Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01338-JJF Document 218 Filed 06/17/2005 Page 1 of 3
Pinter
Al'lCl€i`SO1"l
Corroon rip
Richard L. Horwitz
Partner
i3l3 North Marlurt Struct Attorney at Law
RQ. Box 95t rhorwitz@potter·a1iderson com
xnimagm, oi; is. 302 98+ 6060 302 658-l 192 Fax
\\’\\'\\'.l)()Ill!l'i\ll(lt!I"S¢IIi.{3t>lIl
June 17, 2005
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
AND HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
844 King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: Honeywell International Inc., et al. v. Audiovox Communications Corp., et al.
C.A. No. 04-}.337·»KAJ
Honeywell International Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al..
C.A. 04-1338-KAJ
Optrex America, Inc. v. Honeywell International Inc., et al.
CLA. No. 04-1536-KAJ
Dear Judge Jordan:
I write on behalf ofthe defendants in the above-referenced consolidated cases to
respectfiilly submit a proposal for an Interim Scheduling Order (copy attached) according to the
Court’s guidance in the May 16, 2005 hearing and May 18 Memorandum Order ("Order").
Regrettably, Honeywell has indicated that its understanding ofthe Court’s directives so
drastically diverges from that ofthe defendants that Honeywell believes submission of a joint
proposal to be "unworkable," and informed defendants that it will submit a letter on its own,
necessitating defendants separate submission.
Pursuant to the Court’s Order, the defendants and Honeywell were to "confer and
provide [the Court] with proposed language respecting permissible discovery activities directed
at the non-manufacturer defendants during the stay." See Order at 10. And the Order made clar
that the purpose of the limited discovery allowed by the Court was to permit Honeywell "to learn
who the suppliers of LCDs are for the various devices that Honeywell must now specifically
identify as accused products? See Order at 9. To that end, the defendants respectfully proposed
that (1) Honeywell specifically identify any further products (in addition to those identified in a
letter to all defendants dated May 27) it believes infringe the patent·—in~suit by July l, 2005, (2)
by August l, 2005, the defendants identify the supplier(s) of the LCD modules in all products
Honeywell has specifically identified, and (3) Honeywell moves to amend its pleadings by
September l, 2005 to bring in the LCD»1noduIe suppliers of its choosing. The defendants also

Case 1 :04-cv-01338-JJF Document 218 Filed 06/17/2005 Page 2 of 3
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
June 17, 2005
Page 2
proposed that iiuther discovery (if any) from the customer defendants (e,g,, sales information) be
addressed by th parties and/or the Court as needed after the case is reconfigured to focus on the
LCD—module suppliers
To date, Honeywell has specifically identified (ie., by product name or model
number) a number of end products for each defendant that it believes intiinge the patent, as well
as a number of allegedly infringing LCD modules from both defendant and nomdefendant LCD
suppliers, totaling more than 100 products in the aggregate. To the extent that they have not
already done so, and know, defendants have agreed to promptly identify the LCD module
supplier for the specifically identified end products} ln addition, it appears based on its letter of
May 27 that Honeywell has on its own identified a number of suppliers of allegedly infringing
LCDs that are not currently defendants or in the process of becoming parties to the litigation.
Thus, as things currently stand —— and even more so as a result ofthe process proposed by
defendants -~ Honeywell has adequate information concerning relevant LCD suppliers to identify
those to be substituted as defendants, thereby ensuring a meaningful first trial.
In addition to identifying the LCD suppliers for the end products already
identified by Honeywell, the defendants also agreed that, for any further products Honeywell
specifically identifies by July 1 (or another date acceptable to the Court), the defendants will
endeavor to identify LCD—suppliers within one month thereafter. Due to individual
circumstances, some defendants, e. g., Nikon and Nokia, have offered to voluntarily provide
Honeywell with additional information beyond what the Court ordered — for example, the LCD—
module supplier and part number for additional products Honeywell has not specifically
identified. And while Honeywell has pointed to these offers as the paradigm for what all
defendants should agree to provide, given the wide disparity among the defendants regarding the
number and types of products they sell, many are not able to easily provide this same
information. This is further reason that Honeywell should be held to the Court’s ruling that it
first idntify the products that Honeywell claims infringe its patent Order at 9 (‘°The non-
manufacturer defendants will not be given a complete and immediate stay of all proceedings
involving them, because I will permit Honeywell certain limited discovery to leam who the
suppliers of LCDs are for the various devices that Honeywell must now specifically identify as
accused products." (emphasis added)).
l A number of defendants have already notified Honeywell of the LCD suppliers for the end
products alleged to infringe, whether in motions and declarations filed with the Court or by
letter. These include the Nikon defendants, the Pentax defendants, Kyocera Wireless Corp.,
Dell, inc., Audiovox Communications Corp", Audiovox Elctronics Corp., the Nokia defendants,
Eastman Kodak Co., the Olympus defendants, Concord Cameras, and the Matsushita defendantsi
2 Suppliers of allegedly infringing LCDs already identified by Honeywell but not before the
Court include, inter alia, ArimaDisplay, AU, CPT, GiantPlus, Hannstar, ll) Tech, and Quantat
However, Honeywell has taken virtually no steps to bring these entities into the case, arguing
instead that it should be defendants burden to make claims against their suppliers. Honeywell
should proceed with dispatch to re·align the case in a manageable way, as instructed by the
Court

Case 1 :04-cv-01338-JJF Document 218 Filed 06/17/2005 Page 3 of 3
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
June 17, 2005
Page 3
Since the May 16th hearing, Honeywell has manufactured a number of "issues”
between the parties in a transparent attempt to seek reconsideration of the Court’s May i6 and
May 18 rulings, and has refused to directly respond to the defendants’ proposed interim case
management order included herewith. For example, Honeywell has made the following demands
of the defendants, which appear to go well beyond what the Court contemplated based on the
May 16 conference and the Order:
1) identification of all LCD—containing products and the LCD—1nodule
suppliers for all such products, without workable guidance from Honeywell as to what products
allegedly infringe the patent;
2) sole responsibility for bringing all LCD—suppliers into the case
(Honeywell does not appear to have taken any steps to bring in any of the numerous LCD~
module suppliers which the defendants have already identified to date); and
3) agreement to be bound hyjudgments against LCD suppliers.
None of these conditions was discussed during the May l6 conference or in the
Court's Order. However, if the Court reconsiders its Order and believes it is appropriate to
consider these conditions in connection with the limited stay, defendants respectfully request
leave to submit a short response setting forth their positions on these matters.
The defendants remain willing to work with Honeywell to provide "certain
limited discovery to learn who the suppliers of`LCDs are for the various devices that Honeywell
must now specifically identify as accused products? See Order at 9. But the defendants should
not be required to —~ and indeed cannot -- assume the burden of determining which products
Honeywell believes infringe. To the extent Honeywell has identified (or does so soon) accused
products by product name and model number (or equivalent identifier), the defendants will soon,
to the extent they have not already done so, identify the LCD-module suppliers for those
products.
The defendants request entry ofthe proposed Interim Scheduling Order, and
welcome the Court’s ftuther guidance,
Respectfully,
Richard L. Horwitz
RLH/sari is
Enclosure
cc: Clerk of the Court (via ECP and hand delivery)
All Local Counsel of Record (via ECF and hand delivery)