CON NOLLY BOVE LODGE 8: HUTZ LLP
» if ATTORNEYS AT LAW
wiuvumerou, ma
The Nemours Building
. 1007 N at 0 sr.
gjlfjjjs D- Hman Ps. B.,°.2J““
TEL (352) 88845216 Wilmington, DE 19899
Emma. [email protected] TEN (302) 658 9141
mx:
WEB: www.cblh.c0m
August 13, 2007
Via Email and Harzd—Delivery
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
Blank Rome LLP
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: LG.Philqws LCD C0., Ltd v. ViewSonic et al., USDC, D. Del., No. 04-343-JJF
ViewSonic’s Status Report re Request for LPL Deposition (DM )
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
This is ViewSonic’s brief status report regarding its request to conduct a deposition of
LPL relating to LPL’s recently-produced documents and the information and issues raised by
those documents. As briefed in ViewSonic’s July 27 and August 3 status reports, Defendants
need to depose LPL on various issues and subjects that arise out of or relate to the recently-
produced documents. .
During the August 7, 2007 hearing, the Special Master requested Defendants provide
LPL with their proposed deposition topics to see if the parties could reach an agreement on this
deposition. As agreed, ViewSonic sent LPL its proposed deposition topics the next day,
Wednesday August 8, and Tatung sent LPL two additional topics on August 9. On Friday l
August 10, the parties held a meet and confer to discuss these topics. Unfortunately we were
unable to reach resolution on any of the topics. ViewSonic attempted during the meet and confer .
to ascertain whether LPL’s position is that it will simply not agree to a deposition regardless of
how the topics are phrased, or if it will agree to a deposition but only for certain, specified topics. 1
Despite these attempts, LPL was unable to articulate a single area where it was willing to agree
that deposition testimony would be acceptable. Instead, LPL demanded that Defendants identify
the particular LPL products on which they wished to question a witness before LPL would
consider agreeing to any deposition topics. ViewSonic asked LPL to send it any changes it could
make to the proposed topics that would make them acceptable to LPL and ViewSonic would
consider them for purposes of trying to reach a compromise. As of the writing of this status
report, LPL has not sent any counter—proposed or narrowed topics}
As Defendants explained in the meet and confer, the deposition cannot be limited to only
a few of the products about which documents were produced. Instead, the deposition must
extend to the relevant aspects of all of the products identified and/or included within the scope of
I ViewSonic likewise agreed to review the proposed topics over the weekend. Attached to this status report are
ViewSonic’s revised proposed deposition topics.
wnuvimerou, ns WASHINGTON, 0c » tos ANGELES, CA
Case 1:04—cv—00343-JJF Document 764 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 2 of 2
yr CONNOLLY Bova LODGE ar Hurz LLP
m ATTORNEYS AT LAW
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
August 13, 2007
Page 2
a topic. For example, as Defendants pointed out during the meet and confer, Defendants must be
allowed to question the witness to elicit what properly discoverable knowledge or information
LPL has relating to other products or product features similar to those disclosed in the newly
produced documents even if LPL has not located or produced documents about that particular
product or feature. Thus, it would not be proper to require that the deposition be limited to the
contents of the newly produced documents and not include issues that relate to or extend from
those documents.
Similarly, Defendants need to be able to question a witness about the existence or lack of
any commercial success of the invention sought to be protected by the patents in suit.
Commercial success, or lack thereof directly relates to validity (as a factor enumerated in the
Graham test by the Supreme Court) and to damages (as a factor enumerated in the Georgia
Pacy’ic test). Thus, Defendants also need to question a witness about the sales, marketing,
market acceptable and/or demand for the features of the products in the newly produced
documents. lf the parties proceed in good faith and with dispatch, ViewSonic believes that the
deposition can be completed in two deposition days.
ViewSonic respectfully requests that LPL be ordered to identify and produce a corporate
representative to testify for two deposition days on the attached topics. If a translator is used,
this would amount to 21 deposition hours. ViewSonic further respectfully requests that the
deposition commence on August 21, continuing day to day until completed, and that consistent
with the parties existing agreement regarding the deposition of corporate representatives, that
LPL identify the person(s) who will testify 5 business days in advance.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ James D. Heisman
James D. Heisman
cc: All Counsel of Record
558055/70104*4
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 764
Filed 08/13/2007
Page 1 of 2
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 764
Filed 08/13/2007
Page 2 of 2
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms