Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01338-JJF Document 1 103 Filed 07/25/2008 Page 1 of 3
FISH 8c RICHARDSON r>.c. S_
urte 1100
919 N. Market Street
l’.O. Box 1114
Wilmington, Delaware
Frederick P. Fish 19899*1114
1855-1930 18,
Telephone
WK R‘§1§§QTi`§§§ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ’°2 6”"°7°
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY F¤¤S;r¤il<>6
302 $2-O 07
Wei) Si e
PUBLIC VERSION WW.1Lim
Judge Vi¤<>€¤t POM DATED: 7/25/08 ThomasL Halkowski
Blank Rome LLP 300 778-8A07
Chase Manhattan Centre
1201 Market Street, Suite 800 k.@f
wrrmmgton, DE 19801 A °“” ‘ 5 "°°‘“
® Re: Honeywell Int'! Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., etal.
H USDC-D. Del. — C.A. No. 04-1338 KA] (Consolidated)
“‘““"N Dear Judge Poppiti:
DALLAS This concerns the efforts of Apple to provide information to Honeywell for purposes
DELAWARE of securing a stipulated dismissal of Apple from this suit.
1. L1cENs11~1c or A1>1>LE’s LCD MODULE SUPPLIERS
SAN "'““° Apple has previously explained that it should be dismissed from this suit, because all
SIMON VALLEY of the allegedly infringing LCD modules used in its Accused Products (i.e., certain
TWIN mms laptop computers) are provided from suppliers that have been licensed by Honeywell.
WA00,N0T0N, 00 See Exhs. A-I (list of suppliers and identification of each LCD module used in
Apple’s accused products; copies of licenses between each of Apple’s LCD suppliers
and Honeywell). Apple has provided Honeywell the attached list of LCD modules
used in Apple’s Accused Products, including an identification of which supplier
provided which modules and the period over which the modules were purchased.
II. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOUGHT BY HONEYWELL
Prior to dismissing Apple from this suit, Honeywell has sought certain additional
information concerning the licensed modules used by Apple. Specifically, after the
parties’ efforts to meet and confer and in light of the list provided by Apple of LCD
modules used in its Accused Products, Apple understood that Honeywell sought the
following information:
1. A declaration describing the basis of the information for, and confirming
the accuracy of, Apple’s list of modules used in the Accused Products;

Case 1 :04-cv—01338-JJF Document 1103 Filed 07/25/2008 Page 2 of 3
FISH sz RICHARDSON 1>.c.
Judge Vincent Poppiti
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Page 2
2. For those two LCD module suppliers-
a declaration coniinning that the modules
used in Apple’s Accused Products are covered under the supplier’s
license;
3. Confimiation from Apple that it is not utilizing LCD modules supplied by
in the product.
With regard to item #1, Apple agreed to provide the declaration.
With regard to item #2, Honeywell, as the entity pursuing claims of infringement,
should bear the burden of ensuring that its claims against Apple somehow have still
have a Rule ll basis despite the fact that all of Apple’s suppliers have been licensed
by Honeywell. However, in an effort to secure a prompt cooperative dismissal, Apple
agreed to approach the relevant suppliers and request that they
provide the declarations sought by Honeywell. To the extent feasible, therefore,
Apple has been willing to work with Honeywell regarding this request.2
With regard to item #3, the information sought by Honeywell regarding the
product is irrelevant, because Honeywell has never accused the of infringement
and it is far too late for Honeywell to now try adding it to the case. See generally
Exh. J (Letter from Affected Defendants to Judge Poppiti, dated April 24, 2008), at
n.l & 2. However, again, in an effort to amicably secure a prompt dismissal, Apple
offered to and has now in fact confirmed that is not presently supplying LCD
modules for any Apple product.
III. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
To ensure the parties had a mutual understanding regarding the information required
for Honeywell to stipulate to a dismissal of Apple from this suit, Apple submitted an
I

Case 1 :04-cv—01338-JJF Document 1 103 Filed 07/25/2008 Page 3 of 3
Frsrr ar RICHARDSON 1>.c.
Judge Vincent Poppiti
HIGHLY CONFIIDENTIAL
Page 3
initial draft of this letter to Honeywell. From further discussion, it appears,
unfortunately, that Honeywell may be insisting on more information.
With regard to Itemi #2, Honeywell has recently advised of other general concerns
with certain limitations in the licenses identified above. While Apple has been
willing to work with Honeywell to the extent feasible, Apple objects to unnecessarily
delaying its dismissal from this suit based upon generalized concerns — particularly
given the prior dismissal from this suit of all the LCD module suppliers for Apple’s
Accused Products. With regard to Item #3, the parties appear to have had a
misunderstanding. Honeywell apparently is demanding that Apple conduct a more
burdensome and broader inquiry regarding the identity of suppliers for all of Apple’s
products, whether or not they have ever been, or ever could be, accused of
infringement in this suit. Any such inquiry would be unduly burdensome —
particularly given that the information being sought by Honeywell is entirely
irrelevant to this suit.
Thus, at this juncture, while Apple has been willing to cooperatively work with
Honeywell regarding the above information — with the understanding that
Honeywell’s receipt of this information will result in a prompt stipulated dismissal of
Apple from this suit- Apple is compelled to seek relief from this Court. Specifically,
given that all of the suppliers of LCD modules for Apple’s Accused Products in this
suit have been licensed by Honeywell and given that all such suppliers have now been
dismissed from this suit, Apple requests issuance of an Order recommending the
dismissal of Apple from this suit, unless Honeywell can identify within 10 days of the
date of the Order a non-frivolous basis for continuing to allege that Apple infringes
the patent—in—suit without authority from Honeywell.
Respectfully,
/s/ Thomas L. Halkowski
Thomas L. Halkowski
TLH:sb
Enclosure
cc: Clerk of Court (via hand)
Counsel of Record (via ECF)