Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 475-5 Filed O2/16/2007 Page1 of 4

Case 1 :O4—cv-00343-JJF Document 475-5 Filed O2/16/2007 Page 2 of 4
{ CONNOLLY BOVE. LODGE 8c HUTZ LLP
fj ATTORNEYS AT LAW
tos ANGELES, CA
355 S. Grand Ave.
Suite 3150
• Los Angeles, CA 90071
Scott R. Muller TEL: (213) 787 2500
Partner FAX: (213) 687 0498
TEL (213) 7B7_251O WEB; www.cbIh.c0m
E•v1Au. [email protected]
Via Email and US. Mail .
February 7, 2007
Cass W. Christenson, Esq.
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
1900 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1 108
Re: LG.PI1ilq2s LCD C0., Ltd v. WewS0nic Corporation, et al.
_ USDC Case N0. 04-343 JJF
Dear Cass:
Beginning at least in September 2006, LPL represented that it did not make any
products that are rear mountable or capable of being rear mounted, or that otherwise
practice the invention disclosed and claimed inthe patents in suit. This representation was
first made during the parties’ September 2006 meet and confers, and was memorialized in a _
September 11, 2006 letter to me. See Sep. 11, 2006 letter from C. Connor to S. Miller, at 2
("LPL does not make products covered by the technology taught by the Patents-in-Suit";
LPL does not “use technology taught by the Patents-in-Suit.”). As we have since
discovered, this representation was not true.
LPL not only failed to correct this misrepresentation in a timely fashion, but LPL
_ perpetuated it. During the December 28, 2006 hearing before the Special Master, LPL
stated on the record that it did not make any products that are rear mountable or capable of
being rear mounted, or that otherwise practice the invention disclosed and claimed in the
patents in suit. See Transcript of December 28, 2006 Hearing ("Tr."), p. 109, 1. 24 - p. 110,
l.4;p. 116,11. 10-12;p. 167,1.11- p. 168,1. 7;p. 168,1. 20 - p. 169,1. 1;p. 170,11. 6-13.
Further, LPL allowed ViewSonic and the Special Master to rely on, and be misled by,
LPL’s repeated false statements. See Tr., p. 107, 11. 20-24; p. 109, 1. 24 — p. 110, 1. 4; p.
165,1. 24 — p. 166,1. 3;p. 166,11. 18-22; p. 167,11. 11-24; p. 168,11. 9-19;p. 169,11. 13-22;
p. 170,11. 6-13. ·
As reflected in the transcript, LPL’s misrepresentations tainted all of the December
28, 2006 hearing, including the portions of the hearing related to ViewSonic’s Request for
Production (“RFP") Nos. 63-66, 77-81, 82-85 and 87-99, and 101-103, which were the
subjects of ViewSonic’s October 2, 2006 Motion to Compel.
10674.1 A
wttmnmcron, DE wAs1-micron, nc tos ANGELES, CA A

