Free Notice (Other) - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 647-12 Filed 05/O2/2007 Page 1 013

Case 1 :O4—cv-00343-JJF Document 647-12 Filed 05/O2/2007 Page 2 of 3
L. i CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE 8c HUTZ LLP
A Arronmavs AT LAW
tos Aucatzs, CA
· 355 S. Grand Ave.
° Suite 3150 j
gm R M1-r —‘eEif`F5f§T>§? 32331 l
adm mx; (213) asv 0498 F
TEL (213) 7874510 _ I WEB: WWW.Cblh.COm
emnu. [email protected] V
Via Email and US Mail
April 13, 2007
Cass W. Christenson, Esq. C
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
1900 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1 108
I Re: L LG.Philq2s LCD Co., Ltd. v. ViewSonic Corporation, et al.
USDC Case N0. 04-343 JJF
Dear Cass:
I write to address LPL’s deficient responses to ViewSonic’s Request for Production
(“RFP") Nos. 121-130, Interrogatory ("ROG”) Nos. 31-37, and Request for Admission
(‘°RFA”) Nos. 34-36 (collectively “Requests").
As you know, Paragraphs 1 and 2 ofthe January 17, 2007 Amended Scheduling
Order (DI 401) (respectively amending paragraphs 4(e) and 4(d) ofthe August 18, 2005
Scheduling Order) permitted the defendants to serve additional discovery requests directed
to claims 38, 39, 44, 45, and 56 of the ’641 patent and claim 36 ofthe ’718 patent
(collectively "new claims") by no later than February 28, 2007 so that proper responses
could be timely served by no later than March 30, 2007. In compliance with the Court’s
directive, on February 23, 2007, ViewSonic served RFP Nos. 121-127, ROG Nos. 31-34,
_ 1 and RFA Nos. 34-37, and on February 28, 2007, ViewSonic served RFP Nos. 128-130, and
ROG Nos. 35-37. Except for LPL’s response to RFA No. 37, LPL’s written replies to
these discovery requests are wholly insufficient, and tmresponsive.
For example, LPL improperly objected to each of the Requests based on the
erroneous position that the Requests are not limited to the new claims. These objections
are not well taken, as the plain reading of each Request is specifically tailored to the new
claims.
V Additionally, LPL improperly objected to the Requests to the extent they are not
temporally limited to a date on or before December 31, 1998. Again, LPL’s position is
‘ contrary to the express language in the Requests. ViewSonic has narrowly temporally
limited the Requests to periods generally not more than about 10 years in duration.
11589.1 _
witmrmcron, uz WASHINGTON, uc tos marinas, cit

Case 1 :O4—cv-00343-JJF Document 647-12 Filed 05/O2/2007 Page 3 of 3
y <:oNNo1..1.v Bova Looea. a 1-iurz 1.1.1=·
% ATTORNEYS AT LAW
l
Cass W. Christenson, Esq.
April 13, 2007
Page 2 A
As another example, LPL continues to represent that LPL products do not practice
the claims or inventions of the patents in suit, yet LPL’s responses to RFA Nos. 34-36 are
irreconcilable with these representations. Moreover, LPL’s reliance on the Special
Master’s November 8, 2006 Report and Recommendation (DI 306) is misguided. The
Special Master’s November 8, 2006 Report and Recommendation mandates a response to
ViewSonic’s RFA Nos. 34-36. See DI 306, at 23.
LPL’s obstructive conduct prevents ViewSonic from preparing its defense in this
case, and is increasingly prejudicial to ViewSonic. Please comrm by the close of business
Monday, April 16, 2007, dates or times that LPL will be available to meet and confer on
these requests. We also need to meet and confer on the issue of the briefing schedule so
that any motion, if required, can be heard on May 4, 2007 per today’s discussion with the
Special Master. I am available to meet and confer on both or either of these issues on
Monday or Tuesday, April 16 or 17, between 1:30 and 3:00 pm PST.
I look forward to your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,
@7% fluuyv N
A Scott R. Miller
cc: All Counsel (via email)
11589.1

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 647-12

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 647-12

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 647-12

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 3 of 3