Free Status Report - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 747 Filed 08/O3/2007 Page 1 of 3
CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE 8c HUTZ LLP
Arroamzvs AT LAW
wiimmcrom, oz
_ The Nemours Building
ggrmgs D· H¤·Sm¤¤ 1007 umn orange sr.
·re1.(302) BBB-6216 2-0- B°" 2207
[email protected] Wilmington, DE 19899
rm.: (302) 05s 9141
mx. (302) 050 5014
WEB: www.cblh.c0m
August 3, 2007
Via Email and Hand-Delivery
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
Blank Rome LLP
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
RE: LG.Philq2s LCD C0., Ltd v. ViewSonic etal., USDC, D. Del., N0. 04-343-JJF
Status Report re LPL’s Supplemental Production of Technical Discovery
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
Pursuant to Your Honor’s direction, ViewSonic hereby supplements its July 27, 2007,
status report regarding LPL’s recent supplemental production of technical discovery.
As of August 2, 2007, LPL has produced approximately 3000 pages of technical
infomation, including duplicate copies of various documents.1 ViewSonic has been working
diligently to review the documents (many of which are in Korean and require translation). This
letter addresses deficiencies in LPL’s supplemental discovery that ViewSonic has identified thus
far, and related discovery issues which the parties have been unable to resolve.2
Assembly of LCD Modules:
Almost none of the produced documents show the assembly or manner of assembly of
any of LPL’s LCD modules. ViewSonic has advised LPL of the deficiency in two letters and in
a telephone call. See Ex. 1, at 1; Ex. 5, at 1. LPL has objected to producing this information,
but, while maintaining its objection, has indicated that it will produce service manual documents
for nine of LPL’s LCD modules which may show their assembly.3 Further, ViewSonic
understands that these doctunents will not be for any of LPL’s prior art LCD modules. LPL
argues that assembly infonnation is not relevant to ViewSonic’s case. ViewSonic disagrees.
Information regarding LCD module assembly is relevant to invalidity, damages, and LPL’s
1 ViewSonic has so far received 453 pages of technical information from LPL on July 17, 2007 (LPL l8297—l8749),
660 pages on July 18 (LPL 18750-19409), 1343 pages on July 23 (LPL 19410-20752), 245 pages on July 30 (LPL
20900 ~ LPL 21144) and 45 pages on August 1 that replace documents previously produced. ViewSonic received 55
pages of 1998-1999 sales summaries on July 20 (LPL 20753 — LPL 20807). ViewSonic received today 353
additional pages (LPL 21188 — LPL 21540).
1 2 The correspondence between the parties regarding the deficiencies in LPL’s technical discovery is attached as
Exhibits 1-6.
3 ViewSonic received certain Service Manuals just today and unfortunately has not been able to review these
documents as of the time of this filing.
. wiuvxmeron, oe wAsmNcroN, oc Los Aucrzuas, cxx

Case 1:O4—cv—OO343-JJF Document 747 Filed 08/O3/2007 Page 2 of 3
% { CONNOLLY B;J;5lEl;55i5 at HUTZ LLP
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
August 3, 2007
Page 2
inequitable conduct, and is called for by ViewSonic’s discovery requests that were the subject of
the June 29 hearing (see, ag., Dl 696, at 1-2, addressing RFPs 84, 88, 90, 92, 94, 96 and 98).
Moreover, LPL disingenuously ignores that it is seeking the same type of assembly infomation
from Tatung. See Ex. 7.
Legibility of Documents:
ViewSonic has notified LPL of sweeping issues concerning the legibility and resolution
of the documents LPL recently produced. See Ex. 1, at 1-2; Ex. 5, at 2-3. For LPL’s
convenience, ViewSonic has identified numerous drawings by Bates number that do not provide
the minimum legibility and resolution necessary to discern all of the infomation that is material
to the case, including embodiments of flat display panels, flat panel display devices, names,
mounting holes, fastening parts and elements including screws, and screw holes and/or other
holes. See Ex. l at 1-2; Ex. 2, at 2-3. So far, LPL has managed to replace only about 45 pages
of the illegible drawings with better quality copies. See Ex. 3. LPL has indicated during a
conference call that if no replacement pages were provided for a document, it is because they are
unable to provide a better quality. ViewSonic has asked LPL to confim this is the case for the
remaining illegible documents.
Lack of Infomation Regarding LPL’s Prior Art Products:
LPL has produced very little technical information related to its LCD modules made or
sold prior to October 23, 1998, the Korean filing date claimed by LPL to be the foreign priority
date for the patents in suit. Moreover, many of the drawings produced by LPL corresponding to
this time period are not legible. See Ex. 1, at 1-2. Consequently, ViewSonic has independently
attempted to find LPL’s prior an LCD modules in the marketplace. Unforttmately, because
LPL’s LCD modules are primarily sold to customers who then incorporate the modules into
finished products such as TVs, monitors or laptop computers, it is difficult, burdensome, and
very inefficient for ViewSonic to try to locate LPL’s modules without first knowing to whom the
modules were sold or the end products in which the modules were incorporated. LPL has not
provided any information regarding its customers or the product brands and/or models into
which its LCD modules were incorporated.
Samples of LCD Modules:
The large number of illegible drawings and the lack of information from LPL regarding
its prior art products present unexpected deficiencies in LPL’s production of technical
information. As a result, ViewSonic has notified LPL that it seeks physical samples of the LCD
modules to ascertain the necessary infomation that is missing from LPL’s document production,
such as, but not limited to, information regarding fastening parts or elements on the rear surface
L of the first frame or back light unit, and information regarding backlight, frame and module
l

Case 1:O4—cv—OO343-JJF Document 747 Filed 08/O3/2007 Page 3 of 3
y coNNoLLY BOVE LODGE at HUTZ LLP
m ATTORNEYS AT LAW
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
August 3, 2007
Page 3
assemblies. See Ex. 4, at 1; Ex. 5, at 1-2, 3-4. LPL has neither produced any samples of its
modules nor offered any dates to inspect its modules.4
Deposition of LPL:
ViewSonic has advised LPL that at least one additional 30(b)(6) deposition of LPL will
be needed to address various issues caused by LPL’s deferred production of these highly relevant
documents. See Ex. 1, at 3; Ex. 5, at 4. Some of the topics on which ViewSonic anticipates
needing testimony include, without limitation, authentication of the documents recently
produced, explanation of the information in the documents (including information that cannot be
discerned due to legibility issues), invalidity of the patents in suit based on these documents,
issues of LPL’s inequitable conduct raised by these documents, LPL’s offers for sale and sales of
LCD modules prior to October 23, 1998, and the identity of products sold containing LPL’s LCD
modules, or LPL’s customers, prior to October 23, 1998. The deposition can occur at the
location directed by Your Honor, though ViewSonic proposed to LPL that the deposition be
conducted in Los Angeles after all of LPL’s supplemental technical information has been
produced and analyzed by ViewSonic’s expert eonsu1tant(s). LPL opposes ViewSonic’s request
for additional 30(b)(6) deposition discovery.
Counsel for ViewSonic looks forward to discussing the issues raised herein during the
August 7 teleconference, or at any other time that is convenient to Your Honor.
{ ~ ly submitted,
. Heisman
cc: All Counsel of Record
556423/70104*4
4 ViewSonic’s RFP 128 seeks samples of LPL’s LCD modules Bom 1998 forward. See DI 696, at 4 & Ex. 4
thereto, at 1-2.

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 747

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 747

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 747

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 3 of 3