Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 701 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 1 of 3
222 D1;i.AwA1u2 Avnxur, Sum: 900
PO. Box 25150
Wi .r11Nc‘1‘<>N, DE 19899
Zil'\C()l)lE Fon DlEl.l\l’1(lli>: 19801
A T T O N E Y S `i+irmennAsmw1¤1r=ry1sw0ruuvvs0t
www l>z1yurcll`i1·m com
502-655-5000
‘~ _ --(’ *-6, ,.
E1#E¤TR¤N¤¤ALLY FH-ED WQQTZSZ .11332.3.iZ
BY HAND AND BY EMAIL L ` A ii
(302) 429-4208
astitzer@baya1·dfirm.com
June 25, 2007
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
Blank Rome LLP
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: LG'.Philzps LCD C0., Ltd. v. ViewSonic, C.A. N0. 04-343 JJF
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
Plaintiff LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPL") submits this opposition to Defendants Tatung
Co1npany’s and Tatung Company of America, Inc.’s (collectively, "Tatung") June 20, 2007
submission ("Submission") seeking supplemental discovery responses from LPL in light of Your
Honor’s June 15, 2007 claim construction determinations ("Markman Ruling"). Tatung seeks
supplemental responses from LPL to Tatung’s lnterrogatories 1-4. LPL may need to supplement
its responses to lnterrogatories 1-4 based on the Markman Ruling. Tatung did not raise these
issues with LPL prior to tiling its Submission, however, and does not need any of these
supplemental responses in order to complete its opening expert repoits on July 16, 2007. Rather,
pursuant to the parties’ prior agreements, Your Honor should allow LPL to have until at least
July 30, 2007 to provide supplemental responses to Interrogatories 1-4. Any supplementation,
moreover, should take into account the fact that LPL’s own expert report will provide
information concerning infringement on July 16. Finally, the parties are negotiating a resolution
to Tatung’s request for additional information from LPL’s attomey Rebecca Rudich.
Tatung’s Interrogatories 1-4 all pertain to LPL’s infringement claims against Tatung’s
products. None of the Defendants need these supplemental responses in order for them to
prepare their opening expert reports by July 16, 2007. (See Ex. A, May 24, 2007 Hr’g Tr. at
22:11-33:3 (ViewSonic’s counsel discussing potential need for expedited discovery related to
ViewSonic’s opening expert repo1ts).) Furthermore, the parties previously agreed that they
would provide supplemental discovery responses within 45 days after the Markman Ruling
issued. Consistent with that agreement, LPL should not be required to provide any supplemental
discovery responses that are not necessary for opening expert reports until at least July 30, 2007.
In October and November 2006, the parties discussed the fact that claim construction
would potentially require all parties to supplement certain discovery responses. As a result,
ViewSonic proposed that the parties agree to supplement any discovery responses impacted by
663702-l

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 701 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 2 of 3
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
THE BAYARIJ FIRM me 25, 2007
Page 2
the forthcoming Markman Ruling within 45 days after the issuance of that Ruling. (See Ex. B,
Letter from S. Miller (Oct. ll, 2006).) LPL accepted ViewSonic’s proposal (see Ex. C, Letter
from R. Ambrozy (Nov. 3, 2006)) and, because Tatung never objected, LPL has been operating
on the understanding that all parties would supplement discovery responses within 45 days after
the Markman Ruling, which would be on or before July 30, 2007.
There is no need to expedite responses on Tatung’s lnterrogatories 1-4. Tatung has never
explained why it must have detailed, updated infringement analysis from LPL in order for
Tatung’s expert witness(es) to prepare a validity analysis, which is based on claim constructions
and prior art assertions, not on LPL’s infringement contentions. Given the fact that preparation
of opening expert reports is an intensely laborious and time—consurning process, there is no need
for any party to expend time and resources on supplemental responses that are not necessary for
those reports. Tatung’s lnterrogatories 1-4 all will require LPL to engage in complicated and
time—consuming analysis of over 165 different accused products in light of Your Honor’s claim
constructions. Furthermore, LPL’s own expert reports will provide a detailed analysis of LPL’s
infringement contentions, meaning that the Defendants will be advised of LPL’s infringement
contentions by no later than July 16. Because expedited supplementation would impose undue
and unnecessary burdens, LPL should not be required to supplement its responses to Tatung’s
lnterrogatories l-4, which can have no bearing on Tatung’s opening expert reports, on an
expedited basis.
LPL has attempted and is continuing to attempt to resolve Tatung’s requests for more
information from attorney Rebecca Rudich. Tatung attached a letter dated April 26, 2007, in
which it demanded that Ms. Rudich submit an amended affidavit. (See Ex. D to Tatung Subm.)
However, Tatung ignores the fact that LPL responded the very next day by submitting another
draft affidavit and 84 pages of exhibits, including photograph exhibits, from Ms. Rudich for
Tatung’s review. (See Ex. D, E—rnail from D. Auito (Apr. 27, 2007) (with attachrnent).)
Tatung’s only comment in response to LPL’s April 27 correspondence was to claim that the
attached images are unclear. On June 25, LPL contacted Tatung’s counsel again to try to resolve
this dispute. The parties will advise Your Honor if they are able to reach agreement.
Respectfully submitted,
Ashley B. Stitzgi $$8891)
cc: Counsel as shown on the attached certificate
663702-1

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 701 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned counsel certifies that, on June 25, 2007, she electronically filed
the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send
automatic notification of the filing to the following:
Jeffrey B Bove, Esq. Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Esq.
James D. Heisman, Esq. Anne Shea Gaza, Esq.
Jaclyn M. Mason, Esq. Richards, Layton & Finger
Connolly Bove Lodge & I-Iutz LLP One Rodney Square
1007 North Orange Street P.O. Box 551
P.O. Box 2207 Wilmington, DE 19899
Wilmington, Delaware 19899--2207
The undersigned counsel further certifies that copies of the foregoing document
were sent by email and by hand on June 25, 2007 to the above counsel and were sent by
email and by U.S. Mail on June 25, 2007 to the following non—registered participants:
Scott R. Miller, Esq. Valerie Ho, Esq.
Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP Mark H. Krietzman, Esq.
355 South Grand Avenue Frank C. Merideth, Jr., Esq.
Suite 3150 Greenberg Traurig LLP
Los Angeles, CA 90071 2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400E
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Tracy Roman, Esq.
Raskin Peter Rubin & Simon LLP
1801 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
/s/ Ashley B. Stitzer gas389l1
Ashley B. Stitzer
571447-1

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 701

Filed 06/25/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 701

Filed 06/25/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 701

Filed 06/25/2007

Page 3 of 3