Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

File Size: 137.3 kB
Pages: 3
Date: May 16, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 807 Words, 4,695 Characters
Page Size: 614 x 792 pts

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 137.3 kB)

Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1 :05-cv—00292-JJF Document 196 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 1 of 3
222 Dlil./t\'¤1¤§\lll£ Avixmiia, Sitriri 900
PO. Box 25150
‘Di77Il.i\1l1i\Z('i`l`()Z\§, DE 19899
Z1vr1’»»:c Ds 1l\1`!tl1i~: 1%.7801
A T rf O R N Y S l%l§I€lT/25 l.F=.`fJ irlililzx ‘.“!l'}i%2 i7‘.'ill2l:
\'l'\\'\\' iX1y21l'CiiAl1`111.L'01\1
(Fm) 502—656—6%95
\1 (302) 429-4208
rl May 16, 2006
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
United States District Court
844 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
RE: LG.P/zilzps LCD C0., Ltd. v. T atung Company 0fAmercia, et al.
C.A. No. O5—292—JJF
Dear Judge Faman:
On behalf of plaintiff LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. (“LPL"), l write in response to
Mr. Whetzel’s letter [DI. 195] dated May 15, 20061 regarding LPL’s withdrawal of its
claims under the ‘12l patent.
On May 1, 2006 LPL did precisely what the Court invited it to do at the April 25,
2006 hearing, namely it withdrew its claims under the ‘l2l patent [D1. 180]. At the
hearing, Your Honor said:
The first issue that we're going to deal with
presented by the parties is the ’121 patent. And 1'm
going to order that counsel for the plaintiff make a
determination whether or not they want to pursue
infringement claims under that patent by Monday,
May 1. You can drop the patent from the case.
Transcript, April 25, 2006, at 70:22 through 71 :4 (emphasis added).
I Mr. Whetzel’s letter was filed at 9:20 pm. EDT, and served by email thereafter. For all practical
purposes it was served on LPL this morning.

Case 1 :05-cv—00292-JJF Document 196 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 2 of 3
F The Honorable Joseph J. Fainan, Jr.
'1`HE BAYARD rruvr May 10, 2000
Page 2
In withdrawing the claims of infringement under the ‘ 121 patent from the case,
LPL did nothing more and nothing less than "drop the patent from the case." LPL
believes that withdrawal of those claims is not tantamount to dismissing them under Rule
41, and is certainly not tantamount to dismissing them with prejudice, as Defendants
would like. Rather, LPL believes that withdrawing the claims is the functional equivalent
of amending the complaint under Rule 15.
Despite LPL’s withdrawal of the infringement claims under the ‘l2l patent,
Defendants now want (1) to start taking the very discovery the Court already said would
be unnecessary if the ‘l2l claims were withdrawn, and (2) to amend their answers to
inject two wholly new claims about the ‘12l patent into this case that is set for trial in
less than two months. The Court should reject Defendants’ effort to drag this case off
Since LPL no longer asserts affirmative claims against the Defendants in this case
for infringement of the ‘l21 patent, any defenses and counterclaims related to that patent
are moot as well. Discovery related to any of those defenses and counterclaims is also
moot. The trial in July will not involve the ‘ 121 patent or the invention embodied
therein. That should end the matter. LPL submits that the Court should simply deny
Defendants’ request for unnecessary discoveryz and their request for leave to amend their
answers and counterclaims.
LPL looks forward to discussing this issue with the Court at the status conference
scheduled for tomorrow at 9:30.
Re pectfully submitted,
~, ..... ....00 www
‘Richard D. Kirk (#0922)
cc: Clerk of the Court
All counsel as shown on attached certificate
2 This would be essentially the same discovery that Defendants have repeatedly sought and repeatedly
been denied. Indeed, it is the subject of Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration [DI. 134] that the Court
recently denied as moot [D.1.185].

Case 1 :05-cv—00292-JJF Document 196 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 3 of 3
The undersigned counsel certifies that, on May 16, 2006, he electronically filed
the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECP, which will send
automatic notification of the filing to the following:
Robert W. Whetzel, Esq.
Matthew W. King, Esq.
Richards, Layton & Finger
One Rodney Square
P.O. Box 551
Wilmington, DE 19899
The undersigned counsel further certifies that copies of the foregoing document
were sent on May 16, 2006 by email and by hand to the above counsel and by email and
V first class mail to the following non—registered participants:
Christine A. Dudzik, Esq. Teresa M. Corbin, Esq.
Thomas W. Jenkins, Esq. Glenn W. Rhodes, Esq.
Howrey LLP Julie Gabler, Esq.
321 North Clark Street Howrey LLP
Suite 3400 525 Market Street
Chicago, IL 60610 Suite 3600
San Francisco, CA 94105
/s/ Richard D. Kirk grk0922l
Richard D. Kirk