Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

File Size: 56.1 kB
Pages: 3
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 659 Words, 3,677 Characters
Page Size: 622 x 792 pts

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 56.1 kB)

Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:05-cv—00292-JJF Document 195-3 Filed 05/15/2006 Page 1 013

Case 1 :05-cv—00292-JJF Document 195-3 Filed 05/15/2006 Page 2 of 3
222 Daeaxtzane Au=.· PCD Box 25ISu
\VlLIiIZ<{]'|tJj€ DE 19599
Eu C ».-tF;·1 |JI.:=·u==.-. lt·<·,·1
A T if O R N E IY S ET li'lEI’lS1¤·514·'.\ °lil13i·l‘ili;I;·"·IDE
t- xm iutisrtlllsni tum
maxi 50Z:—t%?=I<-6595
\Y‘Iutt1ts Ebuuact Acces:
{302) 429-4208
rldrk@bayardiim1 cont
May I, 2006
The i~iono:"abie Ioseph I Faman, It
Utiited States District Coun
$44 Noith King Street
Vx iiniington, DE 19SOl
RE: LG Philips LCD Co I Ltd t· Tctrttrxg Cotiipany ofAn·:er1'crn, c at tt!
CA. No. 05-292.-.I.lF
Deal lucige Fatitaii:
I write on behalf ofplaintiff LG Philips LCD Co , Ltd ("I.4PI.") At the hearing
on April 25. 2006 the Court im ited {PL to consider is Itethet to purstte its ciaims for
in ti ingement of the I 2I patent
LPI. has consideied the matter ftzrther and has decided that it wit] witltdtaw its
claims fos patent inftiiigement under the ‘l2,I patent (i e., Count I of the Complaint, D.}
I I We have tiled today the attached Notice of Volaintaty Witiidtatval of Claims Relating
to U S Patent No 6.738,12I
LPL does not concede anytiting by withdrawing its claims under the ‘t2I patent
LPI. beliex es that it has stated a metitotious claim fos patent itdiittgetttettt ofits ‘I2l
patent Moteot ei, LPL believes, on the basis of everything that is known to date, that
defendants could not successfully prove an invalidating on~sale ba: fox the ‘12I patent by
ciear and com incing, evicience
Hott eyes, the discot ery preparatory to and ensuing battle over the on—sal bat for
the ‘l21 patent wouid be a time constnning distraction fiom i..PI.’s real objective, which
is getting to ttiai in July on det`endants’ intiinging products LPI. is concemed that CPT
would use the discovery process outlined by the court as to the on—saIe bat issue in an
etlon to attempt (again] to postpone the trial `I“Itet‘efoie, the vtititdrawal of Count I is a
gnactic at decision that in no my should be construed as a concession by LPI.

Case 1 :05-cv—00292-JJF Document 195-3 Filed 05/15/2006 Page 3 of 3
· `i"lie Honorable Iosepii I Farnan, lr
Tris Brrraago Exam ixiiy i, was
?age Two
LP?. believes that its witlidiaxval of`Count I should have the following beneticial
r; it xx ill dramatically streantiioe this case and xviii ensure that we continue
on track for trial commencing itily I?
2: it xxill moot defendant? Motion for Recoiisideration [D I EM], as that
tnotioo telates solely to discovery related to the °I.?.I patent
: lt xviii simplify the Cour1’s rlc'm/riirctii ruling by eliminating a number of
tetins the parties have submitted fo: constiuctioni
3 It xxill obviate the need for any etilargement oftiie discovery iimits
pier iously ageed to lay the patties and set by die Court.
; It xx ill simplify expert discovery and permit botlt expert reports and
tliscoxer; to ine completed by the tieadliltes imposed bythe Court
Because the Court atitltorized LPI. to withdraw ciaims under the ‘I2l patent at
the liearintt, we do not beliet e it is necessary to tile an arnended complaint at this time in
liglit of E.PI..’s Notice ofWitltciraxx·al filed today Any amendment ofthe pleadings can
easily be addressed is connection xx=itli the final pretrial order in accordance with FRCP
l(>tc}(21 and Local Rule I6 élttllt 2 l)
Respectfully sttbrnitted,
Richard D Kirlc (rl<0922)
cc: Clerk of the Court {courtesy copy by hand}
Ail counsel as shown on the attached certihcate