Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-3

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 1 of 38

EXHIBIT J

Case SHEET 1

1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-3

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 2 of Monday, March 38

13,20(

1

1 2 3 4 5

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al. Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTIONS

6
V.

7 8 9 10 11

AUDIOVOX COMMUNICATIONS CORP., et al. NO. 04-1337 (KAJ)

_________-_______----------------HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al. Plaintiffs,

Defendants.

12
V.

13

APPLE COMPUTER, INC., et al.,
14 15 16

NO. 04-1338 (KAJ)

Plaintiff,
17
V.

18

19 20 21 22 23 24

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC et al. NO. 04-1536 (KAJ) Defendants.

- - -

Wilmington, Delaware Monday, March 13, 2006 at 1O:OO a.m. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

BEFORE :
25

HONORABLE KENT A. JORDAN, U.S .D.C. . J

United States District Court - Honorable Kent A. Jordan

Case SHEET 2
1

1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-3
2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 3 of Monday, March 13,20( 38
4

APPEARANCES : ASHBY 6 GEDDES BY: STEVEN J. BALICK, ESQ. and MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT 6 TUNNELL BY: TEOMAS C. GRIMM, ESQ., and

1

APPEARANCES : (Continued: YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT 6 TAYLOR BY: JOHN W. SHAW, ESQ. Local counsel for below-listed defendants and KENYON 6 KENYON BY: ROBERT L. HAILS, ESQ. (Washington, District of Columbia) and KENYON h KENYON BY: JOEIN FLOCK, ESQ. (New York, New York) Counsel for Sony Corporation, and Sony Corporation of America and

2
3
4

2
3

4

5
6
7 8
9
to

5
6
7

ROBINS KAPLAN MILLER 6 CIRESI, L.L.P BY: MARTIN R. LUECK, ESP., MATTEEW L. WOODS, ESQ., and STACIE E. OBERTS, ESQ. (Minneapolis, Minnesota) and

8 9
LO

L 1
12

L 1

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL BY: J. DAVID BRA!TMAN, ESQ. Counsel on behalf of Honeywell International, Inc., and Honeywell Intellectual Properties, Inc. YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT 6 TAYLOR BY: KAREN L. PASCALE, ESQ. and OBLON SPIVAK MCCLELLAND MAIER 6 NEUSTADT, P.C BY: RICHARD D. KELLY, ESQ., and ANDREW M. OLLIS, ESQ. (Alexandria, Virginia) Counsel for Optrex America, Inc

L2

1 3
14
15

13

14
15 ._

PAUL BASTINGS JANOFSKY 6 WALKER, LLP BY: PETER J. WIED, ESQ. (Los Angeles, California) Counsel for Quanta Display Inc.

1 6
.7

1 6

.I
.8

.8

RICHARDS LAYTON 6 FINGER BY: JEFFREY L. MOYER, ESQ. and WEIL GOTSHAL 6 MANGES BY: DAVID J . LENDER, ESQ., and STEPHEN J. RIZZI, ESP. (New York, New York) Counsel for Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co. and Matsushita Electrical Corporation of America

.9

.9
!O

!O
!1 !2
!3
!4

!1
!2

!3
!4

!5
~

!5

3

5

1
2

APPEARANCES :

(Continued)

1
2

APPEARANCES : (Continued)

3
4

BOUCHARD MARGULJZS 6 FRIEDLANDER BY: JOEL FRIEDLANDER, ESQ. and

3
4

FISH 6 RICHARDSON, P.C. BY: THOMAS L. HALKOWSKI, ESQ. Local counsel for below-listed defendants

5
6
7
8

5
HOGAN 6 HARTSON BY: DAVID H. BEN-MEIR, ESQ. (Los Angeles, California)

and
6
7

Counsel for Citizen Watch Co., Ltd.; Citizen Displays Co., Ltd. SMITH KATZENSTEIN 6 FURIOW BY: JOELLE ELLEN WLESKY, ESQ and HOGAN h HARTSON, LLP BY: ROBERT J. BENSON, ESP. (Los Angeles, California) Counsel for Seiko Epson Corp., Kyocera Wireless Corp. FISH 6 RICHARDSON, P.C. BY: WILLIAM J . MARSDEN, ESQ. Counsel for ID Tech; International Display Technology USA Inc. CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE 6 HIJTZ BY: GERARD M. O'ROURKF,, ESP. Counsel for AU Optronics Corp. and AU Optronics Corp. of America TROP PRUNER 6 EU BY: DAN C. HU, ESQ. (Eouston, Texas) Counsel for Arima Display

FISE h RICHARDSON, P.C. BY: JOHN T. JOHNSON, ESQ., and (New York, New York) Counsel for Casio, Inc., Casio Computer

8

9

9

and
0

0
1
2

1
2

FISH 6 RICHARDSON, P.C. BY: KELLY C. HUNSAKER, ESP. (Redwood City, California) Counsel for Apple Computer Inc.

3
4 5

3

and
4

5

FISH 6 RICHARDSON, P.C. BY: ANDREW R. KOPSIDAS, ESQ. (Washington, District of Columbia) Counsel for Nokia, Inc.

