Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 697 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 1 of 3
F?rc:r—rAnr:>s·s, Lavrcm Se Friesen
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOClATlC!N
ONE: F“?0¤NzY Scum:
ANNE SHEA GMA sac) Nowrn Kino Smesrr 8,,,ECT DML
Wnrmincsron, Dctawnne reason <¥¤¤·?-‘>€=5*·‘*’5¤9
[email protected] com
caoaieer-woo
sax tsaoai as i-wor
WWW.RLF.COM
June 20, 2007
BY E-MAIL & HAND DELIVERY
The rlonorable Vincent J- Poppiti
BLANK ROME. LLP
Chase Manhattan Center
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: LG.PI¢iIips LCD C0., Link v. ViewSonic et al.,
C.A. No. 04~343—J.}F
Discovery from LPL Deferred Until After Claim Construction
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
Pursuant to section H.1 ofthe joint submission provided by Mr. Kirk to Your Honor on
June I, 2007 (Ex "A"), Tatung Company and Tatung Company of America (collectively,
“Tatung") hereby renew and repeat their request for discovery that LPL has previously objected
to providing based on the alleged need for claim construction, or was deferred until after claim
construction, which issued June 15, 2007. The additional discovery sought relates to Tatung’s
defenses of invalidity, unenforceability, nominfringement, and damages.]
I. LPL’s Promise to Provide More Detailed Infringement Conteutions
ROC} 1: Tatung seeks LPL’s identification of allegedly infringing Tatung products and
LPL’s infringement contentions regarding those products. LPL has consistently agreed that
"LPL will provide more detailed information regarding infringing products and asserted claims
at the appropriate time." See Plaintiff s Seventh Supplemental Objections and Answers to
Defendant Tatung Cornpany’s First Set of interrogatories at Page 93 dated May 4, 2007 (Ex.
"B"). At the August .23 hearing, Your Honor held that, with reference to ViewSonic’s July 31,
.2006 motion, complete responses tiorn LPL to infringement interrogatories such as Interrogatory
l should be deferred until after claim construction. See Tr. of Aug. 23 Hr., at 4:2 — 2.], 6:6 ~ 16.
E To the extent the construction of "rear mountable" or any other term changes, Tatung
reserves the right to seek different or additional discovery based on such cliange(s) in the claim
construction.
Ri-F 1-2 1as2o6-i

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 697 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 2 of 3
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
June 20, 2007
Page 2
As Your lelonor is well aware, the claim terms in dispute have now been construed,
Accordingly, LPL must now provide detailed infringement contentions, limitation by limitation,
for any Tatung product LPL continues to accuse of infringement. In particular, this information
is needed in order to evaluate how LPL is applying the construed claim terms to each of the
Tatung products accused in this case in preparation for Tatung’s non- inhingement and invalidity
defenses. This supplementation should be provided before Tatung is required to submit its
expert report on invalidity so as to allow l`atung’s expert to understand and/or address how LPL
is applying the claim limitations as part of the expert’s evaluation ofthe prior art.
ROG 2: Tatung seeks a categorization from LPL of what Tatung products it contends
infringe its patents and, for each product, whether such infringement is alleged to be literal or by
the Doctrine of Equivalents ("DOE”). In lr,Pl,’s response to lnterrogatory 2, LPL again indicated
that °‘LPL will provide more detailed information regarding infringing products and asserted
claims at the appropriate time." See Ex "B" at page 108. Thus, for any remaining Tatung
products, LPL should be required to indicate - asserted claim by asserted claim - whether the
alleged infringement is literal, DOE or both.
ROC: 3: Tatung seeks the detailed literal infringement contentions from LPI., for each
asserted claim for each accused product. In particular, LPL should be required to provide
limitation by limitation contentions that connect each limitation to an element of the accused
product. In LPL’s response to lnterrogatory 3, LPL again indicated that "LPL will provide more
detailed information regarding infringing products and asserted claims at the appropriate time."
See Ex. "l€3" at page 150. Accordingly, to the extent LPL continues to allege that any remaining
Tatung products literally infringe any claim of the patents, LPL should now be required to
provide detailed literal infringement contentions.
ROG 4: Tatung seeks the detailed DOE infringement contentions from LPL for each
asserted claim for each accused product. ln particular, Tatnng seeks lr.PL’s limitation by
limitation contentions that connect each limitation to an element of the accused product. ln
LPL’s response to lnterrogatory 4, LPL again indicated that “LPL will provide more detailed
information regarding infringing products and asserted claims at the appropriate time." See Ex.
“B” at page 230. Accordingly, to the extent LPL continues to allege that any remaining Tatung
products inliinge any claim ofthe patents by DOE, LPL should now be required to provide its
detailed intiingement contentions.
DEFOSITION/DECLARATION OF MS. REBECCA RUDICH:
Ms. Rudich was intimately involved in the prosecution of the patents in suit and is
involved with the sibling patents which are still being prosecuted. Her deposition was noticed by
Tatung for March 2l, 2007 (Ex. “C" hereto), but that deposition has not been held. Tatung and
in 1= r-3 168206-t

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 697 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 3 of 3
The Honorable Vincent .l. Poppiti
June 20, 2007
Page 3
LPL have agreed to postpone that deposition and have been discussing, as a possible alternative,
the submission by Ms. Rudich of a signed declaration in lieu of the deposition LPL has agreed
to provide Tatung with certain photographs that LPL has indicated Ms. Rudich reviewed when
submitting an Official response to a USPTO office action on a sibling patent. To date, LPI, has
not provided readable copies of those photographs, although LPL previously indicated it would
do sor (See Ex. "D"). Without the opportunity to review readable photographs, it is not possible
for Tatung to determine whether or not Ms. Rudich’s deposition may be avoided. "Iatung
respectfully requests that the Special Master order LPI,. to provide those photographs, as
previously promised, in the immediate future.
Respectfully,
Anne Shea Gaza i
(#4093)
ASG/afg
Enclosures
cc: Clerk ofthe Court (By Electronic Filing)
Richard Kirk, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Cormac T. Connor, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Lora Brzezynski, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Mark Krietzman, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Scott R. Miller, Esquire (via electronic mail)
.leffrey B. Bove, Esquire (via electronic mail)
ru r 1-3 r essen-1

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 697

Filed 06/20/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 697

Filed 06/20/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 697

Filed 06/20/2007

Page 3 of 3