etAr~rr<—r2oMetrr
COUNSELORS AT LAW
Phone: (302) 425-6410
Fax: (302) 420-5132
Email: [email protected]
July 27, 2007
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street, Lock Box 27
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: LG. Philips LCD Co., Ltd. v. ViewSonic Corporation, et al.
Proposed Stipulated Protective Order
C.A. No. 04-343 JJF
Dear Judge Farnan:
This letter follows up on our discussion on July l0, 2007 regarding Tatung Company’s
and Tatung Company of America’s (Tatung defendants) Requests for Clarification of the Special
Master’s Opinion and Claim Construction Order (the “Order"). In this regard, you instructed me
to review the requests and provide any clarification if required. Although the Tatung defendants’
request for clarification initiated this review, I took the opportunity to consider all of the parties’
exceptions to the Order. In short, I conclude that clarification is not required for any of the terms
objected to by the parties.
On June 15, 2007, I issued the Order construing 20 claim terms. Each of the parties
subsequently filed their exceptions to the Order on July 6, 2007 and responses to the exceptions
on July 20, 2007. I reviewed each of the parties’ exceptions to the Order; however, this
correspondence focuses on the Tatung defendants’ submission in particular because it requested
clarification of rather than objecting to the Order.
Although couched as a request for clarification, the Tatung defendants’ request in my
view attempts to seek a different and more favorable claim construction. For example, the
Tatung defendants request clarification of the term “flat panel display device."l That term was
construed in the Order as a device having at least a flat display panel sandwiched by the first and
second frames. The Tatung defendants first suggest that “sandwiched" must mean that the
frames and panel are "proximally associated or comiected so as to form a unit." See Tatung
Defendants' Request at 15. The Tatung defendants then argue that this interpretation of the term
I Defendant ViewSonic makes arguments similar to Tatung regarding several claims terms including “tlat panel
display device." ViewSonic clearly indicated, however, that they were objecting to the claim construction order,
See ViewSonic’s Objection to the Special Master‘s Report and Recommendation Regarding Claim Construction
Order' Chase Manhattan Centre 1201 Market Street Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801
O62038.00612/40170273v.1 WWW-B'a"*R°â€â€œ*·°°"‘
Delaware • Florida • New Jersey • New York • Ohio • Pennsylvania • Washington, DC • I-long l
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 741 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 2 of 2
at/-\r\1i<_ Romer?
COUNSELORS AT LAW
The Honorable Joseph J. F arnan, Jr.
July 27, 2007
Page 2
"sandwiched" is necessary because plaintiff LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. (LPL) misconstrues the
construction of "flat panel display device" set forth in the Order.2
As detailed in the Order, I conclude that the claim language (particularly claims 55 and
56 of U.S. Patent No. 6,501,641) is clear. In my view, any further amplification of the
construction of "f1at panel display device" would improperly read in limitations from the
specification. Moreover, the term "sandwiched" has a common meaning that does not require
elaboration. I am also satisfied that it would be inappropriate to consider, as the Tatung
defendants request, LPL’s interpretation, post issuance of the Order, of the construction of "f1at
panel display device" in the context of ongoing discovery disputes. To do so would be outside
the scope of claim construction.
For the above reasons, I conclude that no clarification is necessary for "flat panel display
device." Additionally, I conclude the Order is clear with respect to the remaining objected to
terms, and thus clarification is not necessary.
I, of course, stand ready to accept any further direction from the Court in this regard.
Respectfully,
/s/ Vincentl Poppiti
Vincent J. Poppiti
VJP/dal
cc: Richard D. Kirk, Esquire
Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Esquire
Jeffrey B. Bove, Esquire
2 The Tatung defendants argues that LPL asserts a bracket or shield added by a "setmaker" to the back of an LCD
device qualifies as a first frame ofa "flat panel display device" as construed in the Order, ignoring the fact that the
LCD device has its own frame. See the Tatung Defendants Request at 13.
06203800612/40170273v.t
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 741
Filed 07/27/2007
Page 1 of 2
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 741
Filed 07/27/2007
Page 2 of 2
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms