Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 116.0 kB
Pages: 3
Date: May 25, 2007
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 433 Words, 2,575 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/7695/677-1.pdf

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 116.0 kB)


Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 677

Filed 05/25/2007

Page 1 of 3

RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

Anne Shea Gaza

ONE RODNEY SQUARE

920 NORTH KING STREET WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801
(302) 651-7700 FAX: (302) 651-7701

Direct Dial (302) 651-7539 [email protected]

WWW.RLF.COM

May 25, 2007 BY E-MAIL & HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti BLANK ROME LLP Chase Manhattan Center 1201 Market Street, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Re: LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. v. ViewSonic Corp., et al., C.A. No. 04-343-JJF

Dear Special Master Poppiti: LPL's new rendition of Figure 10, now has eliminated the alteration of the hinge arm base, yet it remains an exercise in creative coloring. LPL gives a misimpression concerning the ambiguous artifacts in the green squares below. These artifacts do not support LPL's argument that "on or inside the border" is a meaningful phrase. The drawing does not show the first frame (which LPL attempts to create with a green zone). It is unclear whether the drawing even shows fastening parts because fastening parts are not called out in the drawing. The drawing also does not show the relationship of fastening parts to the first frame.

LPL's new rendition of FIG. 10

Defendants' FIG. 10

It is improper to rely on a silent artifact to rewrite the intrinsic record.1 For example, if speculation were a proper tool for claim construction (which it is not), one could speculate that Defendants' Figure 10 shows the hinge arm (in red), and not the first frame, being attached to the
1

Because the "on or inside the border" limitation advocated by LPL is not found anywhere in the claims, the specification or the prosecution history, LPL asks the Court to infer from an ambiguous, unlabeled drawing that the artifacts are specific fastening element that attach the first frame to the case and the fastening elements are inside the border of the flat display panel. This type of inference is prohibited. See Franklin Elec. Co., Inc. v. Dover Corp., Slip Copy, 2007 WL 634430 at *6 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

RLF1-3156723-1

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 677

Filed 05/25/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 677

Filed 05/25/2007

Page 3 of 3

Richard Kirk, Esquire (via electronic mail) Gaspare Bono, Esquire (via electronic mail) Cormac T. Connor, Esquire (via electronic mail) Mark Krietzman, Esquire (via electronic mail) Scott R. Miller, Esquire (via electronic mail) Tracy Roman, Esquire (via electronic mail) Jeffrey B. Bove, Esquire (via electronic mail)

3
LA 126810546v1 5/25/2007 RLF1-3156723-1