Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01338-JJF Document 559 Filed O9/13/2006 Page 1 of 2
Porter
EQ AJl(lB1`S011 Richard ri. nm-wsa
**· COIWOH '»~*~l’ ililily it
l31.3 North Market Street [email protected]
PO Box 951 302 984-60.27 Direct Plume
Wilmington, DE l9899-095l 302 658-l 192 Fax
302 984-6000
\\'W\\·'.])£lll.{2T'IlIltl£!I`S(}Il..¤0m
September 13, 2006
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
844 King Street, Lockbox 10
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: Honeywell Int'! etal. v. Apple Computer et nl.,
C.A. No. 04—1338—KAJ ___
Dear Judge Jordan:
We respond on behalf of defendants TPO Displays Corp. (formerly known as Toppoly
Optoelectronics Corp.), Wintek Corp., and Wintek Electo—Optics Corp. (collectively "Wintek")
to plaintiff l·Ioneywel1’s September 7, 2006 letter to the Court.
Honeywell unfairly and incorrectly complains that TPO and Wintek have squandered the
discovery schedule and inexcusably delayed in collecting and producing documents. TPO and
Wintek are mindful of this Court’s discovery orders and are committed to meeting both the letter
and substance of this Court’s rules.
Honeyvvell’s September 7, 2006 letter asserts —- without basis in fact -— that the defendants
have had adequate notice of Honeywell’s claims. As early as May 2006, the lead counsel for
Wintelt conferred with Honeywell, demanding that it specitically identify Wintelds "accused
products," as has now been ordered three times in this Court’s discovery rulings. In fact,
Honeywell delayed in identifying “accused products" until August 28, 2006.
Having at last received Honeyweli’s identification of accused products, Wintek is
expediting the collection of responsive documents and intbnnation. l·Ioneywell’s long delay in
identifying the accused products has unnecessarily complicated the now—hurried collection and
review of those documents—1nany of which are written in Chinese and require multiple levels of
translation and review. Nevertheless, consistent with this Court’s discovery rules, Wintek
expects to begin producing its documents before the end of this month.
TPO Displays also has begun production of documents related to the products Honeywell
originally identitied as accused. As recently as September i, 2006, however, Honeywell
identified an additional "accused" product. It is unreasonable for Honeywell to expect TPO to
identify, collect, translate, review, and produce documents related to a product identified only
last week. Nonetheless, consistent with this Court’s discovery rules, TPO is in the process of
processing responsive documents for production this month.

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF Document 559 Filed 09/13/2006 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
September 13, 2006
Page .2
Honeywell”s September 7, 2006 letter also prematurely complains about the defendants°
supplementation of contention interrogatories. Honeywell first contacted the Court on September
7 without first engaging in the required meet—and—conf`er with defendants. lronically, at that
time, Honeywell, had barely begun its own document production and had not yet even responded
to Wintek’s long—outstanding interrogatories. Indeed, over the past summer Honeywell
requested — and Wintek granted — three extensions of time to respond to Wintek’s
interrogatories. Wintek’s cooperation contrasts starkly with I~loneywell’s current gamesmanship.
Both TPO Displays and Wintelc are preparing and will seasonably supplement their
interrogatory responses, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(.2). We further note that
l—Ioneywell’s contention interrogatories to both TPO and Wintek concerning the validity and
enforceability of Honeywell’s patent are largely premature given l~ioneywell’s delay in
responding to Wintek’s interrogatories (including its failure to respond to numerous issues
regarding its own claim construction) and I-loneywell’s apparent withholding of responsive
documents relating to the research, development, commercialization, and use ofthe claimed
invention. Clearly, the supplementation process will require multiple steps while Honeywell
gradually responds to det`endants’ discovery.
l~loneyweli’s discovery posturing wastes this Court’s time. it ignores I~loneywell’s owr1
delaying tactics while rushing to Court only weeks after Honeywell produced its first installment
of documents and served its own first—draft interrogatory responses. Honeywell’s conduct is
even more improper because it failed to conduct a proper meet—and-confer session with the
defendants before telephoning the Courtr
We regret burdening the Court with this play»by»play rendition of disputes that are either
moot or simply not ripe for the Court’s consideration. Wintek and TPO remain committed to
moving forward with their discovery obligations under this Court’s rules. We urge this Court to
direct its attention only to genuine disputes about real discovery issues that the parties cannot
resolve withoutjudicial assistance. This instance does not qualify-
Respectfully,
/s/ Riclmrd L Horwitz
Richard L. Horwitz
/75902ivZ
cc: Clerk ofthe Court (via hand delivery)
Counsel of Record (via electronic mail)