say that the application, itself, seeks significant

120 1 121

I

-

-

Page 3
I do apologize for hanging up on evelyone. to let you know, I apologize in advance for the joining us in progress. SPECIAL MASTER POPPITI: Okay. right this minute, but he is planning to join. MR. CHRISTENSON: Thank you. start, let me start by offering an apology. I expected term "voluminous" discovery, it's significant, it could be voluminous, I don't know what it would all involve -that I don't think either party can disagree that ViewSonic previously agreed that LPL did not have to produce. Secondly, I think it's fair to say that the underpinning of the application was, in fact, LPL's written advice on a status document that LPL did, in fact, produce modules that had holes or mounting structures, or whatever we ultimately are going to be calling that equipment, if you will, in the rear of the module that L,PL said that others could use for purposes of rear mounting I think that's fair in terms of what you all advised me of Then, in my view, the question became: Did LPL misrepresent, in the December 28th, 2006, hearing, did it misrepresent that it did not practice the patents-in-suit? Now, it seems to me that in light of the fact that -- L,PL!s position is that ViewSonic is, through its present argument, stating something different than it for argues in its initial b~ief claim construction.

I

now understand what occurred on this end. You may remember, we had a hearing on

the Monday after that hearing, and I realized that I wasn't going to be getting the transcript that would permit me to do that.

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 785-2

Filed 09/17/2007

Page 4 of 4

Hearing

3 (Pages 6 to 9)
Page 6 .
this application. You can also expect that short of having full briefing and having your studied view of what claim construction should be with respect to each claim that's in dispute, each term that's in dispute, that I have made no judgment, and I do not have any -- I have made no judgment with respect to claim construction. I am satisfied that because the discovery is significant, perhaps voluminous, No. 1, and ; 8 I am satisfied, because I expect I need to make some 9 judgment as to whether ViewSonic was appropriately saying 1 0 11 that it did not practice the patents-in-suit, that it is necessary for me to accomplish the claim construction 12 before I open the gates to discovery that was not conten~platedin December of 2006. I fully understand that that may mean, if the claim construction, if you will, goes ViewSonic's way, and, by that, I mean if it goes ViewSonic's way as articulated in its February 16 application, and if I conclude, by virtue of that, that LPL, misstated whether or not they practiced the patent, that discovery, as requested by ViewSonic, is likely, and I understand that that may mean that we are back at a different square. I understand that it may mean that there will be more deposit~on d~scovery wlll have to take place, and I that

Page E
construction is consistent with what LPL says that it should be, and I know that LPL is suggesting that ViewSonic is either attempting to have it both ways or attempting to argue on both sides of the claim, I understand all that, but if it goes LPL's way, then it seems to me that, by virtue of that, it may be that no further discovery will be ordered. If, in fact, claim construction goes ViewSonic's way, then it seems to me all I need to know is whether ViewSonic is still interested, once claim construction occurs, and if it goes ViewSonic's way, whether it is still interested in this discovery. So, it's not a matter of anything other than, say, Please turn your attention to what I refer to in my house over here as "DM 24," which translates to your application that I have just talked about. Is that helpful? MR. MILLER: It is, with one exception, and because I am not particularly versed in it -SPECIAL, MASTER POPPITI: And I do understand that. MR. MILLPER: The concern I have is that my recollection, and it is pretty fuzzy on this, is that you may have the results inverted If the claim

Page 7
understand the-distraction that all of that may cause. I am not satisfied, however, that that is something that's appropriate to do before claim construction is accomplished. So, with that said, you have my decision, if you will, with respect to the February 16 application, and if anyone needs further guidance with respect to that, I can certainly respond to any request for guidance. MR. MIL,LER: This is Scott Miller. SPECIAL MASTER POPPITI: I realize, Mr. Miller, you didn't argue that application. I think it was -MR. MIL,LER: Mr. Nelson. SPECIAL MASTER POPPITI: Thank you. I drew a blank there for a moment. Mr. Nelson. MR. MIL,LER: So I am not particularly well versed on it. I guess the question I would have is: How do we raise this issue once we get the preliminary claim conshvction order in June? the way that it gets -- that I raise it, I don't think -well, let me step back from that. It seems to me that the claim

Page 5;
construction goes LPL's way, the discove~y may be mucl more relevant because it deals with issues where there are mounting features both on the back and in some othe is location; whel-eas, if -- in that sense, the discove~y going to be potentially much more critical, whereas, if the claim construction goes ViewSonic's way, it may be less critical. That's just my sense of the motion. I was concerned that there may be -- you may have the twc results mixed up in tenns of -SPECIAL MASTER POPPITI: I am not sure that I do. But I can assure you that when the time occurs, I will make every effort and attempt to get it right. Mr. Christenson, do you want to weigh in on that? MR. MILLER: I will be happy to review it, too, Your Honor, I apologize. SPECIAL MASTER POPPITI: No. That's okay. You all didn't expect that I was going to be doing this up at the front end, but I was very concelned that, as I read these papels, there were certainly clear -the~e were references to a ViewSonic motion that had yet to be decided, although fully briefed, and I had to figure out which one that was

rting.corn