Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 54.2 kB
Pages: 2
Date: May 16, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 419 Words, 2,620 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/34820/197.pdf

Download Order - District Court of Delaware ( 54.2 kB)


Preview Order - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:05-cv-00292-JJF Docurrgaent 197 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 1 012
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE `
LG. PHILIPS LCD CO. LTD, ;
Plaintiff, E
v. E Civil Action No. 05-292-JJF
TATUNG COMPANY, TATUNG COMPANY Z
OF AMERICA, INC., CHUNGWHA :
PICTURE TUBES LTD., and :
VIEWSONIC CORP., ;
Defendants. ;
MEMORANDUM ORDER
The Court has received a letter from Defendants dated May
15, 2006. The letter raises issues that Defendants contend need
to be addressed prior to the trial scheduled to commence on July
17, 2006. The letter also asserts claims of prejudice incurred
by Defendants due to the conduct of Plaintiff and the fast—track
procedure “imposed” on the parties by the Court. Defendants
describe Plaintiff’s litigation conduct as gamesmanshipl designed
to circumvent discovery and inhibit Defendants’ ability to defend
itself.
Defendants further claim, at page three of their letter,
that:
At the very least, any statements from LPL regarding
its “real objective" are suspect given its now clearly
‘ Gamesmanship can be defined as “the use of ethically
dubious methods to gain an objective.” The Court understands
that Defendants’ use of the word in its letter was in such a
context. E
1.

Case1:05-cv—0O292—JJF D0cument197 Filed 05/16/2006 Page20f2
baseless claim of irreparable harm in connection with
its preliminary injunction motion based on the ‘l2l
patent. LPL’s notion that it can sue on a patent, make
baseless accusations of irreparable harm in order to
disrupt CPT's business and business relationships, then
whimsically drop the patent without prejudice to delay
discovery and an adjudication of invalidity of the ‘12l
patent is unreasonable and prejudicial to the
defendants in this action. CPT's business has been
adversely affected by LPL’s specious allegations of
infringement of a patent it well knows is invalid.
The schedule in this case was set by the express
preference of the parties, not imposed on the parties by the
Court. Substantial judicial resources have been expended by
the Court to maintain the parties' schedule. The Court
finds that no undue prejudice will be incurred by either
party by proceeding to trial in July on the ‘OO2 patent
issues. The issues Defendants contend exist regarding the
‘l21 patent will be addressed after the July trial on a
schedule set by the Court.
No further applications concerning the ‘121 patent
shall be made without leave of the Court.
So Ordered.
C y k .... - ;=\ J .. .. . `
Ma ~M. 2006 A,A$.,j%r?§h ,... L/g;.Wr. ».
DATE UNK ED "‘ ‘·`‘ isTRicT Jun