Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

File Size: 75.2 kB
Pages: 3
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 831 Words, 4,645 Characters
Page Size: 622 x 792 pts

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 75.2 kB)

Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:05-cv—00292-JJF Document 195-2 Filed 05/15/2006 Page 1 013

Case 1 :05-cv—00292-JJF Document 195-2 Filed 05/15/2006 Page 2 of 3
550 South Hope Street
“‘ Los Angeles. CA 90071-2627
r 212 eaz taco
r 213 sez 2200
May 8. 2006
\. IA 1*At'.iSlMEt.ii
tjasparc tl. Bono, lisa
McKenna Long & Aldrige 1.,LrP
t900 K Street. NW
Washington, DC 20006
Ret [G P/iilipx /,C/Q) Co Ltd v Tcrturzg C0. qfxlmerico at cri CA No
lftcar Mr Bono:
This is in reference to your letter to Judge Farnan of l May 2006.
1 understand trom your letter that LPL has elected to withdraw its claims of patent
iriliirigcntcnt in this ease with respect to U.S.. Patent No. 6,738,12l (the "‘ l2l patent"). ln your
letter. you indicate that "LPL. does not concede anything by withdrawing its claims under the
‘l2 l patent I.,l**L believes that it has stated a meritorious claim for patent infringement of its
“ l 21 patent Moreover, LPL believes, on the basis of everything that is known to date, that
delendants could not successfully prove an invalidating on»saie bar for the ‘l2l patent by clear
and convincing evidence "
this is 1101 a satisiactory resolution to the ‘i2l patent issue, and I do HG1 believe this is
what the court intended when it gave LPL the option of dropping thc ‘l2l patent or allowing
C`P`l to take additional discovery on the on-saie bar issue We request that LPL enter into a
stipulated dismissal of the ‘ 121 patent with prejudice as to all past and current CPT TFT LCD
module products. As expressed in your letter, LPL is retaining its rights to pursue an
infringement suit against CPT as to its past and current TFT LCD module products in a different
lorurn and/or dil`l’erent time.
1,Pl. tiled this action on 13 May 2005 and then moved for a preliminary injunction
against CPT on l November 2005 based on the ‘ 121 patent, claiming irreparable harrnr We are
now in the curious position of LPL withdrawing its infringement claim under the ‘12t patent
without prejudice in order to pursue its claims under the ‘O02 patent because "l,PL is concerned
that CPT woutd use the discovery process outlined by the court as to the on—saie bar issue in an
eilort to attempt (again) to postpone the trial." We take from this withdrawal that the urgency
that was attached to the *121 patent last November has now dissipated.
Since 1_.t’l.. is withdrawing its infringement claims without prejudice, CPT will proceed
with its declaratory yiudgment action with respect to invalidity ofthe ‘ I2} patent. The evidence
ruvtsrrrtoruvi sausstts csirtrtno east Prtto rxtro riousron invites tonnes
tos Adonis tvortrntmr virtoiutrt wins srttr inst env san rrutrrctsco intra wrtsuittistlou. oti
ini ¤=s.siri.m ti

Case 1 :05-cv—00292-JJF Document 195-2 Filed 05/15/2006 Page 3 of 3
Gaspare .l Bono, Esq.
May 8, 2006
Page 2
uncovered thus tar shows that the *121 patent is both invalid lor violation of the on~sale bar and
unenforceable lor fraud hy LPI, in the procurernent of the ‘l2l patent from the U.S» Patent &
"l radetrtark Oliiee
As to LPt..‘s fear that CPT is seeking to delay the trial date, CPT has no intention of
seeking a delay in the trial date unless such a delay is necessary to remedy prejudice caused by
LPI. As you know, the Court was willing to provide twelve days in May (May Isl to the l2"`) to
pursue discovery relating to the on—sale bar issue, without delaying the July l’7"’ trial date. 1.,PL’s
position that it was dropping the ‘ 12.1 patent infringement claims to prevent a continuance of the
luiy W"` trial date seems somewhat contradictory. We have now lost that valuable time. IfLPL
cannot agree to a dismissal ofthe *121 patent with prejudice, we will raise the issue with the
( `ourt at the May l7"` hearing. We would like to avoid this and hope we can work together to
reach a resolution that lays the `l2i patent infringement issue to rest with respect to all of CP`l’s
past and current li: lv LCD modules. ll not, we will make a request to the Court for immediate
discovery relating to the on-sale bar issue. We also will be seeking immediate leave to amend
the counterclaim to add a claim for inequitable conduct in the procurement ofthe ‘i2l patent.
We will request the Court to grant discovery on these issues between May i'/lll and .lune 17m (one
month belbre trial).
Please let me know as soon as possible ii`LP1., with agree to a dismissal ofthe “l2l patent
in tringement claims with preiudiee
Very truly yours,

Glenn W. Rhodes
cc: iviattitew King (via email)
Julie Gahler (via email)
Ilhl l.!*i-iii K i HT? ti