Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF Document 1092-2 Filed 07/25/2008 Page 1 013

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF Document 1092-2 Filed 07/25/2008 Page 2 of 3
A HARRIS BEACH §
Artoamrs AT Law
·l-UUE 3, 2008 99 Gsawsev Roan -
- PrrrsFoao.NY I4534
- (5B5)4l9-BB00 e ‘ _
_ _ Mem. 1.. sustain
W d ?'“E‘"‘ i§§;§*l'ia“ti‘li
Matthew L. oo s, Esq. ”" ·
Robins, Kaplan, MHIBI & Ciwsi LLP. N$L|FKIN@HARR|SBEACH.COM
. 2800 LaSalle Plaza
_ 800 LaSalle Avenue · · Via Electronic and Regglar Mail
l\¢1inneapolis,MN 55402-2015 ‘
_ RE: Honeywell v. Apple, et nl', Civ. Action No. 04-1338-KAJ (consolidated)
Dear W. Woods: _
This letter is Eastman Kodak Company's ("Kodak") response to your May 13, 2008
letter. Kodak should be dismissed from this lawsuit because the suppliers of the LCD modules
in the Kodak products accused by Honeywell are licensed. In the litigation, Honeywell accused
Kodalds CX6230, CX4230 and DX 4530 digital cameras, which incorporate _ - t
. In addition, Kodak identified in its letters of October
28, 005 andianuary 13, 2006 additional came e els a incoreor t -
modules (which camera models Honeywell has not accused). We obtained continuation from
Surat the models incorporated in Kodalds cameras are covered by their licenses
with Honeywell. All of the remaining manufacuuers were joined in the litigation and have
settled with Honeywell. Kodak, as a customer of these manufacturer defendants, albeit
A indirectly, is a bene’dciary of the rights granted to each of these entities by Honeywell under
itlieir respective agreements. Further, Kodak is a beneficiary ofthe- ’
’ g of each of these agreements. As such, Kodak should be eismnsserssm
the litigation. ·
Your letter identifies certain issues surrounding the license agreements which allegedly
require discovery nom Kodak to resolve before Kodak can be dismissed from the litigation,
. · _ including r1ie .
- and the fact that none ofthe licensed manufacturers were dismissed with prejudice from the
litigation. Discovery from Kodak on these issues is irrelevant because thatinformation would be
in the possession of the module manufacturers, not Kodak. Further, the- on the
licenses were presumably negotiated to ,
If Honeywell believes that any particulm manufacturer
I continues to manufacture or sell accused products in violation of any — in their
license agreement, Honeywell should raise that issue with the manufacturer. Likewise,
_ Honeywell should raise with the particular manufacturer any other violation of the various
licensing agreements it believes has occurred. It is not the customer defendants', such as Kodak,
burden to determine which products it sells or markets are accused products or whether
manufacturers continue to sell products that were previously accused. It is Honeywell's burden

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF Document 1092-2 Filed 07/25/2008 Page 3 of 3
Matthew L. Woods, Esq. g
June 3, 2008 ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Page 2
to monitor the activities of its licensees and to determine whether they are in compliance with
their licenses.
In particular, it is Honeywel1's burden to determine, or obtain infomation from its
licensees to determine, whether the i in the vmious license agreements have been
exceeded. Those agreements are between Honeywell and the manufacturers, not customers such
p as Kodalc. Unless Honeywell represents otherwise, Kodak presumes that none of the
- in the relevant license agreements- and that any of the modules incorporated
in products sold or marketed by Kodak are therefore covered by those agreements. As such,
discovery litom Kodak is not necessary. ‘
d Very truly yours, ·
A Neal L. Slirkin
NLS cldw