Free Remark - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 1 of 14

CLOSED, JURY, PATENT

U.S. District Court [LIVE] Eastern District of TEXAS (Marshall) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07-cv-00176-TJW

Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation v. LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD et al Assigned to: Judge T. John Ward Cause: 35:271 Patent Infringement Plaintiff Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation a Taiwan Corporation

Date Filed: 05/04/2007 Date Terminated: 06/09/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 830 Patent Jurisdiction: Federal Question

represented by Melissa Richards Smith Gillam & Smith, LLP 303 South Washington Avenue Marshall, TX 75670 903/934-8450 Fax: 903/934-9257 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Adam S Hoffman Irell & Manella LLP 1800 Avenue of the Stars Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276 310/277-1010 Fax: 310/203-7199 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Alexander Chester Giza Irell & Manella LLP 1800 Ave of the Stars Ste 900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276 310/203-7143 Fax: 13102037199 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jonathan S Kagan Irell & Manella - Los Angeles 1800 Avenue of the Stars

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 2 of 14

Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276 310/277-1010 Fax: 310/203-7199 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Maclain Wells Irell & Manella - Los Angeles 1800 Avenue of the Stars Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276 310.277.1010 Fax: 310.203.7199 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED William Joss Nichols Irell & Manella - Los Angeles 1800 Avenue of the Stars Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276 310-277-1010 Fax: 310-203-7199 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED V. Defendant LG Display Co. Ltd a Korean Corporation represented by Franklin Jones, Jr Jones & Jones - Marshall 201 W Houston St PO Drawer 1249 Marshall, TX 75670 903/938-4395 Fax: 9039383360 Email: [email protected] TERMINATED: 08/15/2007 Gaspare J Bono McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1900 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 202-496-7211 Fax: 202-496-7756 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jennifer Parker Ainsworth

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 3 of 14

Wilson Sheehy Knowles Robertson & Cornelius PC 909 ESE Loop 323 Suite 400 P.O. Box 7339 Tyler, TX 75711-7339 903-509-5000 Fax: 903-509-5092 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED John William Lomas, Jr. McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1900 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 202-496-7183 Fax: 202-496-7756 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mike C Miller Attorney at Law 201 W Houston Marshall, TX 75670 903/938-4395 Fax: 19039383360 Email: [email protected] TERMINATED: 04/11/2008 R Tyler Goodwyn, IV McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1900 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 202-496-7143 Fax: 202-496-7756 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant LG Display America, Inc a California Corporation represented by Franklin Jones, Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY Gaspare J Bono (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jennifer Parker Ainsworth (See above for address)

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 4 of 14

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED John William Lomas, Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mike C Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2008 R Tyler Goodwyn, IV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Counter Defendant Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc. represented by Adam S Hoffman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Maclain Wells (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED William Joss Nichols (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Counter Claimant LG Display Co, Ltd a Korean Corporation represented by Gaspare J Bono (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED John William Lomas, Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED R Tyler Goodwyn, IV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED V. Counter Defendant Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation a Taiwan Corporation Counter Claimant LG Display America, Inc represented by Gaspare J Bono represented by Alexander Chester Giza (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 5 of 14

a California Corporation

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED John William Lomas, Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED R Tyler Goodwyn, IV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Counter Defendant Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation a Taiwan Corporation Counter Claimant Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation a Taiwan Corporation V. Counter Defendant LG Display Co. Ltd a Korean Corporation represented by Gaspare J Bono (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED John William Lomas, Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED R Tyler Goodwyn, IV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Counter Defendant LG Display America, Inc a California Corporation represented by Gaspare J Bono (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED John William Lomas, Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED R Tyler Goodwyn, IV (See above for address) represented by Alexander Chester Giza (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 6 of 14

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Counter Claimant LG Display Co. Ltd a Korean Corporation represented by Gaspare J Bono (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED John William Lomas, Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mike C Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2008 R Tyler Goodwyn, IV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Counter Claimant LG Display America, Inc a California Corporation represented by Gaspare J Bono (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED John William Lomas, Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mike C Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2008 R Tyler Goodwyn, IV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED V. Counter Defendant Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation a Taiwan Corporation

Date Filed 05/04/2007

# 1

Docket Text COMPLAINT with JURY DEMAND against LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD, LG Philips LCD America, Inc. (Filing fee $ 350.) , filed by Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Civil Cover Sheet)(ehs, ) (Entered: 05/04/2007)

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 7 of 14

05/04/2007 05/04/2007 05/04/2007 05/04/2007 05/09/2007 05/29/2007 4 5 2 3

E-GOV SEALED SUMMONS Issued as to Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation. (ehs, ) (Entered: 05/04/2007) Magistrate Consent Form Mailed to Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation (ehs, ) (Entered: 05/04/2007) Form mailed to Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. (ehs, ) (Entered: 05/04/2007) Filing fee: $ 350.00, receipt number 2-1-2523 (ehs, ) (Entered: 05/04/2007) E-GOV SEALED SUMMONS Issued as to LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD, LG Philips LCD America, Inc.. (ch, ) (Entered: 05/09/2007) ***FILED IN ERROR, PLEASE IGNORE.*** NOTICE by LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD Stipulation and Agreement Not to Contest Sufficiency of Process or Sufficiency of Service of Process and to Extend Time to Respond to the Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Melissa Smith Signature)(Jones, Franklin) Modified on 5/30/2007 (sm, ). (Entered: 05/29/2007)

05/30/2007

***FILED IN ERROR, WRONG EVENT, MUST REFILE AS A STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME*** . Document # 5, Notice. PLEASE IGNORE.*** (sm, ) (Entered: 05/30/2007)

05/30/2007 05/30/2007 05/30/2007 06/01/2007

6 7 8

NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Franklin Jones, Jr on behalf of all defendants (Jones, Franklin) (Entered: 05/30/2007) NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Mike C Miller on behalf of all defendants (Miller, Mike) (Entered: 05/30/2007) STIPULATION Joint Stipulation to Extend Time to File Answer by LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD. (Jones, Franklin) (Entered: 05/30/2007) Answer Due Deadline Updated for LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD to 8/13/2007; LG Philips LCD America, Inc. to 8/13/2007 per stipulation filed. (sm, ) (Entered: 06/01/2007)

06/15/2007

9

MOTION to Change Venue Defendants' Motion to Transfer This Case to Delaware by LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD, LG Philips LCD America, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Mike C. Miller, Esq.# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E (Part 1 of 2)# 7 Exhibit E (Part 2 of 2)# 8 Exhibit F# 9 Exhibit G# 10 Exhibit H# 11 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Transfer)(Jones, Franklin) (Entered: 06/15/2007) MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiff Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation's Opposed Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Transfer This Case to Delaware by Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Smith, Melissa)

