Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 691 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 1 of 2
CON NOLLY BOVE LODGE 8: HUTZ LLP
Arronmavs AT 1.Aw
wiuvunoron, ma
The Nemours Building
1007 North Orange St.
_ RO. B x 2207
gjgggs D· Hmsman wrimmogmn, or 19899
TEL (302) 888621 G nat. taozi ssa 9141
smAu.jheisman@cb|h.com FAX‘ 1392) 658 5614
WEB: www.cblh.com
June 13, 2007
Via Email and Hand-Delivery
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
Blank Rome LLP
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: LG.Philq2s LCD C0., Ltd. v. ViewSonic et al., USDC, D. Del., N0. 04-343-JJF
Unresolved Issues Related to December 28, 2006 Hearing
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
Pursuant to Mr. Kirk’s June 1, 2007 letter to Your Honor (DI 681), ViewSonic sent LPL
a letter (Ex. A hereto) identifying discovery discussed during the December 28, 2006 hearing
that LPL has failed to provide, or that awaits a decision on a motion to compel filed by
ViewSonic.l The parties subsequently met and conferred several times in an attempt to resolve
such issues. ViewSonic’s summary of the meet and confers is enclosed as Ex. C.2 Pursuant to
I.3 of D1 681, ViewSonic respectfully brings to Your Honor’s attention several discovery
disputes with LPL that remain tmresolved.
1. Discovery That LPL Agreed to Provide But Has Failed To Provide
During the December 28 hearing, LPL agreed to produce documents responsive to
Request for Production ("RFP”) 85, which seeks "Documents from January 1, 1997 to the
present sufficient to identify each part of an LCD module that is or can be used for mounting an
LCD module to the external case of a Flat Panel Display Product."3 LPL agreed to produce
documents responsive to RFP 85. See Dec. 28, 2006 Hearing Tr. ("Tr.") at 135:3-7. Rather than
comply with its obligation under the agreement, LPL has retracted its agreement. LPL has not
produced documents that identify each part of an LCD module that is or can be used to mount an
LCD module to another structure. ViewSonic respectfully requests that LPL be compelled to
produce documents responsive to RFP 85, which would encompass at least product
specifications for LPL’s LCD modules.
2. Discovegy That Remains Pending With The Special Master
During the December 28 hearing, ViewSonic believes that Your Honor expressed an
intent to compel LPL to produce documents responsive to ViewSonic’s RFPs 63-66, 77-81 and
99. See Tr., at 101 :3-1 13:13, especially 111:14-21. However, a ruling has not yet issued. These
I LPL also sent ViewSonic an email. Ex. B hereto.
2 LPL’s June 7 letter is enclosed as Ex. D hereto.
. 3 RFP 85 was raised as part ofthe October 3, 2006 Motion of ViewSonic to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Discovery
Regarding Components, Assemblies, and Structures, Including Mounting Methods and Structures, of Flat Panel
Display Devices (DM 3, "ViewSonic’s Technical Motion"), at 7-8.
wruvuneron, ma wAsnm<;roN, oc Los Aneizuzs, CA

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 691 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 2 of 2
% I coNNoLLY Bova LODGE at 1-1uTz LLP
A ATTORNEYS AT LAW
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
June 13, 2007
Page 2
RFPs were raised as part of ViewSonic’s Technical Motion (at 2-7), and seek information related
to mounting methods and mounting structures.
Similarly, ViewSonic understood that Your Honor intended to compel LPL to produce
documents responsive to ViewSonic’s RFPs 84, 88, 90, 92, 94, 96, and 98. See Tr., at 113:14-
140: 1, especially 133:8-12; 139:11-17. However, a ruling has not yet issued. These RFPs were
raised as part of ViewSonic’s Technical Motion (at 7-9), and seek documents sufficient to show
the parts and assemblage of an LCD module, and the shape, structure, function, source, and
assemblage of such parts, from January 1, 1997, including but not limited to backlights and other
light sources, light guides, prisms, diffusers, and reflectors. ViewSonic understands that the
Court intends to revisit these particular requests after the Markman ruling, and is willing to await
that procedure for these requests.
ViewSonic also believes that Your Honor suggested an intent to compel LPL to produce
documents responsive to ViewSonic’s RFP 119 if the parties could not reach an agreement. See
Tr., 150:21-164:21, especially 157: 14-17. RFP 119 was raised as part of ViewSonic’s Technical
Motion (at 6), and seeks documents relating to or evidencing the use, in any Flat Panel Display
Product,,of,the,element-in the ViewSonic VX900 identified as frame "C" in the Declaration of
William Bohannon (also referred to by ViewSonic as a "tray" or "chassis").
Finally, ViewSonic believes that LPL’s change of position after the December hearing
, regarding its use of rear-mount technology requires production of documents responsive to RFP
118, which was deferred during the December 28 hearing. See Tr., 171 :13-172:6. RFP 118 was
raised in ViewSonic’s Technical Motion (at 10) and seeks doctunents sufficient to identify the
model ntunber of products made or sold by or on behalf of LPL or its predecessor(s) that
incorporate any invention disclosed in the patents-in—suit, and doctunents relating to how each
product is or can be mounted to an external case of a flat panel display product.
_ 3. Discovery LPL Seeks
During the parties’ meet and confers, consistent with the guidance provided in your E
March 30, 2007 Order, ViewSonic offered to produce documents responsive to LPL’s
overlybroad and unduly burdensome requests, provided that LPL accepted a cost-shifting
arrangement to absorb the costs to ViewSonic. LPL refused ViewSonic’s offer. The details of
the parties’ meet and confers is provided in Mr. Miller’s June 13, 2007 letter to Mr. Christensen
(Ex. C hereto).
Counsel for ViewSonic looks forward to discussing the issues raised herein at Your
Honor’s convenience.
fully submitted, ~
4
. Heisman A
cc: Counsel of record

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 691

Filed 06/13/2007

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 691

Filed 06/13/2007

Page 2 of 2