Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 773-10 Filed 08/23/2007 Page1 0f 3
Exh1b1t I

· of 3
Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 773-10 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 2
Trauri g 9
Valerie W. Ho
ra 310.586.7841
rss arosssraoe
[email protected]
August 13, 2007
Via E-Mail and U.S. Mail
Cass Christenson, Esq.
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
1900 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006 y ,,5,,,,
Re; LG Phi/ips LCD Cor, Ltd vs. ViewSonic Corporation, el cr!.
Delaware District Court, Case No. 04-343 JJF
Dear Cass: i
As Ms. Brzeynski is on vacation, we are directing this letter to your attention. ln light of LPL‘s g ‘'C` i
recent document productions, including disclosure ofthe LG LC056N1 module, it has become t'`’i I
necessary for us to dcpose the attorney at McKenna, Long & Aldridge who is familiar with the I ii`
tirm’s policies and procedures regarding patent prosecution and who played a substantial role ° ‘``l ii
in prosecuting the Patents·in—Suit. Until today’s hearing, we believed the appropriate witness I “’”’c‘“"”’“
was Rebecca Rudich, whose declaration stated that she is involved in prosecution activities S ““*"’“’*‘
relating to the Patents-in—Suit and that she is the senior partner in charge of all prosecution
Work. At t0day’S hearing, however, Ms. Bizeynski suggested for the tirgt time that while M; I ><>- ··=tl ><`>~*
Rudich has worked in this capacity for the past several years, she worked in a different capacity >”t*
as an associate during the time the Patents-in—Suit were being prosecuted. Ms. Brzeynski < rm
further represented that Ms. Rudich is not competent to testify regarding prosecution ofthe I t—t=»»=~"
Patents—in~Suit or the tirm policies regarding patent prosecution for the time frame in question. , MM we
wv: row.
ln light of Ms. Brzeynski’s statements today, we propose the following compromise; i rwasca s».:»it—.»
I {DQ; L rifyi`}
1) LPL will not be required to submit documents from its privilege log for in camera review; q aati;>¢.p.;
` c:tC,tE\J—¥
2) McKenna will make Ms. Rudich available for a short deposition limited to questions W,.
relating to the ‘079 patent application; ,a».W.t.~, Q
j ·»¤r:f.i>¢~; v'
3) ln lieu ofmaking Ms. Rudich available on other topics, McKenna will provide an I
appropriate Rule 30(b)(6) witness for deposition. The topics will include McKenna’s policies Z w,_,_
and procedures relating to patent prosecution, any policies and procedures implemented by ; NQ,
McKenna to ensure that its prosecuting attorneys and clients comply with their duty of candor WW _q_, _
to the Patent Ofiice, the custom and practice employed by McKenna prosecution attorneys in i ,rr__
connection with obtaining, investigating, evaluating and disclosing prior art, the prosecution of
the Patents—in—Suit, and whether any McKenna attomey was involved in any capacity in the LG. . `V_` I pi A ii
LA 1269064490 8/73/2007 F`; ',.t T").? ,i..’.,, 7
~; we: g "¤ut.¢·g;, .ti> Ir¤t;otswef,te at I tos »>r:g;t¢les titties I 24% (iI)iO$';3!i~D =i».ter:ut= I Butte MCE Santa °·‘?(¤"tt(.t3, CA %U<‘» Yet 3?t);§8é.." 701} I iss 3 FG €£$e.?é$Cil JvW‘.’v.iQTi{%»’M.('i3!7¥

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 773-10 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 3 of 3
Cass W. Christenson, Esq.
August 13, 2007
Page 2
Philips LCD Co., Ltd v. NEC Corporation litigation. We, ofcourse, are amenable to
discussing the topics in more detail with you.
Please let us know ifthis proposal is acceptable to LPL and McKenna by the close of business
on August 14, 2007. lf the parties cannot reach agreement, we intend to bring this proposal to
the Special Masters attention at the August 16, 2007 hearing.
Very truly yours,
.//”`
/{/4 I _>,,i/~·~*"’j “>"N;FW_(______,,,.W»-—·<,.______ ,,,,.
Valerie W. Ho
ce: Counsel on service list (via email)
LA 126905449v2 8/13/2007
Greenberg Traurég. Lt?
t
?

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 773-10

Filed 08/23/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 773-10

Filed 08/23/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 773-10

Filed 08/23/2007

Page 3 of 3