Free Report and Recommendations - Special Master - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 629 Filed 02/21 /2007 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD., :
Plaintiff,
V- Civil Action No. 04-343 JJF
TATUNG CO., TATUNG COMPANY
OF AMERICA, INC., and VIEWSONIC :
CORP., :
Defendants.
SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING LG.PHILIP
LCD CO., LTD’S MOTION TO COMPEL VIEWSONIC CORPORATION TO WORK
PROMPTLY WITH LG.PHILIP LCD CO., LTD. TO CATEGORIZE ITS PRODUCTS
INTO MOUNTING SYSTEMS OR MOUNTING CATEGORIES
Upon consideration of Plaintiff LG.Philip LCD Co., Ltd.’s (hereinafter “LPL") January
26, 2007 letter Motion to Compel Defendant ViewSonic Corporation (hereinafter, "ViewSonic")
to work promptly with LPL to categorize its products into "mounting systems" or "mounting
categories" (the "January 26"` Motion"), the Special Master concludes that ViewSonic cannot be
compelled to do so and/or to create docwnents that are not otherwise in existence.l
The Patents in Suit relate to assembly mountings for the flat panel display mountings
used in liquid crystal displays ("LCD") for such products as plasma televisions and computer
monitors. D.I. 1.
BACKGROUND
The genesis of the January 26th Motion is LPL’s Motion to Compel ViewSonic to provide
technical and mounting related documents filed on September 27, 2006 ("the Sept. 27th
Motion"). The Sept. 27th Motion implicates Document Requests 2-5, 18, 28, 29, 38-41, 46-48
I The Order appointing Vincent J. Poppiti as Special Master was entered on February 25, 2005. D.I. 178.
062038.00612/40167334v.i

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 629 Filed O2/21/2007 Page 2 of 4
and 51 and Interrogatory 2.2 LPL claims that ViewSonic sells many products that are mounted
comparably to the VX900, which monitor is identified in the Complaint as one example of an
infringing product. (See Compl. at 1i128 (D.I. 1)).
While ViewSonic disagrees that LPL is entitled to technical and mounting-related
discovery for products LPL has not accused of infringement and for products only sold outside
of the United States, ViewSonic agreed as part of the meet and confer process to produce Service
Manuals for each of the Visual Display Products it had sold, offered for sale, or imported into the
United States since December, 2002. In this regard ViewSonic claims to have produced
approximately 200 Service Manuals corresponding to more than 90% of ViewSonic’s Visual
Display Products imported, offered for sale or sold in the United States since December 24,
2002, which date is the earliest date of the Patents in Suit. ViewSonic states that the Service
Manuals, which include the so-called “exploded view" diagrams show the assembly of its
products, including mounting. ViewSonic further states that the Service Manuals are the only
documents in ViewSonic’s possession, custody or control showing the technical assembly and
mounting of the products.3 In this regard the Special Master understands that ViewSonic does
not manufacture the Visual Display Products that it sells. Rather, ViewSonic purchases fully
assembled products from various Original Equipment Manufactures ("OEMs") for importation
2 ViewSonic asserts that LPL cannot point to any specific Request for Production or Interrogatory that seeks the
categorization or classification of "mounting systems" or mounting categories or documents containing same.
Nonetheless the Special Master for the purpose of addressing the issues raised assumes without deciding that LPL’s
discovery is broad enough to cover the January 26°‘ Motion.
3 The Special Master also understands that ViewSonic has either sold or offered to sell LPL a sample of any product
for which it does not have a Service Manual to the extent that it has a sample product in its possession, custody or
control. ViewSonic also states that it has offered LPL an opportunity to inspect samples of certain models no
longer on the market.
2
062032;.00612/40167334v.r

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 629 Filed O2/21/2007 Page 3 of 4
and sale in the United States. ViewSonic asserts that whatever technical documents it does have
- namely the Service Manuals — is dependent on what the OEMs provide to ViewSonic.4
In sum and substance, ViewSonic maintains that it has produced all documents it has in
response to the subject Document Requests.
The January 26, 2007 Motion focuses then, not on ViewSonic’s obligations under the
discovery rules, but rather on LPL’s claimed inability to determine from certain Service Manuals
whether the corresponding products should be accused of infringement, In this regard, LPL
claims that some documents are of poor quality, some show only a front view, many do not show
any fastening elements at all and finally none contain size and dimension information for the
parts depicted.
Against this back-drop of LPL’s claimed inability, the Special Master is mindful first,
that in correspondence dated September 26, 2006 from Rel. S. Ambrozy, counsel for LPL, to
Scott R. Miller, counsel for ViewSonic, LPL advised:
We have completed our review of the exploded view documents
produced on September 15, 2006. Based on that review, we have
determined that all of the monitors identified in that September
15th production potentially infringe the Patents in suit.
Accordingly, please produce immediately all documents
responsive to LPL’s pending document requests for these
monitors. . .. Also, please confirm that, as we have discussed
multiple times, you are producing the balance of the exploded view
documents on a rolling basis.
* »•¢ *
4 The Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation dated February 14, 2007 which addressed the issue of
whether ViewSonic can be compelled to produce documents in possession of certain OEMs. The Special Master
has concluded that LPL’s Motion to Compel should be granted.
3
062038.00612/40167334v.r

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 629 Filed O2/21/2007 Page 4 of 4
The Special Master concludes from this correspondence that Service Manuals produced on
September 15, 2006 were sufficient from which LPL could make a determination, and that LPL
expected the Service Manuals not yet produced would also be sufficient.
Second, even if exploded view documents later produced were claimed to be insufficient,
the Special Master without more, e. g. a declaration from someone with expertise stating same,
would be unable to draw such a conclusion.
In any event, the question becomes, even if the record were to permit the Special Master
to conclude that the Service Manuals were not sufficient, to what end?
Consistent with the Special Master’s guidance during the December 28, 2006 hearing, the
Special Master concludes that under the circumstances presented, the Court lacks the authority to
require ViewSonic to create something that does not exist and that it does not otherwise maintain
or create in the ordinary course of business. Transcript of December 28, 2006 Hearing ("Tr." P.
26 ll. 9-13). The Special Master is aware of no authority to the contrary, and LPL has cited to no
authority in the January 26th Motion. It follows then that while the Special Master can encourage
the parties to reach compromise on disputed issues, the parties cannot be ordered to engage in
dialogue designed to compel ViewSonic to categorize its products into "mounting systems" or
"mounting categories".
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Special Master concludes that LPL’s Motion should
be denied.
ENT RED this
M day of February, 2007
Vin : t J. Poppiti (D B · No. 100614)
Special V · ·
4
062032;.00612/40167334v.r

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 629

Filed 02/21/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 629

Filed 02/21/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 629

Filed 02/21/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 629

Filed 02/21/2007

Page 4 of 4