Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01338-JJF Document 555 Filed O9/13/2006 Page 1 of 3
Potter
AHCl€l`SOI'1
COl·I·OOH_ LU) Philip A. Rovner
Partner
provner@potteranderson com
l3`l3 North Miirket Street. 302 98*i·6i*$U DlF€€K Pll0¤€
no urn ast 302 652+1192 Fax
xriimasgmn, oi; wasnussi September 13, 2006
:102 sea 6000
\‘\F“\\"'\\%])l)ill!E"il!'lll(3l`ti BY E-FILE
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
U.S. Courthouse
844 King Street
Wilmington, Delaware l980l
Re: Honeywell international, Inc., et nl., v. Apple Computer, Inc., el nl.,
D. Del., CA. No. 04~l338~KAJ (Consolidated)
Dear Judge Jordan:
I write in response to the letter from Honeywell dated September 7, 2006 on
behalf of defendants Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. ("Fuji Japan") and Fuji Photo Film
UrS.A., Inc. ("Fuji USA") (collectively "Fuji").. As an initial matter, contrary to the
statement in Honeywell's letter to the Court of August 31, 2006, Fuji does not believe that
the issues Honeywell seeks to raise with the Court at tomorrow’s teleconference are ripe
and our agreement to a date for the telephone conference should not be so construed.
Fuji strongly believes that the issues raised by Honeyweli for tomorrow’s conference call
are more properly the subject of a meet and confer between Fuji and Honeywell. Since,
on infomation and belief, the status of the issues raised by Honeywell in its September 7
letter differs materially from defendant to defendant, Fuji objects to Honeywelfs
treatment of the more than 16 defendant groups in general terms, making it impossible to
know where, if at all, Honeywell is referring to Fuji amongst the unnamed "most" or
“remaining" defendants.
While a letter dated July 25, 2006 was apparently faxed to Lawrence Rosenthal of
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan by Robins, Kaplan, for some unexplained reason, it never
reached Mr. Rosenthal. A copy was not sent to me. Coincidentally, a second July 25,
2006 letter from Morris, Nichols, sent to both me and Mr. Rosenthal, was received by
both. The issue in that letter was amicably resolved. After receipt ofthe September 7
letter (which referred to a July 25 letter to each defendant) and a search of Stroocl<’s
oftices, on September l 1, Mr. Rosenthal called Matthew Woods, I·loneywell°s lead
counsel, to inquire after the July 25 ietter and to discuss the issues. Mr. Woods arranged
for a copy to be faxed to Mr. Rosenthal, but in a scheduled telephone conference with
Mr. Woods on September 12, Mr. Woods did not even have before him Fuji’s
lnterrogatory answers, so it is not surprising that the issues raised by the September 7 and
.July 25 letters were not resolved. When Mr. Rosenthal asked Mr. Woods why there was

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF Document 555 Filed 09/13/2006 Page 2 of 3
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
September l3, 2006
Page 2
no telephone or other follow—up of the July 25 letter, Mr. Woods inexplicably advised
that it was l—Ioneywell's position that it had no obligation to speak to each defendant
individually regarding that Dei°endant’s position regarding the issues presented in
l-Ioneywell’s July correspondence
A copy of Robins, Kaplan’s July 25 letter to Fuji is annexed as Exhibit A. This
letter is nothing more than a slightly tailored form letter apparently drafted for all
defendants (e g.., see reference on page 2 to Fuji being an "LCD manufacture", which it is
not). As pointed out below, Honeywell ignores Fuji’s Interrogatory responses and
agreement to produce documents
First, regarding l·Ioneywell‘s request to begin the production of documents, Fuji
stated in responses dated May 30, 2006, to Honeywell‘s document requests that it would
produce documents and it intends to do so, It should be noted that Fuji has not been
contacted individually by Honeywell with respect to the adequacy or inadequacy of Fuji’s
discovery responses since the tiling ofFuji’s responses, aside from the July 25th letter
which Fuji’s counsel did not see until September ll, 2006. in F uji’s response to
I-loneywell’s interrogatories, Fuji identitied by model and LCD module number, _ey_e,ry
Fuji digital still camera incorporating an LCD assembled by Fuji in response to
lnterrogatory No. 1 (see Exhibit B (redacted to exclude confidential information)). In
fact, Fuji went further and provided Honeywell with three cameras and an LCD module
in order to determine the scope attributed by Honeywell to claim 3 of the suit patent.
