Free Report and Recommendations - Special Master - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 97.0 kB
Pages: 3
Date: July 2, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 630 Words, 3,977 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8690/1067.pdf

Download Report and Recommendations - Special Master - District Court of Delaware ( 97.0 kB)


Preview Report and Recommendations - Special Master - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:04-cv—O1338-JJF Document 1067 Filed 07/O1/2008 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. )
and HONEYWELL INTELLECTUAL )
PROPERTIES INC., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) C.A. N0. 04-1338- JJF
v. ) (Consolidated)
)
APPLE COMPUTER, INC., et al., )
)
Defendants. )
SPECIAL MASTER"S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON
MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. AND
HONEYWELL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES INC. TO RULE
THAT DEFENIDANT INNOLUX DISPLAY CORP. HAS
SUBMITTED TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT [DM 2]
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2007, InnoLux tiled an Answer and Counterclaims in the matter
Guardian Indus. Corp. v. InnoLux Display Corp., 1:06-CV-00748—SLR, and filed an Amended
Answer and Counterclaims on May 9, 2008;
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2008, this Court issued a Memorandum Order denying, with
leave to renew, InnoLux Display Corporation’s ("InnoLux") Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction;
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2008, InnoLux filed a Claim Construction Brief advancing
InnoLux’s position with respect to the construction of one particular disputed term in the asserted
claim of the patent—in—suit;
WHEREAS, on May I, 2008, the Manufacturer Defendants included InnoLux on the list
of Defendant parties requesting; to be copied on Customer Defendant communications,
discovery, and related matters;
062032;.00619/40175520v.t

Case 1 :04-cv—01338-JJF Document 1067 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2008, InnoLux tiled an Answer to Honeywell International Inc.
and Honeywell Intellectual Properties Inc.’s (collectively, "Honeywell") Revised Second
Amended Complaint;
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2008, Honeywell sought a determination as to whether, through
its aforementioned actions, InnoLux waived its personal jurisdiction defenses and thereby
submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court;
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2008, this Court appointed Vincent J. Poppiti, Esq. as Special
Master (hereinafter, the "Special Master") to hear argument on the aforementioned waiver
contention and issue a report and recommendation to the Court;
WHEREAS, on June 2, 20()8, InnoLux filed a Reply Claim Construction Brief advancing
InnoLux’s position with respect to the construction of one particular disputed term in the asserted
claim of the patent-in-suit; and
WHEREAS, the Special Master heard argument by the parties via telephonic hearing
held on June 23, 2008;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, AS FOLLOWS:
1. Notwithstanding the actions and pleadings tiled by Innolux in the instant action,
InnoLux has not waived its personal jurisdiction defenses.
2. Notwithstanding the actions and pleadings filed by InnoLux in Guardian Indus.
Corp. v. InnoLux Display Corp., 1:06-CV-00748-SLR, InnoLux has not consented to the
jurisdiction of the Court in the instant action.
3. InnoLux, in all respects, remains a party to this matter, and therefore fully
engaged in this matter unless otherwise ordered by the Court, including being subject to all of the
062032;.00619/40175520v.i

Case 1 :04-cv—O1338-JJF Document 1067 Filed 07/O1/2008 Page 3 of 3
deadlines in the Court’s Scheduling Order and responsible along with all other parties for
responding, in a timely manner, to pleadings and all discovery.
4. Further, as a party to this matter, InnoLux remains bound by the law and decisions
of this case, both retrospectively and prospectively, including the Court’s claim construction
rulings, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons and for reasons stated on the Record on June
23, 2008 [D.I. 1066], the Special Master RECOMMENDS that Honeywe1l’s Motion [D.I. 1040]
should be DENIED.
The Special Master’s Report and Recommendations will become final order of the Court
unless objections are taken pursuant to FRCP 53(f)(2).
ENTERED this lst day of July, 2008.
,,,., ....
Q.r
Vinc tJ. Poppiti, E • 5 ID # 100614)
Special as er
062038.()06l9/40175520v.l