06/27/2007

10

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 8 of 14

(Entered: 06/27/2007) 06/28/2007 11 RESPONSE to Motion re 10 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiff Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation's Opposed Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Transfer This Case to Delaware Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Transfer filed by LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Jones, Franklin) (Entered: 06/28/2007) APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Jonathan S Kagan for Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation (RECEIPT 2-1-2742). (rml, ) (Entered: 07/05/2007) REPLY to Response to Motion re 10 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiff Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation's Opposed Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Transfer This Case to Delaware Plaintiff Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation's Reply in Support of its Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Transfer filed by Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation. (Smith, Melissa) (Entered: 07/09/2007) ORDER granting 10 Pla Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation Opposed Motion to Extend time to Respond to Dft Motion to Transfer this case to Delaware. Deadline for response is 7/11/07. Signed by Judge T. John Ward on 7/10/07. (ch, ) (Entered: 07/10/2007) RESPONSE in Opposition re 9 MOTION to Change Venue Defendants' Motion to Transfer This Case to Delaware Plaintiff Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Transfer filed by Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Text of Proposed Order)(Smith, Melissa) (Entered: 07/11/2007) REPLY to Response to Motion re 9 MOTION to Change Venue Defendants' Motion to Transfer This Case to Delaware Defendants' Reply Memorandum In Support of Their Motion to Transfer This Case To Delaware filed by LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD. (Jones, Franklin) (Entered: 07/18/2007) NOTICE by LG Philips LCD America, Inc. Defendants' Unopposed Notice of Entry of Order of Consolidation by the District Court of Delaware (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Jones, Franklin) (Entered: 07/26/2007) SUR-REPLY to Reply to Response to Motion re 9 MOTION to Change Venue Defendants' Motion to Transfer This Case to Delaware filed by Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation. (Kagan, Jonathan) (Entered: 07/30/2007) ***FILED IN ERROR, PLEASE IGNORE.*** MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Defendants' Opposed Motion to Extend Time to Respond to the Complaint by LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Jones, Franklin) Modified on 8/6/2007 (sm, ). (Entered: 08/06/2007)

06/28/2007

12

07/09/2007

13

07/10/2007

14

07/11/2007

15

07/18/2007

16

07/26/2007

17

07/30/2007

18

08/06/2007

19

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 9 of 14

08/06/2007

***FILED IN ERROR, PER ATTY, WRONG DOCUMENT FILED, ATTY WILL REFILE*** . Document # 19, Motion. PLEASE IGNORE.*** (sm, ) (Entered: 08/06/2007)

08/06/2007

20

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Defendants' Opposed Motion to Extend Time to Respond to the Complaint by LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Jones, Franklin) (Entered: 08/06/2007) RESPONSE in Opposition re 20 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Defendants' Opposed Motion to Extend Time to Respond to the Complaint Plaintiff Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Extend Time to Respond to the Complaint filed by Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Smith, Melissa) (Entered: 08/06/2007) MOTION for Leave to File Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Response to Plaintiff's Sur-Reply by LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Jones, Franklin) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2007 (sm, ). (Entered: 08/07/2007) ORDER denying 20 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply . Signed by Judge T. John Ward on 8/7/07. (ch, ) (Entered: 08/07/2007) RESPONSE in Opposition re 22 MOTION for Leave to File Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Response to Plaintiff's Sur-Reply Plaintiff Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Response filed by Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Smith, Melissa) (Entered: 08/07/2007) LG Phillips LCD Co., Ltd's ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand, COUNTERCLAIM Against Plaintiff and Additional Party Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc. against Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation by LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E)(Miller, Mike) (Entered: 08/13/2007) LG Phillips LCD America Inc.'s ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand, COUNTERCLAIM against Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation by LG Philips LCD America, Inc..(Miller, Mike) (Entered: 08/13/2007) MOTION to Withdraw Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel by LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Jones, Franklin) (Entered: 08/14/2007) ORDER granting 27 Dft's Unopposed Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel . Signed by Judge T. John Ward on 8/15/07. (ch, ) (Entered: 08/15/2007) MOTION for Extension of Time to File Agreed and Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Defendants' Counterclaims and Waiver of Service of Process by Chi Mei Optoelectronics

08/06/2007

21

08/07/2007

22

08/07/2007 08/07/2007

23 24

08/13/2007

25

08/13/2007

26

08/14/2007

27

08/15/2007 08/23/2007

28 29

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 10 of 14

Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Smith, Melissa) (Entered: 08/23/2007) 08/23/2007 30 ORDER granting 22 Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Response to Plaintiff's Sur-reply. Plaintiff's response to Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Sur-reply Regarding the Motion to Transfer this Case to Delaware should be filed within five (5) business days of this order. Such response should not exceed two (2) pages. Signed by Judge T. John Ward on 8/23/07. (kjr, ) (Entered: 08/23/2007) ORDER granting 29 Motion for Extension of Time to File response to deft's counterclaims. Deadline for pltf to file their response extended to 10/9/07. Signed by Judge T. John Ward on 8/24/07. (ehs, ) (Entered: 08/24/2007) SURREPLY to SURREPLY to REPLY to Response to Motion re 9 MOTION to Change Venue, Defendants' Motion to Transfer This Case to Delaware< (Plaintiff Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation's Response to Defendants' Supplemental Brief Regarding Its Motion to Transfer RE: 30 order) filed by Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation. (Smith, Melissa) Modified on 8/31/2007 (sm, ). (Entered: 08/30/2007) Additional Attachments to Main Document: 32 Reply to Response to Motion,.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Smith, Melissa) (Entered: 09/04/2007) APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Alexander Chester Giza for Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation. (APPROVED) (FEE PAID) 2-1-3084 (ch, ) (Entered: 10/05/2007) CMO's and CMO USA's ANSWER to Counterclaim by LPL, COUNTERCLAIM against all defendants by Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation(a Taiwan Corporation). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex A to Reply/Counterclaims# 2 Exhibit Ex B to Reply/Counterclaims)(Giza, Alexander) (Entered: 10/09/2007) CMO's ANSWER to Counterclaim by LPLA by Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation(a Taiwan Corporation).(Giza, Alexander) (Entered: 10/09/2007) EARLY DISCOVERY ORDER - the court, sua sponte, orders the following. Signed by Judge T. John Ward on 10/23/07. (ch, ) (Entered: 10/23/2007) LG Phillips LCD Co., Ltd.'s and LG Philips LCD America Inc.'s ANSWER to Counterclaim (CMO's Related Counterclaims), COUNTERCLAIM LG. Philips Co., Ltd's and LG. Phillips LCD America Inc,'s Related Counterclaims against Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation by LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD, LG Philips LCD America, Inc..(Miller, Mike) (Entered: 11/02/2007) NOTICE by LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD Notice of Compliance with PR 3-1 (Miller, Mike) (Entered: 11/08/2007) NOTICE of Disclosure by Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation Compliance with PR 3-1 & 3-2 (Giza, Alexander) (Entered: 11/08/2007) ANSWER to Counterclaim of LPL and LPLA by Chi Mei Optoelectronics