6
7

6
7 8

8
9

RICHARDS LAYTON 6 FINGER BY: CHAD M. SHANDLER, ESP. and

9 0
1
2

0
1

2
3
4

HARRIS BEACH, LLP BY: NEAL L. SLIFKIN, ESQ. (Pittsford, New York) Counsel for Eastman Kodak

3
4

5

5

United States District Court - Honorable Kent A. Jordan

SHEET 3

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-3
6

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 4 of Monday, March 13,200 38
8

1

APPEARANCES: (Continued) POTTER ANDERSON 6 CORROON, LLP BY: RICHARD L. HORWITZ, ESQ. Local counsel below-named defendants and FIN" BENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT 6 DUNNER, LLP BY: BARRY W . GRAHAM, ESP. (Washington, District of Columbia) Counsel for Nikon Corporation, Nikon Inc. and MILBANK TWEEK HADLEY 6 MCCLOY, LLP BY: CHRISTOPHER E. CHALSEN, ESQ. (New York, New York) Counsel for Fujitsu Limited, Fujitsu America, Inc., Fujitsu Computer Products of America, Inc. and FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT 6 DUNNER, LLP BY: YORK FAULKNER, ESQ. (Reston, Virginia) and FIN" HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT 6 DUNNER, LLP BY: ELIZABETH A. NIEMEYER. ESO. (Washington, District'of Eolumbia)) Counsel for Toppoly Optoelectronics, Wintek Corp., Wintek Electro-Optics Corporation and

1 2
3 4

APPEARANCES : (Continued) POTTER ANDERSON 6 CORROON, LLP BY: PHILIP A. ROVNER, ESQ. and STROOCK 6 STROOCK 6 LAVAN LLP BY: LAWRENCE ROSENTHAL, ESP. (New York, New York) Counsel for Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. and Fuji Photo Film U.S.A. Inc. CONNOLLY B O W LODGE 6 WTZ BY: N. RICHARD POWERS, ESQ. Counsel on behalf of Sony Ericsson AB and Sony Ericsson, Inc.

2
3 4
5

5

6
7
8
9

6
7

8
LO 9

LO

11 1 2
1 3 .4

L l

13 12

14 1 L5 6

Brian P. Gaffigan Registered Merit Reporter

.5
.6
.7

17

.8 .9

L9 18

!O
!1 !2

!O
!1
!2

REPORTER'S NOTE:

000

-

P R O C E E D I N G S The following telephone

!3 !4

!3 !4

conference was held in chambers, beginning at 1O:OO a.m.) THE COURT: Hi, this is Judge Jordan. Why don't

!5

!5
7

we go ahead and take what I expect will be a lengthy roll

9

1

APPEARANCES : (Continued)

1

call?

We'll start with the plaintiff and I need to have

2
3 4

2
HOWREY, LLP BY: NELSON M . KEE, ESQ. (Washington, District of Columbia) Counsel for Philips Electronics North America Corp. and
3 4

counsel identify; and given the numbers that I expect are on this call, you don't have to identify everybody but I'll need to know who is speaking for what party.
So please

5
6 7
8

5
6

identify yourself, the law firm that you are with and the client you are representing if you are going to be speaking for that client; all right?
MR. G R I M :

7
PAUL HASTINGS JANOFSKY 6 WALKER, LLP BY: ELIZABETH L. BRA", ESQ. (San Diego, California) Counsel for Samsung SDI
8

Good afternoon, Your Honor.

This

9

9

is Tom Grinnn at Morris Nichols.

I represent Honeywell; and

0

.o
.1
.2

on the line with me this morning from Robins Kaplan firm are Marty Lueck and Matt Woods who will be speaking for Honeywell. Joining them are Stacie Roberts from their firm

and
1

2
3 4
5

BAKER BOTTS, L.L.P. BY: NEIL P. SIROTA, ESQ., and ROBERT MAIER, ESQ. (New York, New York) Counsel for Hitachi, Ltd., Xitachi Displays, Ltd., Hitachi Display Devices, Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc. and

.3 .4

and also Honeywell Intellectual Property Counsel David Brafman. I also may have
04-1338 case.

.5
.6
.7

-- I represent Honeywell in the

6 7
8
9

Ashby Geddes represents them in the 04-1337

case, specifically Steve Balick and John Day.
MR. DAY:

BAKER 6 McKENZIE, LLP BY: KEVEN M . O'BRIEN, ESQ. (Washington, District of Columbia) Counsel for Boe-Hydis Technology

.8 -9

Yes, John Day is on the phone for

Honeywell in 1337. THE COURT: All right. Thanks.

0
1

!O
DUANE MORRIS BY: MATTEEW NEIDERMAN, ESQ. Counsel for Audiovox Coumunications Corp.
!1
!2

Why don't we just start now through the defendants and in no particular order but hopefully politely with no elbows being thrown, go ahead and identify who is on the call for me, please.
MR. HALKOWSKI:

2

'3 '4

1 3
!4

'5

!5

Yes, Your Honor.

