Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01338-JJF Document 561 Filed 09/13/2006 Page 1 of 2
BOUCHARD MARGULES 5 FRIEDLANDER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
SUITE I-4OO
222 DELAWARE AVENUE
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE I 980 I
<;~xo2> 573-3500
FAX <3o2> 573—;x5on
ANDRE G. BOUCHARD Joi-on M. SEAMAN
JOEL FRIEDLANDER Dowmcx T. GA·rruso
DAVID J. MARGULES JAMES G. McMnLLAN, un
SEAN M. BRENNECKE
September 13, 2006
BY CM/ECF
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Honeywell International Inc., et al v. Apple Computer Inc. et al.
Consol. C.A. Nos. 04-1338 (KAJ)
Dear Judge Jordan:
We write on behalf of defendants Citizen Watch Co., Ltd. and Citizen Displays Co., Ltd.
("Citizen"), in response to the Honeywell Plaintiffs’ ("Honeywell") letter, dated September 7,
2006, regarding three discovery issues scheduled for a teleconference on September 14.
Honeywell’s primary discovery issue relates to various defendants’ document production.
On September 11, 2006, Citizen produced two disks to Honeywell containing all the non-
2 privileged documents we have been able to identify in Citizen’s possession, custody or control
that are responsive to Honeywell’s document requests. Accordingly, the document production
issue raised in Honeywell’s September 7 letter is moot as it relates to Citizen.
Honeywell’s second discovery issue relates to defendants’ responses to contention
interrogatories, and how Honeywell alleged.ly "still has not received any meaningful information
regarding most defendants’ affirmative defenses .... " Citizen has diligently been working to
supplement its responses to plaintiffs’ contention interrogatories. In order to finalize those
supplemental responses, however, Citizen needs to communicate with its client in Japan, which
can take some time. Nevertheless, Citizen has committed to serve supplemental responses to
plaintiffs’ contention interrogatories by September 30, 2006.
Honeywell’s third and final discovery issue is the identification of "other versions" of the
modules accused of infringement. In its first set of interrogatory responses, Citizen specifically
identified two accused model numbers K1 122H-HL and Ll084H-HL. Citizen’s interrogatory
responses also identified later versions of the accused models (for example, model L1084H-HL
00001) even before Court’s July 21, 2006 ruling requiring defendants to identify the "next

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF Document 561 Filed O9/13/2006 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
September 13, 2006
Page 2
generation" of the accused models. Citizen, therefore, has fully complied with the Cou1t’s
instruction to identify any "next generation" products.
For all of the above reasons, Citizen submits that none of the issues raised in Honeywell’s
September 7 letter are disputes ripe for the Cou1t’s consideration. Consequently, Citizen should
not be ordered to produce additional documents or further supplement its discovery responses.
We are available to respond to any questions the Court may have at tomorrow’s hearing.
Respectfully,
John M. Seaman
(I.D. No. 3868)
cc: Clerk of the Coiut (by hand and CM/ECF)
Counsel of Record (by CM/ECF)