During the telephone conference with l~loneywell's counsel yesterday, Mr.
Rosenthal stated that Fuji would be able to begin production of documents on a rolling
basis within 30 days, Fuji’s production of documents will be sizable, given the number of
products and modules which Fuji has identified to Honeywell and the time period
involved. Months ago, Fuji Japan and Fuji USA began the collection of documents based
upon our understanding ofthe modules at issue and the process to review and produce
these documents takes time,. ln the spirit of cooperation, Fuji Japan has also collected
documents from several of its wholly-owned subsidiaries and will produce responsive
documents. Honeywell's concern that the production of documents may "threaten the
schedule" is not based upon Fuji’s proposed schedule for the production of documents
Rather, it is the product of`l·loneywe1l’s choice to sue l6 groups of defendants, while
failing to deal with each of their separate discovery issues.
Second, regarding l—loneywell's position that Fuji is among the defendants which
have not provided substantive responses to contention interrogatories, it is Fuji’s position
that the answers to contention lnterrogatory Nos,. 6, I2 and 13 (the only ones identified in
the July 25 letter) are responsive and sufficiently detailed to notify Honeywell of Fuji's
position. See Exhibit B annexed. Regarding Interrogatory No. 6, it is Fuji's position that
the statutory bases of invalidity as well as the detailed listing of prior art references,
including US, Japanese and the European patents, as well as several technical articles, are
responsive. Fuji will supplement this answer with a definition ofthe ltield of relevant art
and the definition ofthe level of ordinary slrill in the art at the time ofthe invention, and
an enumeration of the prior art which teach each limitation ofthe claims, but nothing in

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF Document 555 Filed 09/13/2006 Page 3 of 3
`l` he Honorable Kent A. Jordan
September l3, 2006
Page 3
the interrogatory requested the limitation by limitation application of the art to claim 3 in
claim chart form now demanded. Fuji will also supplement its responses to this
interr•atory to expand on two defenses under Section ll?. now known to Fuji, one of
which only came to Fu_ji’s attention from a review of the documents just produced hy
Honeywell} Regarding lnterrogatory No. l2, Fuji provided a detailed description ofthe
bases for its defense of inequitable conduct committed by Honeywell during the
prosecution of the ’37l patent. Lastly, regarding Interrogatory No. 13, Fuji provides two
pages of description of the bases for Fuji‘s affirmative defense oflaches based on the
nation-wide distribution since I997 of`Fuji digital still cameras with LCD modules
(provided in most cases by other Defendants). l\levertl1eless, Honeywell now asks that
Fuji state why Honeywell should have been on notice as to the existence of each module,
which is totally unrelated to the laches defense stated by Fuji.
Third, given Fuji’s answers to Interrogatory No. l, which listed every module
assembled by Fuji, and Fuji’s voluntmily providing of sample modules to Honeywell
starting in 2005, it is inexplicable for Honeywell to continue to refer to the "other
versions" definition inthe July 25 letter to Fuji, and inthe September 7 letter to the Court
without excluding Fuji.
Fuji respectfully requests that the Court defer all action on l~loneywell’s
September 7 letter, at least as to Fuji, until the requisite focused meet and confer has
taken place, let alone results in an impasse requiring court intervention. ln this
connection, Fuji has identified numerous deficiencies in Honeywel1’s interrogatory
responses (served August 28, 2006) and document production (including a description of
some of`Fuji’s samples which bears no relation to the samples, the failure to even
examine a module in Honeywell’s hands since April 7. 2006 and a refusal to explain a
claim of equivalence of 34° to a claimed “slight misaligrnnent" dehned by Honeywell in
the answers to be "typically 2-16 degrecs” (the only definition in the patent)).. Fuji will
address these issues in accordance with the March 28, 2006 Scheduling Order by letter
and meet and confer and will only raise them with the Court if they cannot be resolved.
Respectfully,
Philip A. Rovner
[email protected]
PAR/mes/749997
Enc.
cc: All Local Counsel of Record -~ By ECF
All Other Counsel by Email
‘ While Honeywell refers to the speed in which Defendants have produced documents, it
is worth noting that Honeywell first produced documents only on or ahout August I6,
2006. That production was not responsive to specific document requests propounded by
each defendant; rather, it appears that each defendant received the identical production.