This is Tom

United States District Court - Honorable Kent A. Jordan

SHEET 4

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-3
10

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 5 of Monday, March 13,20( 38
12

1

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9
IO I1

12 13 14 I5 I6 17
I8 19 !O !1 !2 !3

!4 !5

Halkowski with Fish & Richardson. 1 guess I'll start off. On the phone should be Kelly Hunsaker who will be representing Apple Computer. And the other folks that are on the phone from Fish & Richardson include John Johnson representing the Casio defendants, and Andrew Kopsidas representing the Nokia defendants. And I believe William Marsden is also on the phone representing a new defendant. MR. MARSDEN: Yes, Your Honor. William Marsden from Fish & Richardson on the phone for International Display Technology and International Display Technology USA. THE COURT: All right. I'm sure we got others so please continue. Who else do we have? MR. ROWER: Your Honor, this is Phil Rovner from Potter Anderson on behalf of Fuji Photo. And with me on the line I believe is Larry Rosenthal from Stroock & Stroock & Lavan in New York. MR. HORWITZ: Your Honor, this is Rich Horwitz, also from Potter Anderson. We didn't get a chance to take a roll call before calling chambers so I'm not sure with respect to all of the defendants I represent who is on the call. 1 know for Toppoly and Wintek, York Faulkner and Elizabeth Niemeyer are on from Finnegan Henderson. I am also representing on the call Philips, I don't know if someone from Howrey is on the line. MR. KEE: And Nelson Kee is on the line from
11

1 co-counsel, Robert Benson from Hogan & Hartson.

2
3

4 5 6 7 8 9
IO I1

12

13
14

15 1 6 17
18 1 9 !O !1

!2 !3 !4 !5

MR. BENSON: Yes, I'm here. THE COURT: All right. Who else? MR. FRIEDLANDER: Your Honor, from Bouchard Margules & Friedlander, Joel Friedlander on behalf of Citizen Watch and Citizen Displays. With me on the line is my co-counsel David Ben-Meir from Hogan & Hartson. We represent Citizens in the 05-874 matter. MR. POWERS: Your Honor, Richard Powers for Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB and Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications USA Inc. THE COURT: Okay. MS. PASCALE: Your Honor, Karen Pascale from Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor for Optrex America Inc.; and we should have on the line from the Oblon Spivak firm, Andy Ollis and Dick Kelly. THE COURT: All right. MR. SHAW: Your Honor, John Shaw at Young Conaway. At Kenyon & Kenyon for Sony Corporation and Sony Corporation of America is John Flock and Robert Hails. And also on the line for Quanta Display from Paul Hastings is Peter Weid. THE COURT: Okay. Who else do we have? MR. MOYER: Your Honor, this is Jeff Moyer of Richard Layon on behalf of Matsushita. I have my co-counsel
13

I
2

Philips. MR. HORWITZ: For Samsung with Paul Hastings. MS. BRA": Elizabeth Brann from Paul Hastings is on for Samsung SDI. MR. HORWITZ: With Hitachi, I know Neil Sirota and Robert Maier are on the line from Baker Botts. THE COURT: All right. You will need to speak up a little bit, Mr. Horwitz. MR. HORWITZ: All right. For Hitachi, Neil Sirota and Robert Maier from Baker Botts are also on the line. For Hannstar, I'm not sure who else is on the line. 1 may be handling that myself. And for Boe-Hydus, Kevin O'Brien in from Baker & MacKenzie. MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, this is Kevin O'Brien in for Baker & McKenzie for Boe-Hydus. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Who else do we have? MR. NEIDERMAN: Your Honor, Matt Neiderman of Duane Morris for Audiovox Communications Corp. THE COURT: All right. Next. MS. POLESKY: Joelle Polesky from Smith Katzenstein & Furlow on behalf of Seiko Epson and Sanyo Epson Imaging Devices. And on the line with me should be my

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

:0 :1 :2 :3 .4 .5

David Lender from Weil Gotshal & Manges on the phone. MR. RIZZI: Stephen Rizzi from Weil Gotshal is here as well as for Matsushita and Panasonic North America Corporation of America. THE COURT: All right. Anybody else? MR. SHANDLER: Your Honor, from Richards Layton & Finger, Chad Shandler on behalf of Eastman Kodak. With me is Neil Slifkin from Harris Beach. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROWER: Your Honor, Jerry ORourke from Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz on behalf of AU Optronics Corp. and AU Optronics America Corp. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. CHALSEN: Your Honor, this is Chris Chalsen. I'm from Milbank in New York for the Fujitsu defendants. THE COURT: Anybody on with you locally? MR. CHALSEN: Yes, Rich Horwitz. THE COURT: All right. Thanks. Anybody else on? Otherparties? MR. GRAHAM: Your Honor, this is Barry Graham at Finnegan Henderson representing two of the stayed defendants, Nikon Corporation, Nikon Inc. I don't know if I need to identify myself because I'm sitting in the gallery; and local counsel is Rich Horwitz. THE COURT: All right. Thanks.

