Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

File Size: 141.1 kB
Pages: 4
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 1,478 Words, 9,030 Characters
Page Size: 622 x 790 pts

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 141.1 kB)

Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:05-cv—00292-JJF Document 189-2 Filed 05/08/2006 Page 1 of 4 Q
Rica-1Ar=2¤s, LAvT0N & FINGER _
S20 NORT1-• Kms STREET -
MATWEW W KING Wu.Mmc;T0N, DELAWARE reason D|;;C;;;`T_;;;BIER j
. (soar esi-v 700 K,NG@m_F_COM <
Fax caozi esa-770i j
May 8, 2006 Q
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. _
United States District Court
District of Delaware
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801 3
Re: L.G. Philips LCD C0. Ltd. v. Tatung Company et. al., C.A. No. 05-292
Dear Judge Farnan:
This letter responds to LPL’s letter of May 5, 2006, which opposes defendants’ proposed
reduction of the number of hours of deposition to be allowed in this case (as stated in defendants’ L
n May 4, 2006 letter to the Court). Defendants’ proposal is based on LPL’s recent withdrawal of
its allegations that Defendants iniiinge the ‘12l patent as well as LPL’s counsels’ previous
statements to the Court concerning the limited nature of the discovery sought from the customer
defendants (Tatung, Tatung of America and ViewSonic) even before it withdrew its ‘l2l claim. T
This later basis for reducing the number of individual depositions as well as the number of hours
of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the customer defendants was raised with the Court at the April 25 J
hearing. _
First, defendants request is timely because this Court stayed deposition discovery at the
February 8 hearing pending resolution of all document discovery disputes. The Court had not
yet reopened deposition discovery at the April 25 hearing, but the commencement of depositions ;
was necessarily on the near horizon given the July 17 trial date. Defendants’ request was, if
anything, premature in light of LPL’s election six days later to withdraw its ‘l21 claim, thereby
cutting in half the issues in the case.] _ I
I Of note, however, is LPL”s withdrawal of its ‘l2l patent infringement claims. The withdrawal is apparently
without prejudice, leaving Defendants at considerable risk that LPL will simply tile a separate case in this or a `
different forum against Defendants and their customers. This is not the result that Defendants believed the Court
intended by allowing LPL the option of dropping the ‘121 patent or providing Defendants with discovery directed to 5
the on—sa1e bar issue. Defendants have a declaratory judgment action in this case directed to the ‘l2l patent.
Defendants are requesting that LPL stipulate to a dismissal of the ‘l2l patent with prejudice in hopes of resolving
the issue. Otherwise, Defendants would like to maintain their declaratory judgment action directed to the invalidity