Case 1 :O4—cv-00343-JJF Document 475-5 Filed O2/16/2007 Page 3 of 4
y CONNOLLY Bova Looca at HUTZ LLP
é
Cass W. Christensen, Esq.
February 7, 2007 `
Page 2
LPL’s misrepresentations have outright obstructed discovery regarding LPL’s
products that should have been provided long ago. Moreover, LPL’s misrepresentations
were relied upon by ViewSonic and the Special Master during the December 28, 2006
hearing to form compromises, such as limiting certain discovery regarding LPL products to
dates prior to December 31, 1998. Had LPL been forthright, this date limitation would not
have been agreed to, and the temporal scope of the discovery regarding LPL’s products
would have extended until the present.
The following examples illustrate LPL’s deception during the December 28
hearing.
During the discussion regarding ViewSonic’s RFPs 63-66, 77-81, 99, 102-103 and
119, LPL counsel allowed ViewSonic and the Special Master to rely on LPL’s past
misrepresentations. See Tr., p. 107, ll. 20-24; p. 109, 1. 24 — p. 110, l. 4. As a result, there
remained no need to argue points regarding damages and obviousness considerations. Had
counsel for LPL instead corrected the record, these issues could have been properly vetted.
LPL repeated its misrepresentation during the discussions regarding ViewSonic’s
RFPs 82-85 and 87-98. See Tr., p. 116, ll. 10-12. Based upon its misrepresentation, LPL
was able to negotiate a cut—off date of December 31, 1998 for this set of ViewSonic RFPs.
See Tr., p. 120, l. 6- p. 123, l. 2. Thus, ViewSonic could not contend that there should be
no cut-off date to address damages and invalidity considerations. —
With respect to ViewSonic’s RFP 101, LPL stated to the Special Master:
MR. CHRISTENSON: Yes, Your Honor. This is a request that relates to a
reference in the ,641 [sic] Patent to a reduction in side space, and we have
investigated this and we have informed ViewSonic that we don’t have any
responsive documents.
Tr., p. 142, l. 21 - p. 143, 1. 1. This representation is defective in two respects. First, LPL 1
unilaterally limited RFP 101 to the technology taught by the patents in suit. See Sep. 11,
2006 letter from C. Connor to S. Miller, at 2. RFP 101 seeks evidence regarding reduction
of side space, whether or not that reduction is achieved by an embodiment covered by the
patents in suit. Second, LPL’s statement on the record that it had "informed ViewSonic
that we don’t have any responsive documents" refers to an earlier communication from
LPL which relied on the misrepresentation that it does not use the technology taught by the
patents in suit. See id, at 2. Thus, although LPL informed ViewSonic that LPL did not
have responsive documents, that representation was based on an improper unilateral
limitation of RFP 101, and LPL’s false statement that it does not use the technology taught
10674.1

Case 1 :O4—cv-00343-JJF Document 475-5 Filed O2/16/2007 Page 4 of 4
y CONNOLLY Bova LODGE ar HUTZ LLP
& ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Cass W. Christenson, Esq.
February 7, 2007
Page 3
by the patents-in—suit. LPL’s misrepresentation denied ViewSonic any realistic opportunity
to correct the record.
Another example arises with respect to ViewSonic’s RFPs 71-74 and 118. LPL
falsely represented that its visual display products "do[] not have [a] first frame, therefore,
it doesn’t have the fastening parts, therefore, it’s not capable of being mounted." See Tr.,
p. 168,1.20 - p. 169, 1. 1; see also Tr.p. 169,1.24 - p. 170, 1. 13; Tr. p. 171, l. 14 - p. 172,
l. 5.
Please advise us by 5 pm EST tomorrow whether (i) LPL agrees that the date
limitations referenced above are no longer applicable; (ii) LPL will produce by February
15, 2007 the full scope of documents responsive to ViewSonic’s RFPs 63-66, 77-81, 82-85
and 87-99, and 101-103; and (iii) LPL will supplement its response to ViewSonic’s
lnterrogatory Nos. 9 and 25. Otherwise, ViewSonic has no choice but to seek assistance
from the Special Master on this issue as well. ‘
It bears repeating that ViewSonic detrimentally relied on these perpetual
misrepresentations. Although the reason the false statements ever occurred is unclear, what
is clear is that it is the responsibility and duty of LPL’s counsel to rectify the problems
these false statements have created. We seek to resolvethese issues promptly so that the
prejudice ViewSonic hassuffered can be lessened.
' erely ·
ott R. 1 ler
cc: Rel S. Ambrozy, Esq.
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. ‘
Cormac T. Connor, Esq.
Richard D. Kirk, Esq.
Mark H. Krietzman, Esq.
Valerie W. Ho, Esq.
Steve P. Hassid, Esq.
Anne Shea Gaza, Esq.
Frederick L. Cottrell Ill, Esq.
Tracy R. Roman, Esq. `
Jeffrey B. Bove, Esq.
10674.1

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 475-5

Filed 02/16/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 475-5

Filed 02/16/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 475-5

Filed 02/16/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 475-5

Filed 02/16/2007

Page 4 of 4