United States District Court - Honorable Kent A. Jordan

Case SHEET 5 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-3
14

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 6 of Monday, March 13,20( 38
16

1 So am I correct that we've got all the 2 manufacturer defendants and Optrex and Honeywell identified 3 at this point? 4 MR. HU: Your Honor, this is Dan Hu from Trop 5 Pruner & Hu for Arima Display. THE COURT: All right. Well, I'm going to take 6 7 it at this point that we got everybody unless somebody pipes 8 up now and tells me I got that wrong; okay? And I have to 9 say this is an experiment to see whether we can actually 10, have teleconferences in this case. Just the introduction 1 makes me wonder whether that is feasible or not. It's an 12 expensive thing to get everybody together but with this 13 many folks, teleconferences might be so unwieldy as to be 14 unworkable but we'll give this a shot. 15 First, before we turn to scheduling, there are a 16 couple of motions hanging here that I want to address very 17 quickly. I have a motion for leave to file a third-party I8 complaint that was filed by Nokia. Is Nokia on? MR. KOPSIDAS: Yes, Your Honor. Andrew Kopsidas 19 !O from Fish & Richardson for Nokia. !I THE COURT: Okay. And I had a letter several !2 months ago from Mr. Marsden in this regard and the !3 indications were that this motion to file a third-party !4 complaint was not objected to. Is that correct? !5 MR. KOPSIDAS: That's correct, Your Honor.
-

1 morning? 2 MR. LUECK: Marty Lueck, Your Honor. 3 THE COURT: Mr. Lueck. 4 MR. LUECK: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Has my October 7, '05 order been 5 6 complied with at this point? There were several things that 7 I directed be accomplished to try to move things forward and 8 I'd appreciate if you could take a moment and give me an 9 update on that. 10 MR. LUECK: Your Honor, we do not. We still do I1 not have complete information from the defendants on that 12 order. 13 THE COURT: Well, why don't we do this? First, 14 do you happen to have that order in front of you? 15 MR. LUECK: I can get it, Your Honor, if you 16 give me just one moment. 17 THE COURT: All right. 18 MR. LUECK: And, Your Honor, while I'm getting 19 it, could I just go back to the Toshiba motion for a moment? !O THE COURT: Sure. !I MR. LUECK: I believe that motion is mooted by !2 resolution of the issues between Honeywell and Toshiba. !3 THE COURT: Does anybody on the call disagree !4 with that assessment? !5 I'm hearing no one. Okay. We'll take that
17

15
1

2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9

'0 !I !2 !3 !4 !5

THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure quite how things will work by granting this at this stage because how you would proceed with a third-party complaint at this juncture is not clear to me given the way we're trying to stage the case. Can you take just a moment and tell me about that? Did you have something in mind about pursuing these claims immediately or was this something that you felt like, well, we need to get on file or what was thinking? MR. KOPSIDAS: Your Honor, this is a motion that was filed really before the last status conference, I believe when the Court issued its guidance as to restructuring the case. Since then, Honeywell has filed its amended complaint naming a whole bunch of manufacturer defendants and all of the parties that we intended to in-plead prior to that point have since been named in the complaint. So I believe it's actually a moot issue at this point. THE COURT: That's what I need to know. Thanks. So we'll deal with that by saying denied as moot and done. The other motion is a motion to bifurcate -- and we'll take that up in the course of the discussion that we're going to have today -- motion to bifurcate liability and damages that was filed by Toshiba. But let me start by asking first, who is speaking on behalf of Honeywell this

1 as -2 MR. HORWITZ: Your Honor, this is Rich 3 Horwitz. I'm local counsel for Toshiba, which is one of 4 the defendants. I'm not exactly sure what Mr. Lueck is 5 referring to, if it's something other than the fact that the 6 case is made against them. I think some of the issues that 7 were raised in that motion were raised in the scheduling 8 order generally as to staging of trial and that may be come 9 up in the context of the scheduling order rather than in the IO context of that specific motion. I1 THE COURT: Well, you're right, it may, but here 1 is what I need to do. I've got a specific motion to deal 2 13 with, and I hear Mr. Lueck telling me that the case against 15 14 Toshiba has -- maybe I'm misreading it -- has been either stayed or resolved. You tell me. Therefore, that an issue 6 of bifurcation with respect to Toshiba is at this point 7 moot. Is that right or wrong, Mr. Horwitz? MR. HORWITZ: All I'm saying is if it's based on 8 9 the stay, I agree that the case is stayed against them. If !O it's based on anything else, Your Honor, I just don't have !I information. THE COURT: Mr. Lueck? Are you there, !2 !3 Mr. Lueck? MR. LUECK: Yes, I am, Your Honor. !4 THE COURT: Is it -!5

United States District Court - Honorable Kent A. Jordan

SHEET 6

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-3
18

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 7 of Monday, March 13,200 38
20

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
IO I1

I2 13
14 15

16 17
18 19

!O !I !2 !3
!4

!5

MR. LUECK: I believe we have resolved the issues with Toshiba as to their module making activities, and so they would still be stayed as to their customer activities but it's our understanding that the motion itself would be mooted as a result of that. Certainly, the issue still remains as part of the scheduling conference. THE COURT: Yes, it does. Well, here is what I'm going to do. I'm going to deny this without prejudice to leave for Toshiba to re-file because I think it may well be mooted by the scheduling that we're going to be dealing with and, in any event, the case against them is stayed at this point. So is there anything you want to put on the record in response to that ruling, Mr. Horwitz? MR. HORWITZ: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Now, Mr. Lueck, are you in a position to talk about the October '05 order? MR. LUECK: Yes, I am, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. And we just have to reorient ourselves. This was an order with six numbered paragraphs in it. Did we get accomplished what was supposed to be accomplished out of paragraph I? MR. LUECK: With the exception of; going down to sub-part C, Your Honor; the identification of other versions
19

