Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01338-JJF Document 552 Filed 09/13/2006 Page 1 of 3
. Slllltll J
I<3tZ€l1S[€l11 The Corporate Plaza
Furlgyv my 800 Delaware Avenue, 7th Floor
Attorneys at Law RO' BOX 410
· Wilmington, Delaware 19899
(Courier 19801)
September 13, 2006 Phone (302) 652-8400
Fax (302) 652-8405
Craig B' Smith www.sl Robert j. Katzenstein
David A· Jenkins The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
Laurence v. Cronin United States District Court
Michel, C_ Gm for the District of Delaware
n..n.... n 844 Kim; Snw
Wilmington, DE 19801
joelle E. Polesky
R°g‘*i D· An‘i‘·"i‘°n Re: Honeywell International Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.
Robert K. Bcstc C.A. No. 04-1338-KAJ (consolidated) `
Etta R. Wolfe A · _ `
Dear Judge Jordan: A
Seiko Epson Corp. and Sanyo Epson Imaging Devices (collectively "SEC") respond to
Honeywel1's September 7, 2006 letter_to the Court regarding several discovery issues
` that have been scheduled for a teleconference on September 14, 2006. The parties have
already reached resolution as to two of those issues. SEC has agreed to supplement its
interrogatory responses by September 30, and SEC has agreed to produce discovery as
to "generational changes" in the accused models of products. The only remaining i
dispute involves SEC's upcoming document production. (
When Honeywell first filed this litigation, Honeywell's complaint was not specific as
· to which of SEC's LCD modules were accused of` infringement. In fact, it appeared
from the face of the complaint that all LCD modules were accused of infringement.
Subsequently, Honeywell served discovery responses that were directed toward
"Accused Structures" -- an overly broad and vaguely defined term -- and argued that
4 SEC should be compelled to determine which of its products fell within that definition.
Honeywell insisted on this approach, despite the direction of this Court in the fall of
2005, which made it clear that Honeywell, as the plaintiffQ was obligated to identify the
specific models of LCDs accused of inhingement, and that discovery should be limited
to those accused products.
This Court resolved the scope of discovery with finality on July 21, 2006. Prior to that
time, SEC proceeded to collect documents relating to all of its LCD products, not
knowing which models would ultimatelybe accused of infringement, or what the scope
of discovery would be when detennined by the Court. In all, SEC collected nearly 500
l0Ol754l.WPD .

Case 1 :04-cv-01338-JJF Document 552 Filed 09/13/2006 Page 2 of 3
q The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
September 13, 2006
Page 2
boxes of documents pertaining to all of its LCD products. SEC did so on the premise
that once the scope of discovery was defined, it would be able to more quickly identify ·
and produce relevant and responsive documents concerning the specifically accused
products, rather than waiting until July 2l, 2006 to begin collecting anything.
Counsel for SEC is now in the process of identifying and segregating for production
those documents that pertain to the seven accused LCD products, and generational
changes of those products, as required by the Court's July 21, 2006 ruling. Even though 0
the potential universe of documents has been limited to 500 boxes, this is still a time
consuming task, especially given that many documents are in Japanese. Nevertheless, -
we are striving to produce as many such documents as possible by September 30 and
we informed Honeywell of these facts and our efforts.
‘ Operating under the rationale that no good deed should ever go unpunished, counsel
for Honeywell took the following position:
"There is no need to segregate the documents. Since SEC has already
~ completed the task of compiling the requested documents for Q of
SEC's LCD modules, Q of these documents should be produced
immediately. Both parties would save substantial time and money if all J
of the documents are produced at this time." L
[Letter from Robins, Kaplan, dated September 6, 2006, attached.]
Honeywell's statement is misplaced. Substantial time and money would have been ~
saved if Honeywell had properly limited the scope of its discovery to the accused
models of products in the first instance. Substantial time and money would have been
saved if Honeywell had heeded the direction of this Court last year, to identify specific .
models of products as being accused of infringement, and to limit its discovery
accordingly. Instead, Honeywell continued to persist in its broad, undefined discovery
requests, and insisted on relitigating the issue time and time again, which resulted in
significant urmecessary burden and expense for SEC.
Now, completely ignoring this Court's July 2l, 2006 ruling, Honeywell is again V
insisting that SEC produce documents concerning all of its LCD products, regardless _
of whether those products are accused of infringement.
lOOl754l.WPD

Case 1 :04-cv-01338-JJF Document 552 Filed O9/13/2006 Page 3 of 3
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
September 13, 2006
Page 3
SEC does not understand how many times this issue will have to be addressed by the
Court. However, SEC believes that the Court has been clear, that Honeywell should not
be permitted discovery as to all of SEC's LCD products, regardless of whether those
products infringe the '37l patent. Honeywell's current demand, that SEC produce all
documents concerning all of its LCD products "immediately," is unconscionable in
view of this Court's repeated rulings.
SEC is diligently identifying those documents that pertain to the accused products, in
accordance with the Court's July 21, 2006 ruling. SEC will produce as many documents
J as it is able by September 30, and SEC will produce any remaining documents as soon
thereafter as possible. ‘
Respectfully,
Robert J. Katzenstein (Bar I.D. No. 378)
Enclosure
cc: Dr. Peter T. Dalleo, Clerk (by hand, w/encl.)
n CM/ECP list (by e-tiling, w/encl.)
10017s41.w1>o .