Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 704 Filed 07/O3/2007 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OP DELAWARE
LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD., :
Plaintiff, ;
v. ; Civil Action No. 04-343-JJF
TATUNG CO., TATUNG COMPANY E
OF AMERICA, INC., and :
VIEWSONIC CORP., :
Defendants. Z
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court are two sets of Objections To
Portions Of Special Master’s Report And Recommendations On Motion
Of Defendant ViewSonic Corporation To Compel Discovery, one (D.I. 1
313) filed by Plaintiff, LG. Phillips LCD Co., Ltd. (“LPL"), and
one (D.I. 316) filed by Defendant ViewSonic Corporation
(“ViewSonic"). By its Objections, LPL contends that it should
not be required to supplement its responses to ViewSonic's
Requests for Admission Nos. 17 and 23 because they require LPL to
engage in claim construction and are vague and ambiguous. LPL
also contends that Request for Admission No. 23 contains
inappropriate hypothetical scenarios. By its Objections,
ViewSonic contends that LPL should be compelled to respond to
ViewSonic's Requests for Admissions Nos. 5-7 and 15, or those
requests should be deemed admitted.

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 704 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 2 of 3
The Court has reviewed de ngyg the Special Master's Report
and Recommendations On Motion Of Defendant ViewSonic Corp. To
Compel Discovery (D.I. 306) and concludes that the Special
Master’s decisions were not erroneous. With respect to LPL's
Objections, the Court agrees with the Special Master that
Requests for Admission 17 and 23 involve LPL's understanding of
observable facts related to the accused product.l As for
ViewSonic's Objections, the Court likewise agrees with the
Special Master's conclusion that Requests for Admission Nos. 5-7
“seek comparison of the accused product to something that is
admittedly not the alleged invention covered by the patents-in-
suit,” and therefore, these Requests for Admission seek a legal
conclusion that the accused products practice the prior art
instead of the claimed invention. (D.I. 306 at 14). The Court
also agrees with the Special Master that LPL was not required to
respond to Request for Admission No. 15 because it involved claim
construction. The Court notes that ViewSonic has recently filed
a letter (D.I. 696) with the Special Master renewing its request
that LPL be compelled to respond to Request for Admission 15 now
that claim construction has been completed. Because that letter
request is currently before the Special Master, the Court
L Even if the Court were to accept LPL’s argument that
its answers would implicate and/or require claim construction,
the Court notes that the Special Master has already issued his ,
decision on claim construction. Therefore, LPL's concerns have “
been substantially ameliorated. %
2 it

Case1:O4-cv—OO343—JJF Document 704 Filed 07/O3/2007 Page30f3
declines to further address the issue at this juncture.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that;
1. The Objections To Portions Of Special Master’s Report
And Recommendations On Motion Of Defendant ViewSonic Corporation
To Compel Discovery (D.I. 313) filed by LPL are OVERRULED.
2. The Objections To Portions Of Special Master’s Report
And Recommendations On ViewSonic Corporation’s Motion To Compel
Discovery (D.1. 316) filed by ViewSonic are OVERRULED.
3. The Special Master’s Report And Recommendation On
Motion Of Defendant ViewSonic Corp. To Compel Discovery (D.1.,
306) is ADOPTED.
July , 2007 · 1, .a..y _
DATE UN =D ST; • DISTRICT5g»•GE
3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 704

Filed 07/03/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 704

Filed 07/03/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 704

Filed 07/03/2007

Page 3 of 3