1

2
3

4 5 6 7 8 9
IO

I1
12 13 14

I5
16 17 18 I9 !O !I !2 !3 !4 !5

MR. LUECK: Yes, Your Honor. That has been accomplished. THE COURT: All right. Again, does anybody on the call have a disagreement with that? Paragraph 3. MR. LUECK: We believe that has been accomplished, Your Honor. THE COURT: Once again, does anybody on the call disagree with that assertion? All right. Now, we have a stay in place under paragraph 4. Paragraph 5, has that been accomplished yet? MR. LUECK: Your Honor, I believe that has been largely accomplished. There is one outstanding issue which I think we have handled but we have three defendants whom we've been unable to serve because they wouldn't waive formal process. And as to those three defendants, we have agreed with the other defendants in this case that we should simply sever those defendants and proceed. THE COURT: Now, what -MR. LUECK: I can give Your Honor the names. THE COURT: Please do. MR. LUECK: They are All Around Company Limited. THE COURT: Tell me, if you would, if you know, what type of entity it is and what its source or what
21

1 of the identified products that include LCD modules with 2 substantially the same structure. We have not accomplished 3 that with the customer defendants. 4 THE COURT: Otherwise, it's done? 5 MR. LUECK: Yes, Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: Does anybody on this call want to 7 take issue with that assertion? 8 All right. I'm not -9 MR. HORWITZ: Your Honor, again on behalf of a 0 number of customer defendants who aren't participating in 1 the call, I'm not sure what Mr. Lueck is referring to when 2 he says things weren't accomplished. I don't know of any 3 back-and-forth disputes that were outstanding. Perhaps I 4 wasn't copied on correspondence from Honeywell's counsel. 5 THE COURT: Well, let me be more clear. And 6 this is not designed to put anybody in the dock for failing 7 to do something or not do something. At this stage, I'm 8 just trying to figure out what has been done and what hasn't 9 without assigning blame in any fashion for what has been !O done or hasn't. So my question more precisely put is not ! I with respect to what hasn't been done in this subparagraph C 1 but with respect to what manufacturer Lueck says has been 2 !3 accomplished, does anybody on this call disagree, other than !4 this sub C, what was asked to be done has been done? !5 All right. Mr. Lueck, as to paragraph 2.

1 country or state it's organized under. 2 MR. LUECK: All Around Company is I believe a 3 Taiwan company, and it is a manufacturing defendant. 4 THE COURT: All right. Next. 5 MR. LUECK: The next one; and I believe all 6 of these are Taiwan companies, Your Honor; is Innolux, 7 I-N-N-0-L-U-X, Display Corporation. Again, a manufacturing 8 defendant. 9 And Picvue, P-I-C-V-U-E, Electronics Limited; 0 again, a Taiwan manufacturing defendant. 1 THE COURT: All right. So how many does that 2 leave as manufacturer defendants? And in that, kindly 3 include not just the ones you sued but the ones who sued 4 you. 5 MR. LUECK: That would be 19 manufacturing 6 groups or families. And for the purpose of a group or a 7 family we've treated, you know, companies that are more or 8 less under the same corporate umbrella as one. 9 THE COURT: Is there agreement by the parties !O that your grouping is one they can live with and believe is !I accurate? !2 MR. LUECK: I can't say for certain, Your Honor. !3 THE COURT: Then let's do this. Let's take the !4 time for you to just put on the record who the families are !5 and then if there is any disagreement with it, I'll know it

United States District Court - Honorable Kent A. Jordan

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-3
22

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 8 of Monday, March 13,20( 38
24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
IO

II 12 13 14 15 16 17
18

19 !O !I !2 13 !4

!5

because someone will be in a position to have to respond to it. MR. LUECK: The families that -- I'rn sorry. The families that we are referring to, Your Honor, are Casio. THE COURT: Which include? MR. LUECK: I'm sorry. THE COURT: And I want you to tell me who are including in this family, so give me the "family name'' and then give me of the defendants who you think fall into that grouping. MR. LUECK: Okay. It may take me just a moment because I don't have a list put together that way but I think I can do it. Casio would be Casio Computer Company Limited, and Casio Inc. Then there would be Fuji, which would include Fuji Photo Film. Let me say that again. I'rn sorry. Fuji Photo Film Company Limited, Fuji Photo Film USA Inc. Those are the two in that group. Then Matsushita, which is Matsushita Electrical Industrial Company and Matsushita Electrical Corporation of America. Then Sony, which includes Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, and ST Liquid Crystal Display Corp. The next group is Optrex, which is simply Optrex 23

1 THE COURT: All right. By the way, I need to 2 have that last speaker please identify yourself for the 3 record. 4 MR. KEE: This is Nelson Kee of Howrey 5 representing Philips. THE COURT: All right. 6 MR. KEE: And we noted that in our answer. 7 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Lueck. 8 MR. LUECK: The next single defendant we have is 9 I O Quanta Display Inc. I1 Then we have the Samsung group, which is Samsung 12 SDI Limited and Samsung SDI America Inc. And that also includes, which is combined with 13 14 Sony -- or excuse me. Excuse me one moment, Your Honor. 15 Sorry. The list I was looking at, I already 16 mentioned St Liquid Crystal Display. That is part of Sony, 17 Your Honor. My apologies. THE COURT: All right. 18 MR. LUECK: The next one is Toppoly 19 !O Optoelectronics Corp. That's a single defendant. Then we have the Wintek group, which is Wintek !I !2 Corp. and Wintek Electro-Optics Corporation. MS. NIEMEYER: Your Honor. !3 THECOURT: Yes. Yes. !4 MS. NIEMEYER: Hi, this is Elizabeth Niemeyer !5

