Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 702 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 1 of 4
f CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE 8c HUTZ LLP
..»~ g Arronmizvs AT i.Aw
wiuvimcron, ma
The Nemours Building
1007 North Orange St.
P.O. Box 2207
_ Wilmington, DE 19899
James D. Heisman rst; isozi 658 9141
Pamat FAX: (302) 658 sem
WEB; www.cblh.com
Ts:. (302) 888—6216
mvuut [email protected]
Via Email and Hai/1d—Delivery
June 25, 2007
` The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
Blank Rome LLP
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: LG.Plzilq2s LCD C0., Ltd. v. ViewSonic et al., USDC, D. Del., No. 04-343-JJF
Discovery Deferred Until After Claim Construction
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
· Pursuant to section II of Mr. Kirk’s June 1, 2007 letter to Your Honor (DI 681),
ViewSonic hereby responds to LPL’s June 20 submission.
LPL did not identify any additional discovery that it seeks from the defendants, or
that has been deferred based on any alleged need for claim construction. Instead, LPL asks
that any such discovery be limited at most. Unfortunately, this is simply not possible given
that defendants have produced substantial discovery, while LPL has successfully fought to
defer discovery until now. This deferral, however, cannot be the basis for denial, as doing
so will severely prejudice defendants in their preparation of this case.
. LPL has produced very little technical information about its own products, and QQ
technical information about gn; prior art LPL product, which is critical discovery at least
for invalidity and unenforceability of the patents in suit. Moreover, LPL has failed to
provide a single LPL product for inspection. With claim construction complete, it is
apparent that the discovery sought by ViewSonic that has been deferred, both prior art and
later LPL products, is all unquestionably relevant. The fact that it may also be materially
harmful to LPL’s contentions in this case is what makes it important to defendants.
Allegations by LPL that the burden to produce the technical discovery that it has
managed to defer should somehow relieve it from its discovery obligations must be
‘ rejected. Any burden placed on LPL now is no different than the burdens already borne in
this case by ViewSonic and the Tatung defendants to produce technical information, 1
reflected in part by the much larger volume of discovery produced by the defendants. It .
was LPL’s strategic choice to delay production of its technical information — which
ViewSonic has been seeking for a year - until after claim construction. LPL’s choice to
pursue delay rather than comply with its discovery obligations has prejudiced ViewSonic
I As an example ofthe burden ViewSonic has absorbed, ViewSonic has produced more than 130,000 pages
· of documents including technical and sales information for every ViewSonic monitor and television sold in
the U.S. since December 2002. ViewSonic located and offered LPL and its technical expert to inspect
approximately 150 ViewSonic products. LPL has avoided similar burdens by producing a total of
approximately 18,000 pages of documents comprising primarily the prosecution histories ofthe patents in
suit (including certified copies which ViewSonic had already produced in the case), related patent
applications, some prior art, and photos of various products the defendants have offered for inspection.
. witmmcron, oz wAsmNcron, oc tos Aneztias, cn -

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 702 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 2 of 4 l
l
y CONNOLLY Bova LODGE at HUTZ LLP
é
. The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
June 25, 2007
Page 2
by, among other things, greatly shortening the time remaining to properly evaluate the
expected volume of discovery to be provided by LPL. LPL has all of the technical
discovery from ViewSonic, while ViewSonic has virtually none from LPL.
To the extent that LPL does or can group or categorize its LCD and plasma
. products, ViewSonic is willing to accept information sufficient to establish the structure
and assembly of each group or category of LCD and plasma products, including the
structure and assembly of the parts of such products, as long as the details of all fastening
parts are accurately depicted for each group, including identifying the location, size and
type of any and all fastening parts, whether or not the fastening parts were used to mount
the LCD or plasma product to a case or housing, and even if the fastening parts were in fact
designed to fasten other structures to the LCD or plasma product. This is exactly the type
of categorization LPL has asked the defendants to provide, and will reduce any alleged
burden on LPL to produce the critical information.
‘ LPL has suggested in the past that (i) LPL does not make a “rearmountable" flat
panel display product as that term is used in the patents in suit, and (ii) that it does not have
any technical information regarding front mount and side mount LPL LCD modules sold or
offered for sale in the U.S. prior to December 3l, l998 (the date LPL asserts should cut~off
prior art technical discovery). Properly made, such representations would reduce the
volume of technical discovery from and the commensurate burden on LPL. ViewSonic
believes appropriate representations would have the following form:
(1) LCD modules that LPL has made and makes for use in desktop
_ computer monitors and televisions are "flat panel display devices" as that term is
presently construed;2
(2) LPL has not made and does not make "flat panel display devices" that V
are "rear mountable" as those tenns are presently construed; and
(3) LPL has no technical information (e. g., product specifications, drawings,
or service or repair manuals, instructions, samples, etc.) for any of its "f`lat panel
display products" that were offered for sale or sold prior to December 1998.
If LPL makes these representations on the record, the deferred technical discovery
· from LPL that will remain at issue relates to noninfringing alternatives, which will greatly
reduce any burden on LPL.3
Finally, LPL’s implication that there was no compliance with LR 7.l.l is incorrect.
What is apparent is that LPL’s arguments to "defer" discovery were nothing more than
thinly veiled attempts to completely avoid discovery. As demonstrated by the
correspondence enclosed with LPL’s June 20 submission, when ViewSonic indicated that it
would consider any offer from LPL to produce some portion of the technical discovery that
is long overdue, LPL offered nothing.
W Counsel for ViewSonic looks forward to discussing the issues raised herein and in
ViewSonic’s June 20 submission at Your Honor’s convenience.
2 LPL has admitted that its LCD modules have frames. See A. Stitzer’s Jan. 8, 2007 letter (Ex. 19), p. 2, § III.
However, LPL’s LCD modules may not be "rear mountable?
3 If any claim construction changes, ViewSonic reserves the right to seek the full scope of its discovery
requests.

Case 1:04—cv—00343-JJF Document 702 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 3 of 4.
y CONNOLLY Bova LODGE ag Hurz LLP
A
· The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
V June 25, 2007
Page 3
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ James D. Heisman
James D. Heisman
cc: Counsel of record

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 702 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 25, 2007, a true copy of the foregoing document was hand
delivered to the following persons and was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using
CM/ECF which will send notification of such filing to the following and the document is
available for viewing and downloading from CM/ECF:
Richard D. Kirk Anne Shea Gaza
The Bayard Firm Frederick L. Cottrell lll
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900 Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
Wilmington, DE 19801 One Rodney Square
Wilmington, DE 19801
I hereby certify that on June 25, 2007, I have sent by email the foregoing document to the
following non—registered participants:
Cass W. Christensen Mark H. Krietzman
Lora A. Brzezynski Valerie W. Ho
Rel S. Ambrozy Frank E. Merideth, Jr.
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP Steve P. Hassid
1900 K Street, NW Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Washington, DC 20006 2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400E
l Santa Monica, CA 90404
Tracy R. Roman
Raskin Peter Rubin & Simon
1801 Century Park East 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
By: /s/ James D. Heisman
A James D. Heisman (#2746)
[email protected]
ss4rm_1.¤oc

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 702

Filed 06/25/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 702

Filed 06/25/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 702

Filed 06/25/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 702

Filed 06/25/2007

Page 4 of 4