Case 1 :05-cv—00292-JJF Document 189-2 Filed 05/08/2006 Page 2 of 4
The Honorable Joseph J. Faman, Jr.
May s, 2006
Page 2 2
LPL’s opposition to Defendants’ proposal is simply LPL’s latest attempt to inflict
unnecessary drain of time, money and resources on Defendants. At the April 25, 2006 bearing,
the Court directed LPL to consider withdrawing its ‘l2l patent infringement allegations against
Defendants in light of evidence proving that LPL knew the patent was not valid. April 25, 2006
Hearing Transcript at 70-71. In the face of irrefutable evidence that LPL began selling the L
embodiment of the ‘l2l patent before the critical date, LPL’s counsel was willing to say only
that LPL was not certain the patent was invalid. April 25, 2006 Hearing Transcript at 41. The
result of LPL’s willful attempt to enforce its invalid patent was untold interruption of
Defendants’ businesses as well as the needless expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Thus, LPL’s strategy has been successful. Now, LPL wants to continue to harass Defendants by
engaging in the same expansive discovery as it would have if it were still attempting to
knowingly enforce its invalid patent. This defeats the purpose of the Court’s instruction that
LPL consider withdrawing the ‘l21 patent allegations in the first place.
The ‘l2l patent is out of the case, and thus, half the issues are out of the case. Merely i
reducing the number of hours of Rule 30(b)(6) depositions LPL may take of CPT from 35 to 20, 1
while still allowing LPL to depose four individual CPT witnesses, is still overly generous.
Furthermore, limiting deposition testimony of the customer defendants to five hours of Rule i
30(b)(6) testimony and one individual each provides more than enough time for LPL to get the
damages—related information it needs on just one, rather than two patents.
LPL’s reference to a prior agreement it had with CPT regarding the number of hours of
deposition testimony to be permitted in the case is inappropriate. Any prior agreements CPT
made with LPL were based on the inclusion of the ‘l2l patent in the case. Additionally, LPL’s
counsel admitted at the February 8 hearing that LPL only sought "some product information
[and] some sales information" and "minirnal technical inforrnation” from Viewsonic and Tatung.
February 8, 2006 Hearing Transcript at ll. Furthermore, such agreements were made without
the benefit of knowing that LPL was knowingly asserting an invalid patent for the sole purpose
of harassing defendants. ‘
LPL contends that despite all the changed circumstances and its own admissions that the §
discovery sought from the customer defendants is very limited, it should be allowed to take the ;
originally agreed—to number of hours or Rule 30(b)(6) testimony and individual party
depositions. To support this argument, LPL now claims that the parties made the previous
agreement with the intent that every witness who would be offered at trial would be offered for Q
deposition. This is false. The parties never discussed the idea that every trial witness would be
included within the deposition limits previously agreed to, nor would such an agreement have
been realistic at that early stage of the case, nor for that matter would it have been reasonable
given the deposition limitations imposed. The falsity of LPL’s position is demonstrated by the
of the ‘l2l patent, and to do so within the time limits necessary to advance the case to trial on July 17lh. lf so,
Defendants would propose additional deposition discovery on the on-sale bar issue.

Case 1 :05-cv—00292-JJF Document 189-2 Filed 05/08/2006 Page 3 of 4
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. j
May 8, 2006
P3gC 3
parties’ initial disclosures, exchanged before the agreement was made, listing more than four
witnesses per party that had relevant information. See LPL’s May 5 letter at page 2, paragraph 2. J
CPT never agreed that it would call at trial only those witnesses offered as Rule 30(b)(6) i
witnesses or the 4 people LPL chose to depose in their individual capacity. All parties have
always been at risk in this and every other case, that someone will call a witness at trial that the
opposing party did not elect to depose.
Vi/'hile it is true that the defendants originally offered three to four Rule 30(b)(6)
witnesses each back in early February, more recently (and prior to LPL’s May 5 letter to the i
Court) defendants expressly informed LPL that their Rule 30(b)(6) witness offerings will change.
These changes are only appropriate in light of the reduced number of Rule 30(b)(6) topics at
issue and the smaller scope of many of the remaining topics in light of the withdrawal of the ‘l2l {
patent claims. -
The deposition limitations proposed by defendants in their May 4 letter are appropriate
give the reduction in the number of issues to be tried in this case. Defendants respectfully -
request the Court order the requested limitations so that the parties may proceed with their
deposition discovery and trial preparation. .
Respectfully, 2
CCQA rhgqg
Matthew W. King l
cc: Christine A. Dudzik, Esq. (via e-mail)
Julie S. Gabler (via e-mail)
Richard D. Kirk, Esq. (via e-mail)
Gaspare J. Bono, Esq. (via e-mail)

Case 1 :05-cv—00292-JJF Document 189-2 Filed 05/08/2006 Page 4 of 4
` I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 8, 2006, l electronically filed the foregoing document
with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF which will send notification of such filing, and hand
delivered to the following: J
_ Richard D. Kirk Q
The Bayard Finn l
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900
Po. Box 25130
Wilmington, DE 19899 E
I hereby certify that on May 8, 2006, l sent the foregoing document by Electronic Mail,
to the following non-registered participants: _
Gaspare J. Bono
Matthew T. Bailey
Andrew J. Park
Adnan Mello
McKenna Long Aldridge LLP
1900 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Matthew W. King (#4566)
Richards, Layton & Finger {
One Rodney Square j
P.O. Box 551
Wilmington, DE 19899