25
1 with Finnegan Henderson for Wintek. We don't have any

1

2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO
11

I2 13 14 15 16 17 8 9 !O !I !2 !3 !4 !5

America. Then Seiko Epson. That's also a stand-alone as I'm looking at the caption. Next is AU Optronics Corp. and AU Optronics Corporation of America. That's a group. Then Boe-Hydis Technology Company. Then next is Citizen Watch, which is Citizen Watch Company and Citizen Displays Company Limited. Then we have Hannstar Display Corporation which is a single defendant. Then the Hitachi group. The Hitachi group is Hitachi Limited, Hitachi Displays Limited, Hitachi Display Devices Limited and Hitachi Electronic Devices USA Inc. Then we have International Display Technology and International Display Technology USA Inc. Next is the Philips group, which is Koninklijke, Philips Electronics NV, Philips Consumer Electronics North America, and Philips Electronics North America. MR. KEE: Philips has a point to raise about this issue. THE COURT: All right. What is that? MR. KEE: Philips Consumer is not a -- is a division of Philips Electronics. It's not a separate legal entity. MR. LUECK: Okay.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
IO I1

12 13
14 15

16 17 I8 19 !O !I !2 !3 !4 !5

objection to being identified as a family for purposes of this litigation so we just want to make sure that it's not treated as a waiver for any future litigation issues in other cases. THE COURT: In other cases? MS. NIEMEYER: Yes. THE COURT: Well, fortunately I don't have to deal with any other cases. That's fine for you to put that on the record but I'rn just trying to find out who is getting treated as lumped in the cases, these consolidated cases before me right now. Okay? MS. NIEMEYER: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thanks. Go ahead, Mr. Lueck. MR. LUECK: No. 18 is Sanyo Epson Imaging Devices Corporation. MR. BENSON: Your Honor, this is Robert Benson from Hogan & Hartson. I believe Sanyo Epson should probably be grouped with Seiko Epson. THE COURT: All right. MR. LUECK: That's fine with us, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LUECK: And the last one is Arima Display. So with the Sanyo clarification, that is part of Seiko, I believe we have 18, in our view, Your Honor, 18

United States District Court - Honorable Kent A. Jordan

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-3
26

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 9 of Monday, March 13,200 38
28

1 manufacturing families or groups. THE COURT: Okay. Does anybody on the call, 2 3 other than those folks who have already spoken up with 4 issues, take issue at all with the description now of the 5 universe of manufacture defendants that we're dealing with? MR. RIZZI: Yes, Your Honor. This is Stephen 6 7 Rizzi from Weil Gotshal for the Matsushita defendants. We 8 had raised an issue with the Court in January concerning 9 a disagreement with Honeywell as to the status of the IO Matsushita defendants. In our view, the Matsushita I1 defendants should be treated as customer defendants under 12 the Court's October 2005 order. And I believe Your Honor 13 had indicated that was also to be taken up on today's call. THE COURT: Is there anybody else in that same 14 15 boat? 16 MR. SIROTA: Your Honor, good morning. Neil 17 Sirota for Hitachi. THE COURT: Yes. 18 MR. SIROTA: And we do not believe that all four 19 !O of the defendants that have been termed "manufacturers" !I would actually fall into that category. And, Your Honor, !2 we submitted a letter alerting the Court to that issue and ! hopefully we'll be able to resolve it on our own. 3 14 THE COURT: I did see your letter, yes. Thank ,5 you.

1 THE COURT: All right. We'll do that. I'll ask 2 you to make a call, in fact, Mr. Grimm at an opportune time, 3 if you would, and schedule that with Ms. Stein; all right? 4 MR. GRIMM: Certainly. THE COURT: Thank you. 5 Okay. So for purposes of discussion only and 6 7 without prejudice to Matsushita's position; okay? I'm not 8 saying one way or another that I believe you are in or out 9 of this case but to have a number to use, I'm going to use I O the 18. Let me first ask whether any thought had been given I1 to the position advanced -- and, Honeywell, I'm asking you 12 this question -- the position advanced by the manufacturer 13 defendants generally other than Optrex that this is a case 14 where validity and unenforceability issues are the common 15 issues and should be addressed first. MR. LUECK: Yes, Your Honor. We believe that 16 17 there should be a trial that addresses all of the liability 18 issues and we believe there will be a great deal of 19 commonality with those issues once discovery and claim !O construction is completed. And on the infringement side in !I particular, Your Honor, I would point out that we think the !2 invention and the claims are pretty straightforward with !3 just the light source, two lens arrays, an LCD panel !4 configuration. Therefore, we believe it would be economical !5 to address that issue as well.