08/24/2007

31

08/30/2007

32

09/04/2007

33

10/04/2007

34

10/09/2007

35

10/09/2007 10/23/2007 11/02/2007

36 37 38

11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/26/2007

39 40 41

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 11 of 14

Corporation.(Giza, Alexander) (Entered: 11/26/2007) 12/11/2007 42 ORDER - Status Conference set for 1/8/2008 09:00 AM before Judge T. John Ward and Judge Chad Everingham. Signed by Judge T. John Ward on 12/11/07. (ch, ) (Entered: 12/11/2007) NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by R Tyler Goodwyn, IV on behalf of LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD, LG Philips LCD America, Inc. (Goodwyn, R) (Entered: 12/13/2007) NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Gaspare J Bono on behalf of LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD, LG Philips LCD America, Inc. (Bono, Gaspare) (Entered: 12/13/2007) NOTICE by LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD, LG Philips LCD America, Inc. re 9 MOTION to Change Venue Defendants' Motion to Transfer This Case to Delaware Notice of Case Reassignment by the District Court of Delaware Related to Defendants' Pending Motion to Transfer this Case to Delaware (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Miller, Mike) (Entered: 12/14/2007) NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by John William Lomas, Jr on behalf of LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD, LG Philips LCD America, Inc. (Lomas, John) (Entered: 12/26/2007) NOTICE by LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD, LG Philips LCD America, Inc. of Compliance with P.R. 3-3 (Lomas, John) (Entered: 12/27/2007) NOTICE of Disclosure by Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation Compliance with P.R. 3-3 & 3-4 (Giza, Alexander) (Entered: 12/28/2007) NOTICE by Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation re 45 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) regarding Delaware case (Giza, Alexander) (Entered: 01/07/2008) Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge T. John Ward and Judge Chad Everingham: Status Conference held on 1/8/2008. Claim construction hearing date and trial date were given to parties. Parties are to meet and confer regarding a scheduling order and discovery order. (Court Reporter Susan Simmons.) (shd, ) (Entered: 01/09/2008) 50 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge T. John Ward and Judge Charles Everingham: Status Conference held on 1/8/08. Counsel for the parties appeared and were asked if they consented to Judge Everingham. Depending on their answer, they were then given Markman and jury selection dates for the appropriate court. The parties are to meet and confer regarding a scheduling order and discovery order, and the parties have 14 days to submit the proposed orders. The Court further instructed the parties that the time for complying with P.R. 3-1 would be 10 days after the date of the parties filing their proposed orders. Court Adjourned. (Court Reporter Susan Simmons) (jml) (Entered: 01/09/2008) ORDER - parties shall submit their proposed docket control and discovery orders to the court on January 22, 2007. Deadlines under the local patent rules, the court deems February 5, 2007 to be the date of the initial case management

12/13/2007

43

12/13/2007

44

12/14/2007

45

12/26/2007

46

12/27/2007 12/28/2007

47 48

01/07/2008 01/08/2008

49

01/08/2008

01/09/2008

51

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 12 of 14

conference. Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions is due on February 19, 2007.. Signed by Judge T. John Ward on 1/9/08. (ch, ) (Entered: 01/09/2008) 01/10/2008 52 APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney William Joss Nichols for Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc. and Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation. (APPROVED)(FEE PAID) 2-1-3381 (ch, ) (Entered: 01/11/2008) APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Maclain Wells for Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc. and Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation. (APPROVED)(FEE PAID) 2-1-3381 (ch, ) (Entered: 01/11/2008) APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Adam S Hoffman for Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc. and Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation. (APPROVED)(FEE PAID) 2-1-3381 (ch, ) (Entered: 01/11/2008) NOTICE of filing proposed docket control and discovery orders by Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD, LG Philips LCD America, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Discovery Order)(ehs, ) (Entered: 01/23/2008) DISCOVERY ORDER. Signed by Judge T. John Ward on 2/1/08. (ch, ) (Entered: 02/01/2008) NOTICE by LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD Notice of Setting of Trial Date in Related Delaware Case Relevant to Defendants' Pending Motion to Transfer This Case to Delaware (Miller, Mike) (Entered: 02/15/2008) DOCKET CONTROL ORDER - Amended Pleadings due by 11/15/2008.,Discovery due by 7/7/2009.,Joinder of Parties due by 8/1/2008.,Markman Hearing set for 5/7/2009 09:00 AM before Judge T. John Ward.,Motions due by 7/17/2009.,Proposed Pretrial Order due by 7/13/2009., Jury Selection set for 8/3/2009 09:00AM before Judge T. John Ward., Pretrial Conference set for 7/24/2009 09:00 AM before Judge T. John Ward. Mediation deadline 7/7/09. All other deadlines are set forth herein. Signed by Judge T. John Ward on 3/4/08. (ch, ) (Entered: 03/04/2008) NOTICE of Disclosure by Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation (Smith, Melissa) (Entered: 03/05/2008) NOTICE of Disclosure by LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD, LG Philips LCD America, Inc. (Lomas, John) (Entered: 03/05/2008) NOTICE by LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD, LG Philips LCD America, Inc. of Party Name Change (Lomas, John) (Entered: 03/10/2008) NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jennifer Parker Ainsworth on behalf of LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD, LG Philips LCD America, Inc. (Ainsworth, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/18/2008) Consent MOTION for Name Changes of Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs and to Amend the Case Caption by LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD, LG Philips LCD America, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ainsworth, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/18/2008)

01/10/2008

53

01/10/2008

54

01/23/2008

55

02/01/2008 02/15/2008

56 57

03/04/2008

58

03/05/2008 03/05/2008 03/10/2008 03/18/2008

59 60 61 62

03/18/2008

63

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 13 of 14

03/24/2008

64

ORDER granting 63 Motion for Name change of Dft/Counterclaim Plaintiffs and to Amend the case caption. Accordingly, LG Display Co Ltd is the named dft in this action and replaces LG Philips LCD Co Ltd. Also LG Display America, Inc. is the named dft in this action and replaces LG Philips LCD America, Inc. All future filing should reflect such change. Signed by Judge T. John Ward on 3/24/08. (ch, ) (Entered: 03/24/2008) MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER - granting deft's motion to transfer this case to the District of Delaware. Signed by Judge T. John Ward on 3/31/08. (ehs, ) (Entered: 03/31/2008) Pursuant to Local Rule 83(b) Clerk will hold the transfer of this case for twenty days pending a response by the parties (ehs, ) (Entered: 03/31/2008)

