Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 729-5 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 2 of 3
.,.,,,, McKenna. Long N...Y....
Atlanta &' ldgcup Philadelphia
Brussels AUMMYS at Law San Diego {
Denver 1900 K Street, NW • Washington, DC 20006-1108 San Francisco .
Tel: 202.496.7500 • Fax: 202.4%.7756 `
Los Angeles Www.mcl
(202) 496-7218 cchristens0n@mcl
VIA E-MA1L AND U.S. MAIL
Scott R. Miller, Esq.
Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz, LLP Q
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3150 §
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Re: LG..Phil1)2s LCD C0., Ltd. v. T utung, etal.,
Civil Action N0. 04-343 (JJF) g
`l
Dear Scott:
l
I write to respond to your May 23, 2007 letter proposing that we consent on behalf of
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPLâ€) to ViewSonic's request to amend its pleadings and assert a E
new inequitable conduct defense.
We discussed this issue yesterday during the discovery teleconference with the Special
Master. As I made clear, LPL will oppose any attempt by ViewSonic to amend its answer and ,
allege an inequitable conduct defense. Asserting an inequitable conduct defense now would be
untimely, unfair, and prejudicial to LPL. Discovery is closed. The deadline to amend pleadings 3
has expired. ViewSonic has never pleaded an inequitable conduct defense in this case and
cannot do so now after failing to act with diligence and tmfairly delaying any attempt to raise mis §
issue until after discovery. LPL has not had proper notice of such a defense, nor has LPL been `
provided with proper discovery. The proposed defense, moreover, is meritless and lacks a f
factual or legal basis, contrary to settled law and standards for pleading under Rule 9(b). i
Further, your May 23 letter fails to provide important information. For example, the
letter refers to undisclosed "discove1y" on which ViewSonic purports to base its new inequitable
conduct defense. Please identify specifically what discovery ViewSonic is relying on so that we
may consider this and respond. In addition, your letter refers to unspecified °‘interrogatory
responses" that ptuportedly address inequitable conduct. Please identify these interrogatory
answers. Also, please explain when ViewSonic first learned of each fact and purported prior art
reference identified in ViewSonic's proposed inequitable conduct defense.
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 729-5 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 3 of 3 l
Scott R. Miller, Esq.
May 25, 2007 p
Page 2 7
During the teleconference yesterday, you also indicated that ViewSonic might attempt to
rely on a purported inequitable conduct defense in the Tatung Defendants answer. As I
responded, ViewSonic's expert witness cannot properly testify about a defense not pleaded by
ViewSonic. Therefore, there is no basis for ViewSonic's expert to address any inequitable
conduct defense. As set forth in LPL's reply, moreover, Tatung's purported inequitable conduct p
defense is fatally deficient and fails to comply with the applicable standards for pleading such a `
defense. Therefore, there is no basis for either ViewSonic or Tatung to offer any evidence,
including expert testimony, in support of an inequitable conduct defense.
LPL will oppose as improper any attempt by ViewSonic or Tatung to inject into this case
unwarranted evidence or issues related to inequitable conduc
Sincer y, }
l l
Cass W. Christensen
cc: Counsel of Record (via email)
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 729-5
Filed 07/19/2007
Page 1 of 3
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 729-5
Filed 07/19/2007
Page 2 of 3
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 729-5
Filed 07/19/2007
Page 3 of 3
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms