Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 580 Filed O3/14/2007 Page 1 of 3
222 Diaixwxias Avignon, Surru 900
PO. Box 25130
W. 1*.* N, DE 19899
1)n11.1xra1<1&1s: 19801
A T T O R N E Y S Ii‘°1“rmarur:xs l.;\V.' lililt~siS \iJ0§€Ll.JVJlt)li
\\'\\'\\’.lULlyZlI`(ll`il`l1l COIN
502-655-5000
(Fax) 502-658-6395
\Y/u1’1121<’s Dmrm Ararzrss
(302) 429-4208
[email protected]
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
BY HAND AND BY EMAIL
March 14, 2007
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
Blank Rome LLP
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: LG.Philq1s LCD C0., Ltd. v. ViewSonic, C.A. N0. 04-343 JJF
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
I write to request that the Court re-enter a disagreement that was previewed during the
teleconference on Monday, March 12, 2007. It involves a Tatung witness, Oliver Shih, who is
Tatung's Rule 30(b)(6) designee for inducement of infringement of the patents-in-suit. He is
currently scheduled for deposition on March 20-21, 2007.
During the March 12 teleconference, we discussed whether Tatung may ultimately argue
that LPL must prove a nexus between Tatung's inducing conduct and Tatung's accused products.
While LPL disagrees with that position as a matter of law, it must nonetheless be able to
establish the nexus that Tatung will argue is required in this case. As the Court well knows, LPL
has not yet detennined which of Tatung's products infringe, but is in the process of doing so
based on discovery that Tatung has finally agreed to provide. As a result, LPL cannot complete
Mr. Shih’s on March 20-21 because LPL will not have determined by then which Tatung
products infringe. During the March 12 teleconference, we raised the possibility of postponing
Mr. Shih’s deposition or of bringing him back later to conclude it. Because Tatung had not yet
taken a position on whether LPL must prove a nexus between Tatung’s inducing conduct and
Tatung’s accused products, Your Honor asked the parties to confer.
Tatung’s counsel has now informed LPL that it will, indeed, argue that LPL must prove a
nexus between Tatung’s inducing conduct and Tatung’s accused products. (To be clear, LPL
disagrees with that argument.) This issue involving Mr. Shih is, therefore, ripe for Your Honor’s
input.
Tatung has stated that LPL may depose Mr. Shih next week about every single display
product that Tatung has sold since the patents issued, whether or not they are eventually accused
of infringement. LPL's counsel has explained to Tatung that such a deposition is simply not
654067-1

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 580 Filed O3/14/2007 Page 2 of 3
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
THE BAYARD FIRM Mach 14, 2007
Page 2
feasible under the applicable time constraints and is not necessary. LPL is entitled to ask
questions about Tatung's display products generally, to meet the standard that LPL believes to
apply. LPL also should have an opportunity, however, to examine Tatung regarding accused
products once Tatung has produced the documents it has finally agreed to produce. Yet, Tatung
has refused to postpone Mr. Shih’s deposition or to agree that to produce him again once LPL
has been able to identify the specific accused products.
LPL respectfully requests the Court to address this issue during the teleconference this
Friday (or sooner). Tatung's counsel also has requested an expedited hearing on this issue.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard D. Kirk (rkO922)
cc: Counsel as shown on the attached certificate
65435l·l

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 580 Filed O3/14/2007 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned counsel certifies that, on March 14, 2007, he electronically filed
the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send
automatic notification of the filing to the following:
Jeffrey B Bove, Esq. Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Esq.
Jaclyn M. Mason, Esq. Anne Shea Gaza, Esq.
Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP Richards, Layton & Finger
1007 North Orange Street One Rodney Square
P.O. Box 2207 P.O. Box 55l
Wilmington, Delaware 19899-2207 Wilmington, DE 19899
The undersigned counsel further certifies that copies ofthe foregoing document
were sent by email to the above counsel on March 14, 2007, and will be sent by hand on
March 14, 2007, and were sent by email on March 14, 2007, and will be sent by first
class mail on March 14, 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 Traurig 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 grk922)
Richard D. Kirk
571447-l

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 580

Filed 03/14/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 580

Filed 03/14/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 580

Filed 03/14/2007

Page 3 of 3