03/31/2008

65

03/31/2008 04/07/2008 66

MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Plaintiff Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation's Opposed Motion to Extend The Time to Respond to Defendant LG Display Co. LTD's First Set of Interrogatories by Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Smith, Melissa) (Entered: 04/07/2008) RESPONSE in Opposition re 66 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Plaintiff Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation's Opposed Motion to Extend The Time to Respond to Defendant LG Display Co. LTD's First Set of Interrogatories filed by LG Display Co. Ltd. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Ainsworth, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/08/2008) REPLY TO RESPONSE TO 66 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Plaintiff Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation's Opposed Motion to Extend The Time to Respond to Defendant LG Display Co. LTD's First Set of Interrogatories Plaintiff Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation's Reply in Support of Its Opposed Motion to Extend the Time to Respond to Defendant LG Display Co., Ltd.'s First Set of Interrogatories filed by Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation. (Smith, Melissa) Modified on 4/10/2008 (sm, ). (Entered: 04/09/2008) MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by LG Display Co. Ltd. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Miller, Mike) (Entered: 04/09/2008) NOTICE FROM CLERK re 68 Response in Support of Motion. THis entry has been modified to reflect that it is a REPLY. (sm, ) (Entered: 04/10/2008)

04/08/2008

67

04/09/2008

68

04/09/2008 04/10/2008 04/11/2008

69

70

ORDER granting 69 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Mike C Miller terminated. Signed by Judge T. John Ward on 4/11/08. (ehs, ) (Entered: 04/11/2008) STIPULATION re 66 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Plaintiff Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation's Opposed Motion to Extend The Time to Respond to Defendant LG Display Co. LTD's First Set of Interrogatories by Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, LG Display Co. Ltd, LG Display America, Inc. (Ainsworth, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/15/2008) NOTICE by Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation re 65 Memorandum &

04/15/2008

71

04/18/2008

72

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 14 of 14

Opinion Plaintiff Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation's Request for Reconsideration of Order Granting LG Display's Motion to Transfer (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Smith, Melissa) (Entered: 04/18/2008) 04/21/2008 73 NOTICE by LG Display Co. Ltd, LG Display America, Inc re 72 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (Response to Plaintiff's Request for Reconsideration of Order Granting LG Display's Motion to Transfer) (Ainsworth, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/21/2008) NOTICE by LG Display Co. Ltd, LG Display America, Inc (Notice of Order Denying CMO's Motion to Dismiss in Related Delaware Case That Establishes CMO's Pending Request for Reconsideration of This Court's Transfer Order Should be Denied) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Ainsworth, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/30/2008) ORDER - before the court is Plaintiffs Notice of Request for Reconsideration of Order granting LG Display's Motion to Transfer 72 and related briefing. Though filed as notice, the court treats this as a motion for reconsideration. After careful consideration, this motion is DENIED. The court reaffirms its ruling in the Memorandum Opinion and order issued on 3/31/08. Doc # 65 . Signed by Judge T. John Ward on 5/27/08. (ch, ) (Entered: 05/27/2008) Interdistrict transfer to the District of Delaware. Certified copy of Docket Sheet, Complaint, and transfer order were sent to US District Court District of Delaware, J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building, Lockbox 18, 844 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801 (ch, ) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

04/30/2008

74

05/27/2008

75

06/09/2008

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
06/13/2008 08:48:44 PACER Login: ud0037 Description: Billable Pages: 9 Client Code: Cost: 0.72 Docket Report Search Criteria: 2:07-cv-00176-TJW

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS CORPORATION, a Taiwan Corporation, Plaintiff, v. LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD., a Korean Corporation, and LG.PHILIPS LCD AMERICA, INC., a California Corporation, Defendants. DEFENDANTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO TRANSFER THIS CASE TO DELAWARE On December 1, 2006, LPL filed suit against CMO and AUO in the District of Delaware for infringement of patents relating to LCD technology. Then, within six months, these defendants turned around and sued LPL for alleged infringement of similar patents in the Western District of Wisconsin (AUO) and in this District (CMO). On May 30, 2007, Judge Shabaz rejected this gamesmanship, transferring AUO's case from Wisconsin to Delaware. AU Optronics Corp. v. LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd., No. 07-C-137-S, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39340 (W.D. Wis. May 30, 2007).1 Judge Shabaz found that the "Delaware action was first filed and is the only action where all of the issues between the parties have been raised", and that the "interest of justice would be undermined by the duplication and waste of judicial resources that would occur by keeping this action in both courts." Id. at *6. Judge Shabaz's carefully reasoned decision, therefore, is central to the issues before this Court. Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-00176-TJW

1

Judge Shabaz's decision is Exhibit C to LPL's opening memorandum.

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 2 of 6

Remarkably, however, CMO does not even mention Judge Shabaz's decision until page 12 of its 15-page memorandum, and even then limits its discussion to a single sentence. Instead, CMO spends much of its opposition accusing LPL of "procedural trickery." (Opp. at 2.) But this accusation rings hollow in light of Judge Shabaz's ruling and the fact that CMO does not deny that this case could originally have been brought in the District of Delaware.2 This Court should therefore transfer this case to Delaware. I. THE FIRST TO FILE RULE COMPELS TRANSFER The first part of CMO's opposition is spent advancing two arguments that the Delaware action is not first filed. Neither is persuasive. First, CMO contends that the May 22, 2007, amended complaint that LPL filed against CMO is "inoperative" because LPL previously amended its complaint against AUO. (Opp. at 5-7.) However, as indicated in LPL's opening brief, the May 22 complaint was the first amended complaint filed against CMO and thus permissible as a matter of right. Indeed, the Court accepted the pleading, it remains on the docket, and CMO has never filed a motion to strike. Moreover, even if a procedural defect did exist, it could be cured easily at this stage of the proceedings under Rule 15. Second, CMO contends that the declaratory judgment counts added to the May 22 complaint (to make it mirror this action) do not "relate back" to the original filing. (Opp. at 7-12.) Judge Shabaz, however, rejected this precise argument when AUO raised it in opposition to transfer of its Wisconsin action. See 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39340, *4 (citing cases finding it "immaterial that the issues
2

A true example of "procedural trickery" is seen in the Delaware action itself where CMO (with different counsel) has disregarded Federal Circuit precedent and continued to dispute personal jurisdiction, thereby compelling LPL to file a pending motion for sanctions. See, e.g., Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp. et al., 395 F.3d 1315, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding that since before 2005, there has been "a prima facie case for CMO's use of an established distribution network that likely results in substantial sales of its products in Delaware").

