Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 760 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 1 of 2
Rncraanoa, Locwron 5. Fawcett
A PROFESSIONAL A5SOCEA'Â¥`ION
Owe Rooster Souantt
gm) NORTH KING STREET Dmecr Dim. Numeen
ANNE $****5** GAM Wntmiwcsrcnw, DELAWARE seem 30265 ,,7539
COUNSEL <;sc:>a> ees l—'?’7OO G»¤.L’A@F=’zt.F‘ com
mx <;aoa> esi-wot
\N\/VW. Rl..F` .CO M
August l0, 2007
REDACTED - PUBLIC VERSION
The Honorable Vincent 3. Poppiti
BLANK ROME LLP
Chase Manhattan Center
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 1980l
Re: LG.Pl1i!igs LCD C0., Ltd. v. ViewSonic et al., C.A. No. 04—343—~J.}F
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
LPL’s motion to compel production of module specifications and correlation information
again rnisstates the record and fails to account for the documents that have already been
produced.
Correlation Data
In its motion, LPL asks for the first time that 1`atung correlate the accused products to the
LCD or PDP modules that are used in those products The Document Requests cited by LPL do
not cover this type of information. For example, Document Request No. 3 seeks documents
sufficient to show how the LCD module is attached in the Tatung products. CAD/CAM and
assembly drawings were provided in response to this Request. There is no conceivable way in
which this Request can be stretched to include a correlation of module model numbers to product
model numbers- Moreover, Tatung does not maintain this type of correlation data in the ordinary
course of its business. Based on these reasons alone, LPL’s request should be denied.
In the California case pending between the parties, as part of its interrogatory responses,
1`atung did correlate the LCD products accused in that case (rnost of which are rm accused here)
to LCD modules. Even though the correlation data produced in the California case is not
relevant in this case, it nevertheless was provided by Mark Krietzman to Rel Arnbrozy at the in~
person discovery hearing before Your I-Ionor. Therefore, to the extent that correlation data
exists, it has already been provided to LPI,.
Finally, LPL has inspected and disassembled a number of products made available by the
Tatung Defendants, including products that subsequently were accused by LPL. LPL also has in
its possession a number of Tatung products. While LPL refused to make those products
atrieissass-2

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 760 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 2 of 2
available for inspection, it did produce photographs ofthe products in their disassembled state,
including photographs of the modules or flat panel display devices used in those products. LPI,
also has technical documents and assemhly instructions produced hy the Tatung Defendants. ln
short, LPL already has the samples and documents that would allow LPL to derive the module
information it seeks. LPL’s request is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to force the
Tatung Defendants to do LPL’s work. LPL’s request for correlation data should be denied.
Module Specifications
Again, without reviewing the Tatung Defendants document productions, LPL sent
several harassing emails and letters claiming that module specitications had not been produced
when in fact they had been produced long ago. While LPL attaches to its motion Cormac
Com1or’s July ll, .2007 email to Valerie Ho regarding module specifications, it fails to inform
Your Honor either in its motion or in the Rule 7.].1 certification that the parties actually held a
telephonic meet and confer on July l2, 2007 to discuss these issues, among others- During this
meet and confer, LPL was informed that module specilications already had been produced.
ln fact, the Tatuug Defendants have produced the LCD and PDP module specifications
they could locate, including for modules used in the products that remain accused if the Special
lt/laster’s claim constructions are adopted. Attached as Exhibits A and B hereto are two
examples of the speciiications produced.
LPL attempts to make much of the fact that Vincent Liu could not testify in detail about
the internal structures of the LCD modules. This is not surprising, however, because, as LPL
knows, the Tatung Defendants do not design or manufacture LCD or PDP modules. They
purchase those components from third party vendors, including LPL. Had LPL wanted more
information about LCD or PDP modules, it could have suhpoenaed the module manufacturers
before the close of fact discovery, which it did not do, or it could have searched its own library
for LPL module specifications.
Accordingly, LPL’s motion to compel module correlation data and module specifications
has no merit and should be denied.
Respectfully,
fl
·LQ Jgilylngl Aljff.} »¢L—......
Anne Shea Gaza (#4093) {5
ASG/afg
Enclosures
cc: Cleric oi the Court (By Electronic Filing)
All Counsel of Record (via electronic rnail)
Rl.Fl»3l88¢§33-2

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 760

Filed 08/10/2007

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 760

Filed 08/10/2007

Page 2 of 2