222 Derramiziz Avsxyr, Sure 900
PO. Box 25150
\‘v’it:»iix<;;"‘<>x. DE 19899
A T T O R E Y S ‘fz£?%L3k`.`$3E
r · vsvsvv.l>;tvarcllir1ii.c
\‘<`arrei<'> l)uua<;‘r Aaitztess
May 1, 2006
The Honorable Joseph J. Earnan, Jr. ~
United States District Couit
844 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
RE: LG.P/iilips LCD C0., Ltd. v. Tczrzmg C onzpczziy of America, c et cz!.
CA. No. 05-292-JJF
Dear Judge Faman:
1 write on behalfof plaintiff LG.Phi1ips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPL"). At the hearing
on April 25. 2006, the Court invited LPL to consider whether to pursue its claims for
infringement of the ` 121 patent.
LPL has considered the matter further and has decided that it will withdraw its
claims for patent infringement under the ‘12l patent (i.e., Count 1 of the Complaint, D.1.
1). We have filed today the attached Notice of Voluntary Withdrawal of Claims Relating
to U.S. Patent No. 6.738,121.
LPL does not concede anything by withdrawing its claims under the ‘l21 patent.
LPL believes that it has stated a meritorious claim for patent infringement ofits ‘l2l
patent. Moreover. LPL believes, on the basis of everything that is known to date, that
i defendants could not successfully prove an invalidating on-sale bar for the ‘12l patent by
clear and convincing evidence.
However, the discovery preparatory to and ensuing battle over the on-sale bar for
the ‘l2l patent would be a time consuming distraction from LPL’s real objective, which
is getting to trial in July on defendants’ infringing products. LPL is concerned that CPT
would use the discovery process outlined by the court as to the on~sale bar issue in an
effort to attempt (again) to postpone the trial. Therefore, the withdrawal of Count 1 is a
practical decision that in no way should be construed as a concession by LPL.
Case 1:05-cv-00292-JJF Document 179 Filed 05/O1/2006 Page 2 of 3
· The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
THE BAYARD Firm May 1,2006
_ Page Two
LPL believes that its withdrawal of Count I should have the following beneficial J
si lt will dramatically streamline this case and will ensure that we continue
on track for trial commencing July 17.
si lt will moot defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration [DJ. 134], as that
motion relates solely to discovery related to the ‘l2l patent.
C lt will simplify the C ourt’s Mar/cnzcuz ruling by eliminating a number of
terms the parties have submitted for construction.
3 lt will obviate the need for any enlargement of the discovery limits
previously agreed to by the parties and set by the Court.
4; lt will simplify expert discovery and permit both expert reports and
discovery to be completed by the deadlines imposed by the Court.
Because the Court authorized LPL to withdraw claims under the ‘121 patent at
the hearing, we do not believe it is necessary to file an amended complaint at this time in
light of LPL’s Notice of Withdrawal filed today. Any amendment of the pleadings can
easily be addressed in connection with the final pretrial order in accordance with FRCP
lo(c)l2) and Local Rule 16.¤l(gd)(l 1).
(Richard D. Kirk (r1
1 cc: Clerk of the Court (courtesy copy by hand)
All counsel as shown on the attached certificate
Case 1:05-cv-00292-JJF Document 179 Filed 05/O1/2006 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -
The undersigned counsel certifies that, on May 1, 2006. he electronically filed the i
foregoing document with the Clerk ofthe Court using CM/ECF. which will send
automatic notification of the tiling to the following:
Robert W. W hetzel, Esq.
Matthew W. King. Esq.
Richards, Layton & Finger
One Rodney Sqare
P.O. Box 551 .
Wilmington, DE 19899
The undersigned counsel further certifies that copies ofthe foregoing document
were sent on May 1. 2006 by email and by hand to the above counsel and by email and
tirst 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 Howrey LLP
321 North Clark Street 525 Market Street
Suite 3400 Suite 3600
Chicago. IL 60610 San Francisco. CA 94105
/s/ Richard D. Kirk (rk0922`)
Richard D. Kirk