222 l)rs.1..·xxw.1
xv . mit 1 DE 19899
li1>;`l>11|\1.|ua·.s: 19801
A T T O R N Y S t!liEiZlT;";S LAW l·ll{l»l5 Y/0i?l.l)b?Jll>l;
\\'\\‘\\’ l)L\y1l1'(ii‘11'lll COIN
302-655-5000
(MXL) 502-658-6595
ELECTRONICALLY FILED W 1112 an 1)......1
BY HAND AND BY EMAIL
(302) 429-4208
rl
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
Blank Rome LLP
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: LG.Philq7s LCD C0., Ltd. v. ViewSonic, C.A. N0. 04-343 JJF
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
Plaintiff LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd., ("LPL") respectfully submits this letter in response to
Mr. Cottrell’s letter dated March 30, 2007 (D.I. 606), requesting the Court to permit Defendants
to have until May 30, 2007 to supplement their discovery responses relating to prior art and
validity.
This Court should deny Defendants’ request because Defendants have had ample time to
sufficiently obtain all information necessary to supplement their discovery responses related to
prior art and validity, and because they have in fact prevented LPL from learning of that same
information.
F or example, during the deposition of Hewlett-Packard, LPL learned that Defendants had
been in contact with Hewlett—Packard and its deposition witness since January 2005. Pursuant to
those communications between Hewlett-Packard and Defendants, Hewlett-Packard’s 30(b)(6)
witness testified that he generated for the Defendants photographs, documents and an alleged
prior art monitor between the timeperiod of January and April of 2005. Yet Defendants failed to
produce this discovery or offer it for inspection until January 9th of 2007 — just 10 days before the
date of the originally noticed Hewlett—Packard deposition.
Similarly, LPL learned during the deposition of Mr. Morgan, the 30(b)(6) witness for
third party Pixelvision, that Defendants had not only been in contact with Mr. Morgan since
November of 2005, but that it had received documents from Mr. Morgan in November or
December of 2005. Again, however, Tatung failed to disclose or produce these documents to
LPL until the day before Mr. Morgan’s deposition.
ln fact, just today LPL learned during the deposition of yet another third party, NEC
Electronics America, that the NEC 30(b)(6) witness prepared certain documents in response to
requests from Defendants at least nine months ago. To prevent such surprises, LPL wrote to
659463-I
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 655 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 2 of 3
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
T HE BAYARD FIRM May 8,2007
Page 2
Defendants on March 30th, specifically laying out in chart form all third party production LPL
had received in response to Defendants’ subpoenas, and asking Defendants to confirm that all
documents produced by third parties had been forwarded to LPL. See Exhibit l at p. 2.
Although this chart included the documents produced by NEC in response to Defendants
subpoenas, it did not list the document produced last night. Defendants ignored LPL’s letter and
again failed to produce that information until late last night - the night before the deposition.
Also troubling is the fact that both ViewSonic and Tatung "infonned" LPL on March 27
and 28, 2007 · just days before the March 30th close of fact discovery — that 52 monitors which
might constitute prior art were suddenly available for inspection. All these monitors, as well as
the other documents and items discussed above, fall squarely within the call of LPL’s written
discovery requests served in November 2005. For example, LPL Document Request No. 35
sought from Defendants all documents concerning the factual basis for your contention that any
product qualities as prior art under U.S. law, and specifically named numerous products
including Pixelvision products, IBM products, LG Electronics products, etc. Similarly, LPL
Document Request No. 37 sought all documents concerning the structural assembly and
components related to structural assembly regarding any product or thing that you contend
qualifies as prior art, and listed the same products. No party has ever disputed that LPL’s
document requests included actual monitors within their scope. Importantly, during meet and
confers conducted throughout 2006 Defendants agreed to produce information responsive to
those Requests, and thus have been under an obligation to make all the alleged prior art
discussed above available for, at least, inspection since November 2005.
Defendants repeated failure to timely produce the alleged prior art supports LPL’s
position that Defendants not be allowed to supplement their discovery responses to include any
information leamed of or developed after the close of discovery on March 30th. Because this
matter began with a simple letter request from Mr. Cottrell, LPL is answering in kind. LPL
would be willing to fully brief this issue, however, if this Court determines it is necessary or
appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
éaéwvct féué
Richard D. Kirk (rk0922)
cc: Counsel as shown on the attached certificate
659463·l
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 655 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned counsel certifies that, on May 8, 2007, he electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk ofthe Court using CM/ECF, which will send
automatic notification of the filing to the following:
J effrey 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 & Hutz 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 ofthe foregoing document
were sent by email to the above counsel on May 8, 2007, and will be sent by hand on
May 8, 2007, and were sent by email on May 8, 2007, and will be sent by first class mail
on May 8, 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 Trauri g 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/ Richard D. Kirk (rk922)
Richard D. Kirk
571447-l
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 655
Filed 05/08/2007
Page 1 of 3
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 655
Filed 05/08/2007
Page 2 of 3
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 655
Filed 05/08/2007
Page 3 of 3
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms