Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 705 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD., :
Plaintiff, :
v. : Civil Action No. 04-343-JJF
TATUNG CO., TATUNG COMPANY :
OF AMERICA, INC., and :
VIEWSONIC CORP., :
Defendants. :
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff LG.Philips LCD Co.,
Ltd.'s Objections To Special Master’s February 21, 2007 Report Z
And Recommendations (D.I. 550). For the reasons discussed, the
Court will overrule the Objections filed by Plaintiff, LG.Philips ‘
LCD Co., Ltd. (“LPL") and adopt the Special Master’s February 21,
2007 Report and Recommendation (D.I. 629).
On January 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed a letter motion
requesting the Special Master to compel Viewsonic Corporation
(“ViewSonic”) to work promptly with LPL to categorize its
products into “mounting systems” or “mounting categories.”l The
Special Master concluded that ViewSonic could not be compelled to
provide and/or create documents that are not maintained and do
1 Plaintiff's January 26 letter motion is related to its
September 27, 2006 motion to compel ViewSonic to provide
technical and mounting related documents. The Special Master
granted that Motion by a separate Report and Recommendation (D.I.
487) dated February 14, 2007, and the Court has overruled
ViewSonic‘s Objection and adopted the Special Master's Report and
Recommendation.

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 705 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 2 of 4
not exist in the ordinary course of ViewSonic’s business.
By its Objection, LPL contends that the Court has the
authority to require ViewSonic to generate an index that
categorizes its products based upon the mounting systems used.
LPL contends that ViewSonic is uniquely able to evaluate its own
products, and the Court fashioned similar relief in LG.Philips
LCD Co., Ltd. v. Tatung Co., Tatung Co. of America, Inc.,
Chungwha Pictures Tubes Ltd. and ViewSonic Corp., Civil Action
No. 05-292-JJF, by requiring Defendant Chungwha Picture Tubes
Ltd. (“CPT”) to generate a summary document, in English,
categorizing products. LPL also contends that such relief would
not be required if ViewSonic had produced all of its technical
documents and product samples in a timely fashion so that LPL
could have evaluated them and categorized them independently.
LPL further contends that the Special Master erred in
construing the September 15, 2006 letter from LPL to ViewSonic as
an admission that the documents produced by ViewSonic were
sufficient for LPL to make a determination about infringement.
LPL contends that its letter was asking ViewSonic to complete its
document production and that its letter never suggested that
ViewSonic’s production was adequate or sufficient for LPL to make
an infringement determination.2
2 It appears to the Court that ViewSonic has not filed a
response to LPL's Objection.
2
ii

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 705 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 3 of 4
Reviewing the Special Master's decision de ggyg, the Court
concludes that the Special Master’s decision was not erroneous.
LPL acknowledges that it is capable of categorizing the products
itself once it has full production by ViewSonic, and the Court
has ordered that production consistent with the Special Master’s
instructions in his February 14, 2007 Report and Recommendation.
The Court further agrees with the Special Master's
interpretation of the September 26, 2006 letter from LPL to
ViewSonic. Although LPL was also looking for additional
information from ViewSonic and wanted to confirm that the
additional production would continue, the Court agrees with the
Special Master that the letter suggests that the production until
that point had been sufficient to enable LPL to make, at least
some infringement assessments.
Assuming ViewSonic completes the outstanding production of
documents in this case, including any outstanding product
inspections, the Court concludes that LPL can assess the products
on its own accord. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the
findings of fact and conclusion of law rendered by the Special
Master in his February 21, 2007 Report and Recommendation.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.’s Objections To
Special Master’s February 21, 2007 Report And Recommendations are
OVERRULED.
3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 705 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 4 of 4
2. The Special Master's February 21, 2007 Report and
Recommendation (D.I. 629) is ADOPTED.
¤;· 0 01 E-! 2007 .• ¤= nn
DATE UNET D E ET .. DISTTRTC 4 GE
4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 705

Filed 07/03/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 705

Filed 07/03/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 705

Filed 07/03/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 705

Filed 07/03/2007

Page 4 of 4