Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 756 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 1 of 2
Ricuaaos, Layton: & F-"imcaizrz
A PFIOFEISSEONAL ASSOCIATKDN
Om-: Filcouzv SQUARE
920 NORTH KING STREET DlF’iEL(Z'¥` DML. NUMBER
ANNE SNEA GMA Win-Miwercrm, Da1,AvvAr=u; sono: 303-35 ,-7539
COUNEEL t:ac>a> esti-vvcncn eAz.¤@al-i= com
Fm <;s0z=.> ee:-vvoi
V\•"W’W. RL.F {IOM
August 10, .2007
The Honorable Vincent J, Poppiti
BLANK ROME LLP
Chase Manhattan Center
E20} Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19301
Re: LG.PlzHigs LCD C0., LM v. ViewSonic et nl., C.A. No. 04··343··JJF
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
LPL would not have had to file its motion to compel a second inspection of products had
it bothered to complete the meet and confer process- Upon receiving Frank Merideth’s July 3],
2007 letter, which suggested that the `fatung Defendants would consider permitting a second
inspection if LPI. provided a "compel1ing reason," LPL failed to respond but instead tiled this
motion prematurely, thus violating the meet and confer requirement and wasting the parties’ and
Your Honor’s time- Had LPL explained that even though its attorneys and/or purported expert,
William Bohannon, inspected, disassembled and photographed the products, those inspections
were not sufficiently thorough and were not done in view of Defendants’ proposed constructions,
the Tatung Defendants would have at least considered whether those reasons were sufficiently
compelling to justify a second inspection (notwithstanding the fact that LPL refused to permit the
Tatung Defendants to inspect any of the samples in LPL’s possession). LPL provided no
explanation and simply tiled this motion.
In any event, the Tatung Defendants are willing to make the following products available
for inspection in an effort to cooperate:
l- Previousiy inspected products that remain accused by LPL if the Special Master’s claim
constructions are adopted by the Court- (ln its rnost recent interrogatory responses, LPL
identified a list of products that are accused if the Special Master’s construction of “rear‘
mountabie" is overruled and a narrowed list of accused products if the Special l\/Iaster’s
construction of "rear mountable" is adopted,)
2. Previously un—inspected products that have become available to the Tatung Defendants
and remain accused by LPL if the Special Master’s claim constructions are adopted.
Indeed, on August 8, 2007, the `latung Defendants sent LPI-. a letter offering to make
certain recently obtained products available for inspection, (See Exh. A.)
nist-sissscos

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 756 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 2 of 2
3, Prior art products, whether previously inspected or not, to the extent tliat their inspection
will not interfere with the Tatung Defendants’ expert”s work relating to the invalidity
expert report,
The Tatung Defendants are willing to make the above products available for inspection at
Greenberg `i"raurig’s Santa Monica office, at a mutually agreed upon time, so long as the prior
inspection rules apply, For example, the parties previously agreed that LPL will not disassernble
the LCD or PDP modules because once the Frame or frames are removed, the modules no longer
will be held together and it will be dlthcult, if not impossible, to re—assemble them.
Because LPL’s proposed re-inspection of products will create additional burdens for the
Tatung Defendants (for example, arrangements will have to be made to accommodate LPL’s
counsel and expert, and someone will have to supervise the inspection to ensure the products are
reassembled correctly), LPL’s inspection should be limited to two days.
Respectfully,
Anne Shea Gaza (#4093)
ASG/afg
Enclosure
cc: Clerk of the Court (By Electronic Filing)
All Counsel of Record (via electronic mail)
Rl.lFl—3l8830=l·l

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 756

Filed 08/10/2007

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 756

Filed 08/10/2007

Page 2 of 2