Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01338-JJF Document 556 Filed O9/13/2006 Page 1 of 2
Potter
E AUd€I`SO}l Richard L. Horwitz
LL COITOOI'1 Ll.? E"““i
torney at Law
1313 North Market Street rliorwitz@potteranderson com
PO. Box 951 302 984-6027 Direct Phone
Wilmington, D15 l9399~095l 302 658-E 192 Fm;
302 984-6000
W‘•‘\¤'\'•FipUil0I’l`El'l{iE}|"SE}[l.C€}I‘i1
September l3, 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 v. Koninklrjike Philip.; Electronics N IC et al.
C. A. No. 04-1338 QKAJQ
Dear Judge Jordan:
We write on behalf of the Philips defendants ("Philips") to respond to Honeywe1l’s
September 7, 2006 letter to the Court. As we have discussed with Honeywell and most recently
explained in correspondence, Pl1ilips’ Mobile Display Systems ("MDS") business was sold to
Toppoly (a named defendant in this case) in or about May 2006. Philips’ MDS was responsible
for the LCDs Honeywell now accuses of infringement. As a result of the sale, Philips no longer
retains possession, custody, or control over the requested documents or information.
Specifically, relevant documents, employees knowledgeable about Philips’ former LCD
products, and related facilities were all transferred to Toppoly- Furthermore, on September 5,
2006, Honeywell only recently wrote "to clarify and identify those Philips modules that, at this
time, Honeywell contends infringes the patent-in-issue.” Up until now, Honeywell had never
formally provided such an identification to Philips. This explains many (if not all) ofthe
perceived deficiencies in Philips discovery responses and production. Nevertheless, we will
address Honeywell’s three issues in turn.
Document Production: As explained above, Honeywell formally identified the accused
products to Philips on September 5, 2006. Unfortunately, Philips no longer has access to the
many of the requested documents due to the sale of its MDS LCD business to Toppoly. Philips
has requested that Honeywell seek this information directly from co-defendant Toppoly where
this information now resides. To help facilitate the production of documents, lead counsel for
Philips have talked to Toppoly’s lead counsel about trying to get access to information regarding
the recently identified accused Philips products. l`oppoly’s lead counsel are consulting with
Toppoly.
Supplementing Responses to Contention Interrogatories: Philips intends to supplement
its responses (to the extent it can) in the near future or as guided by the Court.
"Other Versions" of Identified Accused Products: During the July 21, 2006 telephonic
hearing, the Court clarified its definition of "otlier versions? For the first time in its September
5, 2006 letter, Honeywell formally identified the LCD modules that it contends Philips infringes.

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF Document 556 Filed 09/13/2006 Page 2 of 2
The l~lonorable Kent A. Jordan
September I3, .2006
Page .2
However by then, Philips had already sold its MDS LCD business back in May 2006. Due to the
timing of these events, Philips no longer has access to knowledgeable former employees and
information necessary to identify "otl1er versions" of accused products.
ln summary, it will be difficult for Philips to respond to l—loneywell’s discovery requests
given that Philips no longer retains possession, custody or control over the documents and
former knowledgeable employees. Philips has requested that Honeywell seek this information
directly from co—def°endant Toppoly where this information now resides. Philips has been in
contact with Toppoly’s lead counsel about getting access to the requested information and seeks
to facilitate its production.
Respectfully,
/.9/ Richard L. Horwitz
Richard L. Horwitz
/750013
cc: Clerk ofthe Court (via hand delivery)
Counsel of Record (via electronic mail)