-2-

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 3 of 6

raised in the second suit were not included in the first until after a subsequent amendment was filed"); Versus Tech., Inc. v. Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., No. 1:04-CV-168, 2004 WL 3457629, *7 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 23, 2004) (court transferred case because declaratory judgment counts added in the amendment related back to initial complaint for purposes of the first-filed rule). Federal Circuit precedent "favors the first-to-file rule in the absence of circumstances making it unjust or inefficient to permit a first-filed action to proceed to judgment." Elecs. For Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 394 F.3d 1341, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). CMO can point to no circumstance, which would justify disregarding the first filed rule and Judge Shabaz's sound decision. II. CMO'S CLAIMS ARE PENDING IN DELAWARE CMO spends several pages parsing the U.S. Patent Classification System in an effort to show a lack of overlap between this case and the Delaware action. This argument fails for at least four reasons. First, as a threshold matter, transfer "does not require that the core issues be identical, but that the two actions will involve closely related questions or subject matter." AmberWave Sys. Co. v. Intel Co., No. 2:05-CV-321, 2005 WL 2861476, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Nov 1, 2005) (Davis, D.J.) (ordering transfer). Second, CMO itself acknowledges that the Delaware action involves alleged "infringement of three patents related to certain aspects of LCD technology" whereas this action involves alleged "infringement of four patents that relate to various aspects of LCD technology." (Opp. at 3, 4; emphasis added.) Third, CMO's discussion obscures the fact that one of LPL's patents-in-suit (`449) and two of CMO's patents-in-suit (`352 and `926) are in Class 349, entitled "Liquid Crystal Cells, Elements and Systems." Fourth, LPL's other two patents-in-suit (`002 and `737) pre-date the PTO's establishment of Class 349 in December 1996. It is disingenuous to argue that the fact these patents were not placed in a yetto-be created class is a reason to deny transfer. -3-

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 4 of 6

Contrary to CMO's argument, this case is not "very similar" to the situation Judge Davis faced in Garmin, Ltd. v. TomTom, Inc., No. 2:06CV338, 2007 WL 708587 (E.D. Tex. March 5, 2007). CMO's discussion of Garmin ignores that the first-filed case had been almost completely disposed of on summary judgment before Judge Davis was asked to transfer the later-filed action. Furthermore, in Garmin, Judge Davis noted that the defendant did not argue that transfer would result in consolidation of the two cases. Id. at *2. Here, by contrast, consolidation is a primary goal. Indeed, on July 6, 2007, AUO and LPL filed a joint motion in the District of Delaware to consolidate AUO's transferred Wisconsin action with LPL's original action. CMO also makes no effort to distinguish Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. v. Power Integrations, Inc., C.A. No. 2:06-CV-151, 2007 WL 712289 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2007) (Ward, D.J.). In Fairchild, this Court recently transferred a patent infringement case to the District of Delaware for consolidation with a first-filed Delaware case because of the "overlapping parties and subject matter." Id. at *2. Accordingly, this Court should transfer this case because the same parties are present and the same subject matter is at issue in Delaware. III. THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE REQUIRE TRANSFER A single judge and jury should hear both actions because the Delaware action and this case involve the same and similar patents and products (e.g., LCD modules used in monitors and televisions).3 To argue otherwise, CMO must ignore the extent to which parallel actions would require redundant use of documents (many of which will require translation) and party testimony

The Delaware action was recently reassigned to Chief Judge Sleet, who presided over longrunning patent infringement litigation regarding computer monitors, which products are also at issue here. See, e.g., In re Elonex Phase II Power Mgmt. Litig., 279 F. Supp. 2d 521 (D. Del. 2003). Further, LPL does not contest this Court's jurisdiction and therefore ­ contrary to CMO's suggestions (Opp. at 3) ­ its intervention in another action in this District is irrelevant to the present motion.

3

-4-

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 5 of 6

(much of which will require a translator). For example, large LCD manufacturers such as the parties here often have their sales, marketing, advertising, and manufacturing employees assigned by product line. Because sales, marketing, distribution, and licensing are issues common to both cases and because the product lines at issue in both suits are the same, many of the same documents and witnesses (most of whom are in Korea and Taiwan) would be required in both actions. Similarly, CMO does not account for the extent to which parallel proceedings would impose a burden on key third-party witnesses, including ViewSonic and Tatung, which are parties in the Delaware action because of their role in selling the products at issue. Contrary to CMO's assertions, this Court has observed that "the plaintiffs' forum choice is neither controlling nor determinative" of whether a case should be transferred. Repligen Corp. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 2-06-CV-4, 2006 WL 2038561, *2 (E.D. Tex. July 20, 2006) (Ward, D.J.). CMO's choice of forum should thus be afforded little weight where the central issues concern the design and manufacture of LCD products, which occurred outside this country, and where CMO's U.S. subsidiary, CMO USA, is incorporated in Delaware and CMO USA employees will be witnesses in this case. Thus, as Judge Shabaz concluded, "[t]he interest of justice overwhelmingly favors transfer to Delaware for consolidation with the first filed case presently pending in that Court." 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39340, at *13 (emphasis added). Respectfully submitted, JONES & JONES, INC., PC /s/ Franklin Jones, Jr. Franklin Jones, Jr. Texas State Bar No. 00000055 2201 West Houston Street Marshall, Texas 75671-1249 Phone: (903) 938-4395 Facsimile: (903) 938-3360

-5-

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-2

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 6 of 6

Mike C. Miller Texas State Bar No. 14101100 Law Office of Mike C. Miller, P.C. 201 West Houston Street Marshall, Texas 75670 Phone: (903) 938-4395 Facsimile: (903) 938-3360 Attorneys for Defendants LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. and LG.Philips LCD America, Inc. OF COUNSEL: Gaspare J. Bono R. Tyler Goodwyn Lora A. Brzezynski McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1900 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 496-7500 July 18, 2007
DC:50488654.3

-6-

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-3

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-3

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 2 of 2

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-4

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS CORPORATION, a Taiwan Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD., a Korean Corporation, and LG.PHILIPS LCD AMERICA, INC., a California Corporation, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 2:07-cv-00176-TJW

PLAINTIFF CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS CORPORATION'S SURREPLY IN FURTHER OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER

