Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 394 Filed O1/08/2007 Page 1 of 3
RICHARDS, LAYTON Sz FINGER
A PROFE,5$iONAL ASSOCIATION
ONE: Roomiav Saunas;
92CJ Nom:-t KING STREET
ANNE SHEA GAZA DIRECT DIAL.
VWLMINGTON, DELAWARE lgtacbl caoaieer-vase
(aca) eel-7700 °“”@RLF CDM
mx (aca.) east-7701
WWW RE..F,CCIM
January 8, 2007
BY E-MAIL & HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Vincent .1. Poppiti
BLANK ROME LLP
Chase Manhattan Center
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: L.G.P}zilip.s LCD Co., Ltd. v. ViewSonic Corp., et cl., C,A. No. 04-343-JJF
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
Defendants Tatung Company and Tatung Company of America, Inc. (collectively, the
"Tatung Detendants") respectfully submit this letter brief in opposition to Plaintiff LC}, ijhilips
LCD Co., Ltd.’s (“LPL") Motion to Compel Discovery Regarding Indirect Infringement and
Damages.
Significant portions of LPL’s Motion are premature and moot. During the parties’
December 2006 meet and confers, the Tatung Defendants already agreed to produce summary
sales data, including quarterly or monthly quantity and average price for each identified product
that is destined for North America.] The Tatung Defendants also agreed to supplement
numerous interrogatories and document requests to include information pertaining to the two
additional Tatung products recently accused by LPL,2 (Declaration of Valerie W. Ho, 117.)
I Because Tatung Company’s sales occur in Asia and the products are shipped FOB from
an Asian port, Tatung does not always know where its customers ultimately will sell the products
they purchase nom Tatung. Tatung in general knows that certain products are destined for North
America, which includes the United States and Canada.
2 Specifically, the '1`atung Defendants agreed to supplement Interrogatories Nos. 1, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12 and Document Requests Nos. 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25, 26, .31, 32,
3.3, 34, .35, 38, 41, 48,51, 52,55,57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 79,
86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 9i, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98 and 99. (Ho Dec}., il?).
RL.FE—3§02l74-l

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 394 Filed O1/08/2007 Page 2 of 3
The Honorable Vincent]., Poppiti
January 8, 2007
Page 2
Because of the holidays and counsel’s vacation plans, LPL was informed that the Tatung
Defendants would provide supplementations in January 2007, The '1`atung Defendants also
assured LPI, that it would receive the supplementations before any scheduled depositions of
Tatung witnesses,
Apparently unsatisfied with the Tatung Defendants’ reasonable attempts to resolve the
partir-:s’ discovery disputes, LPL now seeks to compel a large universe of documents that pertain
not only to the three accused products it has identified, but to the hundreds of products that are
not accused and not at issue, For example, for each ofthe hundreds ofTatung products that have
not been accused by LPL, LPI., is demanding that Tatung produce "[a]ll orders, invoices, bills of
sales, and bills of lading since December l, 2002 ..,. " (See Request No, 10,) LPL also is
seeking "{a]ll documents concerning transactions since January 1, 2002 between you [the Tatung
Defendants] and any subsidiary, customer, distributor, reseller, and/or retailer in the U.S.
regarding any types of visual display products , . . ," (See Request No, 58.) LPL’s demand for
every single piece of paper relating to every single `fatung product is extremely overbroad and
burdensome, especially when most of these products have not been accused of infringement by
LPL.
LPL claims that it needs this information in order to determine indirect infringement,
However, LPI., has not shown why such information is relevant to any claims or defenses in this
case or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Fed, R,. Civ.
Proc. 26(b); see also Adv. Comm, Notes regarding 2000 Amendment ("'l`he rule change signals
to the court that it has the authority to confine discovery to the claims and defenses asserted in
the pleadings, and signals to the parties that they have no entitlement to discovery to develop
new claims or defenses that are not already identified in the pleadings?). It is welhestablished
that determining whether a patent claim has been infringed involves a two step analysis. First,
the claim must be properly construed by the Court to determine its scope and meaning. Second,
the claim, as construed, must be compared to the accused device or process. PC Connector
Solutions LLC v, Snrczrtdisk Corp., 406 F,3d 1359, 1362 (Fed, Cir. 2005), Therefore,
infringement analysis focuses on the products or processes and the claims of the patents, The
Tatung Defendants already have produced and will produce technical documents that depict the
components that make up its products as well as the assembly methods used. Therefore, LPL has
the technical information needed to compare Tatung’s products to the asserted claims.3 Yet, it
has thus far only accused three Tatung products out of hundreds.
3 During the parties’ meet and confers, the Tatung Defendants repeatedly asked LPI., what
specific 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.
RLFl~3l02l74-l

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 394 Filed O1/08/2007 Page 3 of 3
The Honorable Vincent J , Poppiti
January 8, 2007
Page 3
Moreover, there can be no indirect infringement without direct infringement,. "Qln order to
succeed on a claim of inducement, the patentee must show, first that there has been direct
infringement, . , N and second that the alleged infringer knowingly induced infringement and
possessed specific intent to encourage another’s intiingement.," Minnesota Mining and
Mcrmrfacmring C0, v. C/zenrqrre, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002) in other words, in
order for there to be indirect infringement, there must be direct infringement and an infringing
product. Here, there is no allegation of direct infringement with respect to the hundreds of
products for which LPL seeks thousands of documents, Because these products have not been
accused, Tatung cannot be liable for indirect infringement with respect to these products, Until
LPL provides a cletinitive list of accused products, it is not entitled to the broad categories of
documents it seeks in this Motion.
Accordingly, the Tatung Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny LPL’s
Motion to Conipel in its entirety,
Respectfully,
Anne Shea Gaza @/
(#4093)
ASG/afg
cc: Clerk ofthe Court (By Electronic Filing)
Richard Kirk, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Cormac Tr Connor, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Lora Brzezynski, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Mark Krietzman, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Scott R,. Miller, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Jeffrey B,. Bove, Esquire (via electronic mail)
RLFl—3i02l74—l

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 394

Filed 01/08/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 394

Filed 01/08/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 394

Filed 01/08/2007

Page 3 of 3