Free Declaration - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 397 Filed O1/08/2007 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
L,G.PI~IILIi’S LCD CO, LTD.,
Piaintiff,
V, CIVIL ACTION NO, 04~Z3¢i3
TATUNG COI;
TATUNG COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC ; AND
VIEWSONIC CORPORATION
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF VALERIE HO
I, Valerie Ho, declare:
It I am an attorney at Greenberg Traurig LLP, counsel For Tatung Company
and Tatung Company of America, Inc ("Tatung") in the present case. I am admitted to
practice before the Courts ofthe State of California and arn admitted pro here vice in
connection with this case. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth below, and
if called as a witness, could and would competently testify regarding such matters. I
make this Declaration in support ofTatung’s Oppositions to Piaintiff LG, Philips LCD
Co , Ltd.’s ("LPL") Motion to Compci Technical and Mounting-Related Discovery,
Motion to Compci Discovery Regarding Advice of Counsel, and Motion to Cornpel
Discovery Regarding indirect Infringement and Damages
2, With respect to I,PL’s claim that the Tatung Defendants did not identify
all responsive products in response to I,PL’s Intcrrogatories 2 and 3, the truth is that the
Tatung Defendants have identified hundreds ot` products in their interrogatory responses.
ut tzssssarzvr rxarzccr

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 397 Filed O1/08/2007 Page 2 of 4
Attached as Exhibits A — C are true and correct copies ofthe Tatung Defendants’
Responses to LPL’s interrogatories, including Nos. 2 and 3. LPL recently informed the
Tatung Defendants that there were a few products that were not included in the
interrogatory responses. We agreed to investigate and to supplement the responses to the
extent that the products identified by LPL are responsive.
3. On December i4 and 18, 2006, my colleague Steve Hassid and i met and
conferred with Cormac Connor, counsel for LPI., regarding the issues raised in LPi.’s
Motions. During the parties’ meet and confers, Mr. Cormcr clarified LPi.,‘s request for
an identification of products that have been "rnarketed or scid under a trademark or brand
name" belonging to Tatung, and based on this clarification, we agreed to suppiement the
intcrrogatory responses.
4. LPL repeatediy was told during the parties’ December 2006 meet and
confer that the T atung Defendants have produced more documents that those that are
"representative" of mounting systems used for their products. They have produced
technical documents for numerous products. These documents provide sufficient
information to allow LPL to "i) determine the structural components and assembly of
Tatungfs visuai display products (including, for exampie, the screw hole locations used in
mounting); and ii) determine how the LCD module is attached, mounted, and/or fixed . . .
," ln addition, we agreed that if the Tatung Defendants have exploded drawings and
assembly instructions for the products at issue, we wiii suppicrnent the productions to
include both types ol documents to the extent those documents have not been produced
already. We also expiained that the assembly and mounting features of products within a
product series are the same and may bc covered by the same technical documents (the
LA 126699872vT rraxzccr

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 397 Filed O1/08/2007 Page 3 of 4
differences between the products within a series are minor and are not mounting related,
eg., one product may include a touch screen component while another does not), We
agreed to provide LPL with a list identifying which groups of products have mounting
systems that are covered by the technical documents produced.
5 During the meet and confer, Mrt Connor insisted that the Tatung
Defendants produce every single tcchnicalrelated document for the hundreds of products
identified even though LPL thus tar has accused only three products of int`ringement.. We
explained that while we are willing to produce, pursuant to the parties’ previous
agreement, technical documents that are sufficient to show the manner in which the flat
panel display module is mounted in the products - documents that would allow LPL to
determine which products allegedly infringe the patents»in—suit — it was unreasonable and
extremely burdensome for LPL to demand every single piece of paper or electronic
document that may be remotely considered to be “technical related " Producing every
tech.nical—reiated document potentially would require the Tatung Defendants to search the
tiles of hundreds of employees We assured LPL that once it has narrowed the list of
products at issue by identifying all ofthe accused products (based on the drawings and
assembly instructions provided by the Tatung Defendants), we would be willing to
produce additional information regarding the accused products
6e We repeatedly have informed LPL that the Tatung Defendants have not
yet decided whether to assert the advice of counsel detense. At the parties’ December
.2006 meet and confer, LPL stated that it needed this infomation because ofthe
upcoming March 2007 fact discovery cut-off We proposed that the parties agree to a
date by which the Tatung Defendants will inform LPL as to whether it is relying on the
tn izsesserzvr 1/8/2007

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 397 Filed O1/08/2007 Page 4 of 4
advice of counsel and agree to extend the fact discovery cutoff relating to advice of
counsel issues, Mr. Connor stated that LPL was willing to consider this proposal.
7. During the parties’ December 2006 meet and confers, we also agreed to
produce summary sales data, including quarterly or monthly quantity and average price
for each identitied product that is destined for North America. We also agreed to
supplement numerous interrogatories and document requests to include infomation
pertaining to the two additional Tatung products recently accused by LPL, Specifically,
the Tatung Defendants agreed to supplement interrogatories Nos l, 8, 9, E0, l l, l2 and
Document Requests Nos. 6, 7, l0, ll, 12, i3, 14, 15, I6, E7, l8, 25, 26, 3i, 32, 33, 34,
35, 38, 4t, 48, Sl, 52,55,57, 59, 60, 6l, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 79,
86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 9l, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98 and 99,
8. We repeatedly asked LPL what specitic technical information it claims it
still needs it order to develop its infringement allegations with respect to all of the
identified products, LPL merely responded that it is entitled to every single Tatung
document.
l declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ol` the United States ot`America
that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this gi} day of.Ianuary 2007 in Santa Monica, California.
£ fi ·-·-..,t.....··l·‘ M,
Valerie Ho
rn rzsssssrzvr rxaxzucr

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 397

Filed 01/08/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 397

Filed 01/08/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 397

Filed 01/08/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 397

Filed 01/08/2007

Page 4 of 4