1730224

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-4

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 2 of 7

Defendants' reply expressly or tacitly admits the facts that mandate a denial of their motion. Defendants do not dispute that (1) they filed their Delaware claims relating to CMO's patents weeks after CMO asserted these claims in this action, (2) Defendants failed to seek leave of Court to file these claims, (3) both parties have substantial ties to Texas, so it would not be inconvenient or unfair to litigate CMO's claims in Texas, (4) the accused products for CMO's patents do not overlap with the products Defendants have accused of infringement, and (5) there is virtually no technology overlap between CMO's patent claims and the patents asserted by LPL in Delaware, as confirmed by the PTO's own patent classification system. Rather than attempt to refute any of these core issues, Defendants argue that this Court should transfer CMO's case because Judge Shabaz from the Western District of Wisconsin ordered a discretionary transfer of a case under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) involving different patents and different parties. Even if that order were binding on this Court (which it is not), the facts that persuaded Judge Shabaz to order a discretionary transfer of the AUO case ­ the absence of any connection to the forum where the plaintiff filed its case and the "duplication" of judicial resources if the cases were tried in different fora ­ are not present here. Both parties maintain multiple offices in Texas, and the technology at issue in CMO's patents does not substantially overlap with the patents LPL has asserted in Delaware. Thus, the "first-to-file" rule requires that infringement and validity issues relating to CMO's patents should be tried here, and there is no basis for a discretionary transfer. I. The "First-To-File" Rule Requires Denial of Defendants' Motion. Defendants' reply acknowledges ­ as it must ­ the basic facts that disprove its "first-to-file" argument: that CMO filed its patent claims in this Court on May 4, 2007; and that LPL did not attempt to add its "mirror image" claims until May 22, 2007, without leave of court. Further, Defendants do not (and cannot) dispute that they filed a first amended complaint in the Delaware action on April 11, 2007 (Exhibit 1), which did not include the declaratory relief claims involving CMO's patents that they attempted to file in a second amended complaint. Nor do Defendants dispute that a second amendment to a complaint, filed without leave of court, is inoperative. Unable to dispute any of these key facts, Defendants resort to word games: they argue that the second amended complaint is operative because it is a "first amended complaint filed against

1730224

-1-

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-4

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 3 of 7

CMO." But Rule 15 does not allow a plaintiff to file one amended complaint per defendant, it simply provides: that "a party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (emphasis added). Moreover, contrary to Defendants' suggestion, the first amended complaint includes causes of action against CMO: Claim 1-3 are patent infringement claims directed against all "Defendants," and "Defendants" are expressly defined to include CMO (see Exhibit 1 at 1, 8-10). Thus, Defendants' "first-to-file" argument must fail because the complaint containing the "mirror image" allegations is inoperative. Defendants also wrongly suggest that the Delaware court approved LPL's second amended complaint. Reply at 2. Defendants still have not sought leave to file this complaint, and the Delaware court has thus not even considered whether LPL should be granted leave to file the second amended complaint. As explained in CMO's opposition, moreover, leave to amend would likely be denied in this case because CMO will be able to demonstrate that the claims involving CMO's patents were filed first in Texas, and thus these claims (and LPL's overlapping declaratory judgment claims) should be tried here under the "first-to-file" rule. Defendants also incorrectly argue that Judge Shabaz's opinion has already determined that LPL's second amended complaint "relates back" to its original complaint. Defendants argue: CMO contends that the declaratory judgment counts added to the May 22 complaint (to make it mirror this action) do not "relate back" to the original filing. (Opp. at 7-12). Judge Shabaz, however, rejected this precise argument when AUO raised it in opposition to transfer of its Wisconsin action. Reply at 2. This is not true. First, because Judge Shabaz's order was based on 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), he did not perform a "relation back" analysis in his order. As CMO explained in its opposition brief, the "relation back" doctrine, as codified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(2), is used to determine if an amended pleading is entitled to claim the priority date of an earlier-filed pleading; courts need not conduct this analysis to determine whether to grant a discretionary transfer. Second, and more significantly, CMO's patents were not at issue before Judge Shabaz. Thus, Judge Shabaz did not ­ and could not ­ have determined whether LPL's May 22 declaratory judgment counts "related back" to its original filing.

1730224

-2-

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-4

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 4 of 7

II.

There Is No "Substantial Overlap" Between The Cases Defendants further fail to offer any evidence that CMO's claims are an "integral part" of, or

"substantially overlap" with, the patent claims LPL filed in its original complaint. They proffer four theories as to why CMO's patent claims "substantially overlap." Notwithstanding that LPL's claims are asserted against an entirely different set of products, LPL ignores the unassailable fact that its patent claims are all based on a set of patents that are unrelated to CMO's patents, and there is no substantial overlap between these families of patents. They further disregard key facts in the case law they attempt to distinguish. Defendants' first argument is a straw man; it is undisputed that Defendants do not need to show that their patent claims and CMO's patent claims present "identical" issues to obtain a transfer, and that CMO does not need to establish the absence of any overlap in technology. Rather, the precise question is whether any overlap is "substantial." Defendants' second argument, that there must be substantial overlap because both sets of patents relate to LCD technology, is disingenuous. LCD technology incorporates many different underlying technologies ­ as evidenced by the numerous patent classifications the PTO has assigned to LCDs. A patent related to one aspect of LCD technology (such as reducing the thickness of the display) may have nothing to do with other aspects of LCD technology (such as enhancing color transition). This is precisely the situation explained in Garmin, Ltd. v. TomTom, Inc. In Garmin, Judge Davis held that patents that relate to navigation technology ­ even ones with common inventors and that would likely be asserted against the same set of products ­ did not "substantially overlap." Defendants attempt to distinguish Judge Davis's "substantial overlap" analysis by arguing that the procedural posture of that case was further along than this one. But the procedural posture of the case only related to the analysis of potential judicial efficiencies; it did not impact the separate "substantial overlap" analysis, which is the key question at issue in this case. Third, Defendants try to minimize the impact of the PTO's own classification system, but they do not ­ and cannot ­ dispute that out of 34 different patent classifications assigned by the PTO originally (or 31 different patent classifications currently), there is only one overlapping classification between the relevant sets of patents. Some overlap, to be sure, but clearly not -3-