27
1 Anybody else? 2 MR. FLOCK: Yes, Your Honor. This is John Flock 3 for the Sony entities. There is a motion to dismiss one of 4 the entities, ST LCD for lack of personal jurisdiction and 5 the pending motion will not be completed in its briefing 6 until later this week. THE COURT: All right. The last shot. Anybody 7 8 else? Okay. Given that the meter spinning wildly 9 I O given the number of lawyers that we have on this call, let I 1 me ask this: Is there any opposition amongst any of the 12 other defendants to my taking up the position of Matsushita 13 in a separate discussion after this generalized call? And 14 I'll ask the Matsushita and Honeywell people that in a 15 moment but first I want to know whether anybody else has 16 an issue with that? 17 I hear nothing in that regard. Okay. Matsushita defendants, do you have a 18 19 problem with our taking that up in a separate discussion? MR. RIZZI: Stephen Rizzi, Your Honor. That's !O !I fine. !2 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Lueck? Any problem !3 with our taking that up in a separate discussion? MR. LUECK: No, Your Honor. We believe that !4 !5 makes sense.
1

29

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
IO I1

12 13
14 15

16
17 18 19 !O

!I !2 !3

! 4
!5

THE COURT: Even though there are 18 different groups of manufacturers, you think it's pretty straightforward, huh? MR. LUECK: I do, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Well, without hearing a course all at once, who wants to weigh in on behalf of the manufacturer defendants on that front? MR. ROWER: Your Honor, this is Phil Rovner. I'm representing, along with Stroock & Stroock & Levan, Fuji Photo but I have been nominated to speak for the manufacturer defendant group, as much as one person can speak for the large group that we have. So I'll do my best. Frankly, we are surprised that Honeywell would come forward with basically the exact same proposal that was rejected almost ten months to the day when we were before you in May of 2005. In that case, in that time, they were about the same number of defendants and in your opinion of May 18, 2005, you wrote, "it is impracticable to try an infringement case against 40-some defendants or third-party defendants with many different accused devices." Well, all that we have now is about the same number of defendants; we have 35 total and 18 families; but all that has been done is that the names have been replaced and it's just as impracticable today as it was 10 months ago. So the manufacturer defendants believe that the only

United States District Court - Honorable Kent A. Jordan

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-3
30

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 10 of 38
32

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
IO

11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19

20 !1 !2 !3 !4 z5

way to go at this point is our proposal, which is to try the common issues, the true common issues which we believe are invalidity and unenforceability, and that is what our proposal sets forth. THE COURT: Now, let me ask a question of you. Have you given any thought to whether, if I were to accept your suggestion in that regard, how I would nevertheless manage a case with this many defendants? In other words, Optrex is making the pitch, hey, let us step out front first and we'll carry the torch for everybody. And you folks evidently think that is not a good idea. But have you thought of what other things might be done besides having 18 groups of companies with platoons of lawyers for everybody in the courthouse or some third location or some other different location, because trying it in this facility would be perhaps impracticable? MR. ROWER: Well, on behalf of the manufacturer defendants, we believe that with a lot of effort, we could try the true common issues with the defense group that we have; and we believe that would be the most efficient way because you would have the most parties at trial. And as I keep saying, the true common issues, that we believe could be done. And that's why we certainly considered Honeywell's proposal and we considered Optrex's; but we believe for the great bulk of the defendants, our proposal, which is set

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
IO

I1

12 13
14 15 16 17

18
19

!O !1 !2 !3 !4

!5

that that can be accomplished. We think the issues of validity are common and the issues of infringement. Essentially, I recognize there are some differences in some of the ways that the invention is implemented but overall the claim is really not complicated. And I don't believe the proofs on that issue will be terribly complicated. THE COURT: All right. MR. LUECK: And -THE COURT: Well, I got your position. Thanks. 1 have to say, bluntly, it's unworkable and it's not going to happen. We're not taking this case to trial on all issues against all defendants. We will take it to trial on common issues in the first instance: validity and unenforceability . The only question 1have in my mind is whether it's really possible to try this case with all these people at once. And I think it more likely than not that it is not a practical way to approach it. And something that the parties ought to be talking about is if there are, if there is a logical group to stand in first. And this may be an impossible thing to ask the people on this call to do, certainly without having a chance to talk to each other and talk to their clients, so I'm not expecting anybody to give me an answer now. And we're not going to delay scheduling
33

31
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11

12 13 14 15
16

17
18

19 20 21 22

23 24 25

forth in the proposal that was provided to Your Honor last week, is the one that would be the best for all concerned. THE COURT: All right. Optrex, I'll give you a chance to weigh in here; and then I'll turn back to you, Mr. Lueck. MR. KELLY: Your Honor, this is Dick Kelly for Optrex. Optrex doesn't believe that you can have a trial with 18 defendants even if the so-called common issues are there. There are going to be differences of opinion as to what prior art to play and other things. Second, I just wonder how are you going to schedule something like that. This case has been going on almost a year and-a-half now and we're no closer to resolution than when the complaint was filed and Optrex would like to get it over, and over as quickly as possible, and we don't see that happening if this case is going to have 18 or 19, whatever it winds up being, defendants at a trial, even a trial on the so-called common issues. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Lueck. MR. LUECK: Yes, Your Honor. I think, you know, when we went back and set this structure up, the idea was putting the manufacturing defendants in to stand in place of the customer defendants on some of these issues would streamline matters and speed up the resolution. We believe

