Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

_ p Case 1 :04-cv-01338-JJF Document 557 Filed O9/13/2006 Page 1 of 3
tter
AHd€YSOI] Richard L. Horwitz
S P I-
'·-·*·• Gaiman LL" Aliliiiy ti tat
1313 North Market Street rhorwitz@pottcrai1derson CON}
P O. Box 95E 302 984-602.7 Direct Phone
Wilmington, DE l9S99-0951 302 658-l l92 Fax
302 984-econ
WVv'Wr|)(}I.i.l}l"llII(IOI`Sl)l'l.tCD1lI
September 13, 2006
VIA ELECTRONIC FILI§_(_§_
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
United States District Court for the District of`Delaware
844 King Street, Lockbox 10
Wilmington, Delaware 1980l
Re: Honeywell International, Inc., et nl., v. Apple Computer, Inc., et ml.
C.A. No. 04-1338-·KAJ
Dear Judge Jordan:
I write on behalf of defendant BOE HYDIS Technology Co., Ltd. (“BOE HYDlS°’) in
response to Plaintiffs letter dated September 7, 2006, outlining certain purported deficiencies in
the manufacturer defendants? discovery responses. Plaintiffs’ own letter makes clear that BOE
HYDIS is neither delinquent nor deficient in its discovery obligations, and it is therefore unclear
why Plaintiffs have included BOE HYDlS in ton·iorrow’s scheduled teleconference.
First, Plaintiffs concede that BOE HYDIS has supplemented its interrogatory responses.
Although Plaintiffs complain generally about the sufficiency of the manufacturer defendants’
responses in its letter to the Court, Plaintiff does not identify any precise deficiencies in BOE
I~IYDIS’s supplementation. Nor have Plaintiffs ever contacted BOE HYDIS itself to identify any
purported deficiencies in its supplemental responses, much less to conduct the 1neet—and·~confer
required by local rule. Thus, Plaintiffs’ assertions in this regard are both imprecise and
premature. Even if Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the defendants’ failure to provide "detailed
claim cha.rts” were properly before the Court at this time, Plaintiffs’ interrogatories to BOE
HYDIS do not call for the provision of a claim chart, in any event.
Second, Plaintiffs acknowledge that BOE HYDIS has identified "other versions" ofthe
BOE HYDIS LCD module Plaintiffs have specifically identified as infringing and make no
allegations of insufficiency against BOE HYDlS in this regard-
Finally, Plaintiffs concede that BOE HYDIS is one ofthe defendants that has agreed to
produce documents shortly. It is disingenuous for Plaintiffs to suggest that this production is
dilatory, considering that: (l) Plaintiffs’ document requests centered largely on "Accused
Structures,’° a term that was the subject of much disagreement until very recently; and (2)
Plaintiffs’ own document production to BOE HYDIS did not occur until August 17, 2006 and
appears incomplete.

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF Document 557 Filed 09/13/2006 Page 2 of 3
The I-Ieuewble Kent Au J0r·da11
September 13, .2006
Page 2
Respectfully,
(5/ Ric/mm`L. Horwifz
Richard Lt Horwitz
/150001
cc? Clerk mfthe COUIT (via hand delivery)
Counsel ef Record (vie electronic mail)

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF Document 557 Filed 09/13/2006 Page 3 of 3