1730224

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-4

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 5 of 7

"substantial." Fourth, Defendants' argument that some of LPL's patents issued before new patent classifications were created is irrelevant and confusing. Patent classifications, even on issued patents, are updated on the PTO website, as CMO explained in its opposition. For example, the PTO website shows that the current U.S. classes for LPL's `002 patent include classifications 216/23 and 438/30, both of which were "yet-to-be created" when the patent issued on May 28, 1991 (classifications established May 2, 1995 and Aug 5, 1997, respectively).1 If technology classifications for the various patents overlapped, that fact would be reflected on the current PTO website. Defendants' further fail to discuss the dispositive facts in Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. v. Power Integrations, Inc., No. 2:06-cv-151, 2007 WL 712289 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2007), although they attempt to rely on this case. The reason for Defendants' omission is clear ­ the facts and circumstances of Fairchild bear no resemblance to this case. In Fairchild, Power Integrations sued two Fairchild entities for patent infringement in Delaware. With respect to the `075 patent asserted against it, Fairchild contended that another patent, the `719 patent, was prior art. Fairchild Semiconductor Corp., 2007 WL 712289, at *1. During the pendency of the Delaware case, Fairchild acquired the right to enforce the `719 patent against Power Integrations and then sued on the `719 patent only in Texas. Id. Under these circumstances ­ where the patent being asserted in the second case was prior art to the patent in the first case ­ this Court found that there was substantial overlap. By contrast here, neither sets of patents have been asserted to be prior art against the other, and therefore Fairchild has no relevance. III. Defendants Have Not Satisfied Their Burden For A Transfer Under § 1404(a). Defendants argue for discretionary transfer under section 1404(a), but they do not ­ and cannot ­ deny that the Eastern District of Texas is a convenient forum for them. Both Defendants and CMO have multiple sales offices in Texas, and neither has any sales offices in Delaware. These facts are key differences between this case and the AUO v. LPL case in Wisconsin. For LPL's `737 patent, the PTO website shows the current U.S. classifications include 438/158, 257/353, 257/435, 257/E21.703, 257/E29.147, 257/E29.291, 438/30, and 438/482, all of which were "yet-to-be created" when the patent issued on November 25, 1986. See, e.g., http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/opc/coi/classes436-494.htm (last modified Aug. 25, 2006).
1

1730224

-4-

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-4

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 6 of 7

Defendants argue that the cases may have some issues that could possibly include some of the same documents or witnesses. Reply at 4. Even if true, the fact that some documents and translations may be used in two different cases does not justify a transfer. Whether some of the same witnesses may be needed is speculative, but it is clear that the key witnesses, such as the named inventors and patent prosecution counsel will not overlap at all. In any event, this Court has previously noted that accessibility and location of sources of proof are only of slight significance due to the increasing ease of storage, communication, copying, and transportation of documents. Cummins-Allison Corp. v. Glory Ltd., No. 2:03-CV-358, 2004 WL 1635534 at *6 (E.D. Tex. 2004). Defendants also argue that third parties ViewSonic and Tatung will be burdened by parallel discovery in the two cases. However, Defendants do not explain why customers of CMO's products would be witnesses to Defendants' acts of infringement against CMO, as it is Defendants' products that are accused in this case. In any event, the parties can easily avoid unnecessary duplication to prevent any significant burden. See id. at *3 (holding that any discovery gathered from another case presumably will preclude the need for any duplicative discovery). Defendants also selectively quote from Repligen Corp. v. Bristol Myers Squibb Co., No 206-CV-4, 2006 WL 2038561, (E.D. Tex. July 20, 2006) (Reply at 5), but fail to provide the context and outcome of the case. In Repligen, this Court stated that "[b]ecause the plaintiff's choice of forum is given significant consideration, this factor weighs against transfer." Repligen, 2006 WL 2038561, at *2 (emphasis added). In the end, this Court denied the motion to transfer. Id. at *4. Accordingly, Repligen does not support Defendants' motion for transfer. _____________ CMO filed its patent infringement action against Defendants in this Court. Defendants have no operative pleading under which it can argue that the first-to-file rule applies, and even if it did, there is no substantial overlap that would require transfer. In addition, Defendants have failed to show that the interests-of-justice factors under section 1404(a) favor transfer, and they do not even deny that this is a convenient forum. This Court should deny Defendants' motion. Date: July 30, 2007 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Jonathan S. Kagan Jonathan S. Kagan _

1730224

-5-

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-4

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 7 of 7

Melissa R. Smith LEAD ATTORNEY State Bar No. 24001351 Harry L. Gillam, Jr. State Bar No. 07921800 GILLAM & SMITH, L.L.P. 303 South Washington Avenue Marshall, Texas 75670 Telephone: (903) 934-8450 Facsimile: (903) 934-9257

Of Counsel: Jonathan S. Kagan (Pro Hac Vice) IRELL & MANELLA LLP 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90067-4276 Telephone: (310) 277-1010 Facsimile: (310) 203-7199

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS CORPORATION

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this motion was served on all counsel who have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) and Local Rule CV-5(e), all other counsel of record not deemed to have consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by United States mail on this the 30th day of July, 2007. ______/s/ Jonathan S. Kagan Jonathan S. Kagan _

1730224

-6-

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-5

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS CORPORATION, a Taiwan Corporation, Plaintiff, v. LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD., a Korean Corporation, and LG.PHILIPS LCD AMERICA, INC., a California Corporation, Defendants. DEFENDANTS' OPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT Defendants LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPL") and LG.Philips LCD America, Inc. ("LPLA") respectfully move the Court for an extension of time within which to respond to the complaint filed by Plaintiff Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation ("CMO"), and in support thereof state: 1. Under the current schedule, Defendants LPL and LPLA need to respond to Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-00176-TJW

CMO's complaint by August 13, 2007. 2. Defendants request that the Court extend this period until one week after Labor

Day, or September 10, 2007. 3. Good cause exists for this request. Long-planned family vacations, as well as

work commitments and depositions in other cases, make the additional time necessary to respond appropriately to CMO's complaint. Defendants would not consent to this simple extension without imposing an array of unacceptable conditions.

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-5

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 2 of 2

WHEREFORE, Defendants LPL and LPLA respectfully request that their time to respond to CMO's complaint be enlarged until September 10, 2007. Respectfully submitted, JONES & JONES, INC., PC /s/ Franklin Jones, Jr. Franklin Jones, Jr. Texas State Bar No. 00000055 201 West Houston Street Marshall, Texas 75671-1249 Phone: (903) 938-4395 Facsimile: (903) 938-3360 Mike C. Miller Texas State Bar No. 14101100 Law Office of Mike C. Miller, P.C. 201 West Houston Street Marshall, Texas 75670 Phone: (903) 938-4395 Facsimile: (903) 938-3360 Attorneys for Defendants LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. and LG.Philips LCD America, Inc. OF COUNSEL: Gaspare J. Bono R. Tyler Goodwyn Lora A. Brzezynski McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1900 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 496-7500 August 6, 2007

-2-

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-6

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS CORPORATION, a Taiwan Corporation, Plaintiff, v. LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD., a Korean Corporation, and LG.PHILIPS LCD AMERICA, INC., a California Corporation, Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is Defendants' Opposed Motion to Extend Time to Respond to the Complaint. The Court hereby: (1) (2) GRANTS the Motion; and ORDERS that Defendants are granted an extension of time within which Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-00176-TJW

to respond to the complaint until and including September 10, 2007.

