Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—O1338-JJF Document 1123 Filed 08/O4/2008 Page 1 of 2
CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE 8c HUTZ LLP
A ` Arronwavs AT Law V
warmrueron, os
The Nemours Building
, 1007 North Orange St.
Francis DiGiovanni P`? l?°X ZZD7
Famer Walmmgton, DE 19899
nan (302) ssa 9141
TEL (302) 888.5315 FAX: (302) 658 5614
mx (302) 2554316 WEB: www.cb1h.com
emma. [email protected]
REPLY ro Vvilmington Oliice
July 28, 2008
VIA HAND DEUVERY amd REDACTED PUBLIC vsnsrorv
The Honorable Vincent J. Popprtr ‘
Blank Rome LLP
1201 N. Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Honeywell [nt'! [nc. v. Apple Computer, [nc., et al., Civ. No. 04-1338-JJF
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
I write on behalf of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB and Sony Ericsson
Mobile Communications USA Inc. (collectively, "SEMC") in furtherance of the proceeding
ordered by Judge Farnan for the purpose of addressing the issue of dismissal of certain stayed
customer defendants in this case.
As set forth in SEMC’s letter dated July 18, 2008, the sole accused product in this case
attributable to SEMC is the Z200 phone. SEMC has continued that the Z200 phone utilized
Arima LCD module model number MCl6GO3A, and that SEMC manufactured its accused
Z200 phones between April and June 2004. See Declaration of Christer J ansson, attached as
Exhibit A hereto. Thus, as SEMC stated in its letter dated July 18,. 2008, SEMC should be
dismissed Hom the case due to the license that Honeywell has granted to SEMC’s supplier, » .
Arima Display Corporation ("Arima"). . `
A copy of the Arima license agreement ("A1ima License”) is attached hereto as
Exhibit B. There are no provisions in the Arima License that would exclude SEMC nom the _
benefits of that license. Specifically:
(a) Date Restrictions. No date restrictions in the Arima License prevent
the LCDs in SEMC’s Z200 phones from falling within the Arima License. SEMC purchased
ISEMC submits this letter one day after the scheduled time because SEMC was not served
with Honeywe1l’s original letter (July 18, 2008) until July 21, 2008.
wrrmmsron, os wnsumsron, oc tos Amcstss, CA

Case 1 :04-cv—O1338-JJF Document 1123 Filed 08/O4/2008 Page 2 of 2
LAW Or=r=¤cEs
Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP
REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
July 28, 2008 '
Page 2 of 2
its LCDs for the accused products no later than June 2004. The Arima License covers that
time period.
(b) Covered Products. No “covered product” definition in the `Arima
License prevents the LCDs in the Z200 phones Hom falling Within the Arima License. _
(c) Sales Caps / Audit Caps. There is no Sales Cap or Audit Cap in the
Arima License that prevents the LCDs in the Z200 phones from falling within the Arima
License. ‘ - ‘ A
_ l _ Thus, this would not adversely
affect sales made in 2004. .
(d) Dismissal With Prejudice. The fact that Arima was dismissed without
prejudice does not affect the absence of liability on the part of SEMC. ` .
I . That module is the only accused product with regmd to SEMC. Thus, SEMC is
licensed for all accused activity, and has no liability for the matters pled in the Complaint.
Dismissal with prejudice of SEMC is appropriate.
In sum, the Honeywell-Arima settlement/license agreement compels the immediate
dismissal with prejudice of SEMC. .
Sincerely, {
Di io anni
FD/njw
cc: Clerk of Court (via ECP)
Counsel of Record (via ECF and e—maiZ)
625468_l