Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 319 Filed 11/28/2006 Page 1 of 3
FQIc::i~:AnI;>s, l..AY`l`ON 6. FINGER
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
Owe: RODNEY SQUARE
ANNE SHEA GAM 920 Nonru Kms STREET DMECT DIAL
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE nescn <¤¤2><55¤·“>’5¤‘é>
GAZA@RL,F com
Iaoai sei-woo
rmx mow een-vvcan
WWWVRLFCOM
November 28, 2006
BY E—l\/IAIL & HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
BLANK. ROME LLP
Chase Manhattan Center
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: LG.P/vi/tvs LCD C0, Ltd rv, ViewSonic Cmp., ei al., C.Ar No. 04-343-JJF,
Tatung’s J oinder to ViewSonic’s Motion to Preclude LPL’s Untimely Patent
Infringement Contentions
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
Defendants Tatung Company and Tatung Company of America (collectively "Tatung")
respectfully _join in and incorporate by reference ViewSonic’s Motion to Preclude LPL’s
Untimely Patent Infringement Contentions ("ViewSenic’s Motion”) as detailed in ViewSonic’s
November 17, 2006 letter to Your Honorr
LG, Philips LCD Co., Ltdfs ("LPL") untimely infringement contentions against Tatung
should be excluded for the same reasons stated in ViewSonic’s Motion. T he material facts
supporting Tatung’s joinder differ only slightly from the facts set out in ViewSonic’s Motion. On
November 10, 2006, after the Scheduling Order deadlines had passed for the parties to identify
and exchange claim tenns and proposed constructions, LPL served, inter alia, a "supplemental"
response to Tatung’s Interrogatory Ne. 1 which, for the first time, accused infringement of two
additional products (I..l7UCCT and Ll'/05) and asserted infringement of 10 new claims (clairns
38415 and 56 ofthe ‘64l Patent and claim 39 ofthe ‘7l8 Patent).
nrriocmzcs-I

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 319 Filed 11/28/2006 Page 2 of 3
The Honorable Vincent J . Poppiti
November 28, 2006
Page 2
Nine months ago, on March 9, 2006, Tatung served on LPL its First Set of
Interrogatories. lnterrogatory No. l asked LPL to identify all Tatung products that LPL claims
infringed the Patents—in—Suit and to identify all of the claims of the Patents»in—Suit that LPL
contends have been infringed. On April 7, 2006, LPL served its responses to `l`atung’s
interrogatories. ln its response to Interrogatory No. I, LPL identified only one accused product,
the Tatung Ll'7Al\/ITN, and seven asserted claims (claims 35·—36 and 55 ofthe ‘64l Patent and
claims .33~35 and -40 of the ‘7l 8 Patent).
In the meantime, Tatung produced in response to l.PL’s discovery requests thousands of
pages of technical documents relating to the assembly of hundreds of Tatung products. Despite
obtaining this information, LPL waited seven months, until after "fatung had served and tiled its
proposed claim constructions (based on the understanding that LPL was asserting only the seven
claims identiiied in its April 2006 interrogatory response), before identifying the two new
accused products and the ten new claims.
Eight of Li’L°s newly asserted claims (claims 38-4.3 & 56 of the ‘64l Patent and claim 39
of the ‘7l8 Patent) pertain to the Ll YAMTN product, which LPL has been in possession of since
at least January of 2004, before it even tiled the Complaint in this case. In fact, LPL’s
Complaint referred to the Ll7Al\/ITN as an accused product. As of January 2004, LPL should
have been able to determine which claims of the Patents—in—Suit were allegedly infringed by the
Ll7AMTN. However, despite having the Ll'/AMTN for more than two years, LPL decided to
wait until November 2006, after the parties had exchanged and served proposed claim
constructions, before asserting that the L17/-\M"l`N infringed eight additional claims.
In addition, the remaining two new claims (claims 44 & 45 of the ‘64l Patent) are
asserted against an "Ll705" display. Tatung has no record of an "L1705" display product. To
the extent that LPL is referring to the "fLM~l“/05 monitor, LPL has had this monitor since early
this year, and in fact, made this monitor available for inspection prior to trial in the California
litigation between the parties (which involved a different set of patents). In short, if the "L1705"
is the 'l"Ll\/l·—l 705, then LPL had this product well before the deadlines for the parties to identify
and exchange claim terms and proposed constructions. There is simply no excuse for LPl.,’s
delay in asserting the new claims.
LPL’s deliberate failure to properly identify these claims from the outset and subsequent
refusal to supplement its interrogatory responses in a timely fashion prejudicially denied Tatung
the opportunity to seek discovery regarding LPL’s new infringement allegations. LPL's tactics
are calculated to prevent Tatung from meaningfully participating in the claim construction
process and/or to delay this process even further.] LPL has had more than ample time to analyze
Tatung’s products. LPL should not be allowed to identify new claims at this stage of the
RLFI -505-4 205- I

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 319 Filed 11/28/2006 Page 3 of 3
ihe Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
November 28, 2006
Page 3
proceedings in an effort to force the defendants to agree to a modification ofthe Scheduling
Order, thus further delaying resolution of this dispute. Accordingly, Tatung joins in ViewSonic’s
Motion and, pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. 37(c)(l), requests an Order barring LPL from
asserting the new claims untimely raised in its November 10, 2006 response to Tatung’s
Interrogatory No. 1.
Respectfully,
R)
Anne Shea Gaza
(#4093)
ASG/afg
cc: Clerk ofthe Court (by electronic filing)
Richard Kirk, Esquire (by electronic mail)
Cormac T. Connor, Esquire (by electronic mail)
Lora Brzezynski, Esquire (by eiectronic mail)
Mark Krietzman, Esquire (by electronic mail)
Scott R. Miller, Esquire (by electronic mail)
Jeffrey B. Bove, Esquire (by electronic mail)
HLF I -3OB41&GE$·$

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 319

Filed 11/28/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 319

Filed 11/28/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 319

Filed 11/28/2006

Page 3 of 3