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-7

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS CORPORATION, a Taiwan Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD., a Korean Corporation, and LG.PHILIPS LCD AMERICA, INC., a California Corporation, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 2:07-cv-00176-TJW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS CORPORATION'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT While Plaintiff Chi Mei Optoelectronics ("CMO") previously stipulated that Defendants could have until August 13, 2007 to respond to CMO's May 4, 2007 complaint, CMO does not believe that there is any reasonable basis or need for a further extension. CMO thus respectfully opposes Defendants attempt to extend this deadline by another 4 weeks. On May 21, 2007, counsel for Defendants asked whether CMO would stipulate that the response date for both Defendants to answer CMO's complaint could be reset until August 13, 2007. CMO agreed, and Defendants filed the stipulation with the Court on May 30, 2007 [Docket Item No. 7]. The Court formally extended Defendants' "Answer Due" date until August 13 based on this stipulation [Docket Item No. 8]. On May 22, 2007, the day after Defendants requested their August 13, 2007 extension, Defendant LG.Philips LCD Co. Ltd. ("LPL") attempted to add declaratory relief claims based on the same patents CMO has asserted here to a case involving different parties and patents in Delaware. In Delaware, LPL asserted (through the same counsel representing Defendants here) that it did not infringe the CMO patents at issue in this case, and that it believed such patents were invalid. Thus, by the day after Defendants requested their August 13, 2007 extension, they had presumably completed the analysis necessary to respond to CMO's complaint.

1733798

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-7

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 2 of 3

Good cause does not exist for a further extension of time to respond to CMO's complaint. To the extent Defendants' counsel have "long-planned family vacations" they would have known about such vacations when they requested the August 13, 2007 response date. Moreover, given that Defendants will have had over 3 months from the filing of this action to respond, it is difficult to see how commitments from other cases could have prevented them from preparing an answer ­ particularly where the same counsel has filed papers in a Delaware case stating that LPL does not infringe CMO's patents, and that these patents are invalid. In short, there is no reason why Defendants' cannot submit an answer by the August 13, 2007 date they originally proposed. Respectfully submitted, GILLAM & SMITH, LLP __/s/ Melissa R. Smith ________________ Melissa R. Smith LEAD ATTORNEY State Bar No. 24001351 Harry L. Gillam, Jr. State Bar No. 07921800 GILLAM & SMITH, L.L.P. 303 South Washington Avenue Marshall, Texas 75670 Telephone: (903) 934-8450 Facsimile: (903) 934-9257 IRELL & MANELLA LLP Jonathan S. Kagan (Pro Hac Vice) 800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90067-4276 Telephone: (310) 277-1010 Facsimile: (310) 203-7199 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS CORPORATION

8/6/20071733798

2

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-7

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this motion was served on all counsel who have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) and Local Rule CV-5(e), all other counsel of record not deemed to have consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by certified mail, return receipt requested, on this the 6th day of August, 2007. __/s/ Melissa R. Smith ___________ Melissa R. Smith

8/6/20071733798

3

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-8

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS CORPORATION, a Taiwan Corporation Plaintiff, vs. LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD, a Korean Corporation, and LG.PHILIPS LCD AMERICA, INC, a California Corporation, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-176-TJW

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO EXTEND TIME On this date came for consideration Defendants' Opposed Motion to Extend Time to Answer Plaintiff's Complaint for Patent Infringement, and the Court being of the opinion that same should be DENIED, it is therefore, ORDERED that Defendants LG. Philips LCD Co., LTD, and LG Philips LCD America, Inc., be and hereby are, DENIED an extension of time within which to Answer Plaintiffs Complaint for Patent Infringement in the above cause. Per the courts previous order {Docket No. 8} Defendants Answer is due August 13, 2007.

-1-

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-9

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS CORPORATION, a Taiwan Corporation, Plaintiff, v. LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD., a Korean Corporation, and LG.PHILIPS LCD AMERICA, INC., a California Corporation, Defendants. DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SUR-REPLY Defendants LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPL") and LG.Philips LCD America, Inc. ("LPLA") respectfully move the Court for leave to file the attached two-page brief, and in support thereof state: 1. On July 30, 2007, Plaintiff Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation ("CMO") filed a Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-00176-TJW

"sur-reply" in further opposition to Defendants' motion to transfer this case to the District of Delaware. 2. In the interest of justice, leave should be granted because CMO's sur-reply

violates of the rules of this Court. First, the sur-reply is not limited to "responding to issues raised in the reply." E.D. Tex. R. CV-7(f). Second, the sur-reply was due on July 23, not July 30, because LPL's reply was electronically filed and served before 5:00 pm on July 18. See E.D. Tex. R. CV-5(a)(3)(C) & 7(f). 3. Leave should also be granted because the attached brief is necessary to allow the

Court to resolve the transfer motion on a fully informed basis. First, CMO's sur-reply

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-9

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 2 of 2

mischaracterizes the first-filed analysis conducted by Judge Shabaz. Second, the sur-reply conflicts with a pleading filed in Delaware four days earlier where CMO told Chief Judge Sleet that it "would not oppose" a motion to amend the Delaware complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendants LPL and LPLA respectfully request that the Court grant them leave to file the brief attached hereto as Exhibit A. Respectfully submitted, JONES & JONES, INC., PC /s/ Franklin Jones, Jr. Franklin Jones, Jr. Texas State Bar No. 00000055 2201 West Houston Street Marshall, Texas 75671-1249 Phone: (903) 938-4395 Facsimile: (903) 938-3360 Mike C. Miller Texas State Bar No. 14101100 Law Office of Mike C. Miller, P.C. 201 West Houston Street Marshall, Texas 75670 Phone: (903) 938-4395 Facsimile: (903) 938-3360 Attorneys for Defendants LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. and LG.Philips LCD America, Inc. OF COUNSEL: Gaspare J. Bono R. Tyler Goodwyn Lora A. Brzezynski McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1900 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 496-7500 August 7, 2007

-2-

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-10

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 1 of 7

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-10

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 2 of 7

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-10

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 3 of 7

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-10

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 4 of 7

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-10

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 5 of 7

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-10

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 6 of 7

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-10

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 7 of 7

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-11

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 1 of 1

N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS CORPORATION, a Taiwan Corporation, Plaintiff, v. LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD., a Korean Corporation, and LG.PHILIPS LCD AMERICA, INC., a California Corporation, Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Response to Plaintiff's Surreply. The Court hereby: (1) (2) GRANTS the Motion; and ORDERS that Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Surreply Regarding Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-00176-TJW

Defendants' Motion to Transfer this Case shall be filed on this date.

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 76-12

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CHI MEI OPT