1 2 3 4 5

6 7
8 9 IO
11

12
13

14 15
16 17 I8 19 20 21

22 23 24 25

for now. Let me emphasize, by the time this call is over there is going to be a scheduling order. The only question is whether everybody is going to be on that same train or not. You know, some people like Optrex may want to be on that train. They may say I don't want to wait and see how other people do at resolving the issue. I am ready to go now, and I want to go now. And I'll count Optrex as one of the folks that wants to be on a train and that is well and good. There may be others who are delighted to let others carry the water and sit back and see what happens. But you folks ought to talk to each other on the defense side and see if there isn't a more manageable group. And by "manageable," I'm thinking something not in excess of five; and less is better; so that we could actually fit in a courtroom, in this building, and we could actually try a case to a jury over the course of a reasonable length of time, a couple weeks, and get a resolution. But I'll leave for another day how we narrow that. For now, it's enough to say that Optrex is not going to go it alone and Honeywell's position is impractical and is rejected. So we're going to go against the manufacturer defendants; what group remains to be seen; and we're going to get ourselves a schedule in place. With that as background, I assume that everybody

United States District Court - Honorable Kent A. Jordan

SHEET 10

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-3
34

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 11 ofMonday, March 13,20( 38
36

1 has the form of order in front of them. Mr. Grimm was good

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9
0 1 2 3 4

5
6 7 8 9 !O !I !2 !3

! 4
!5
-

enough to send over a March 8th letter. And it's Docket Item 160. I'm looking at that and at the attachment, and we'll go through this together now. First, hold on just one moment. (Pause.) THE COURT: Looking at paragraph 1, I was delighted to see the word "agreed" after that; delighted and surprised. Looking at paragraph 2, I recognize that the manufacturer defendants would like to hold Honeywell's feet to the fire, but let me ask if anybody feels like they need to speak to this position beyond the fact that I see you have a different view on it. Mr. Lueck, I'll give you a chance to speak on that, if you want. MR. LUECK: Your Honor, simply that given the scope of the case and the difficulty that we've had in getting information rapidly; and I'm attaching no characterization of that whatsoever; we think that the later date makes sense to insure that we have all of the issues that can be corralled, corralled. THE COURT: All right. Do we have a single voice for the manufacturer defendants here on this? MR. ROWER: Your Honor, it's Phil Rovner again. We believe that given the amount of time that has transpired

1 stretch it out. 2 THE COURT: All right. Optrex, now that you 3 are aware that you are going to be dealing with a 4 consolidated case and go to trial with others, does that 5 alter your position on the discovery limits? MR. KELLY: Your Honor, this is Dick Kelly. 6 7 Absolutely not. We believe that Honeywell is too short. 8 With all due respect to the manufacturing defendants, theirs 9 is too long. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Rovner. 0 MR. ROWER: Your Honor, we disagree with both 1 2 Mr. Kelly and Mr. Lueck. What we have done with multiple 3 manufacture defendants, he has given Honeywell the amount 4 of time that they have requested in terms of taking party 5 discovery and taking third-party discovery, but what our 6 proposal has done, as you can see, is it has given us the 7 great number of manufacturer defendants more discovery than 8 what Honeywell thought we were entitled to and I guess 9 what Optrex now believes. But we feel it is absolutely !O necessary. !1 It is very difficult to coordinate discovery !2 and we've undertaken to do that. And the idea that at this !3 point in time, Honeywell tells us what we can take and what !4 we can't take, we think that it's premature. This patent !5 has been out there for over I O years. There are witnesses

35
1 2 3 4 5

37 1 2 3 4 5

6
7

8
9 0
1

2 (3 14 15 16
17 18 19

!O
!I

!2
!3

!4
!5
-

so far, that the May 26th 2006 date is reasonable, very reasonable; but I guess a lot depends on the scheduling that we're going to set while we're on this call this morning, where it fits into the overall scheme. THE COURT: All right. Just a moment, please. (Pause.) THE COURT: All right. I'm going to come back to that at this point. Let's turn to the discovery issue which has been the subject of additional letters by both sides and commentary within the docket item. And I think I have everybody's position on this so let's keep this short. Mr. Lueck, is there anything else you need to say other than what is in the papers? MR. LUECK: Well, Your Honor, we didn't argue the point in our letter. The only points I would make is that we do not believe more discovery of the defendants will burden each of the defendants in that we will be taking discovery that is specific to the defendants and likely of no interest to others, much like the Matsushita motion that is pending. Conversely, every hour of deposition that the defendants take of Honeywell is an hour of deposition that generally will benefit all and we believe that our proposal reflects that, affords people what they need to take discovery and doesn't unduly

6
7 8

9 IO I1
12

13
14

15 16
17 18 19 LO
!1

!2 !3 !4 !5

that are all over the place. And we need, at least at this point in time, we need the ability to go out and take the depositions that we feel we absolutely have to take. There is no desire on the part of any manufacturer defendants to take more depositions than are necessary. There is certainly no desire to take duplicative discovery. And 1 have a feeling that if we start taking duplicative discovery, Honeywell's counsel is going to be before you. So at this point in time, we believe that our proposal is what we feel we need at this time. Maybe we can adjust it down; but at this point, we think that we certainly need that and we feel the issues that are specific to defendants need more time. THE COURT: All right. Well, we're going to go with the manufacturer defendants' proposal. It's impossible for me to say precisely whether they're overreaching but I have read the positions, heard your argument and it strikes me that this is a case that is complicated enough and old enough, long enough in the tooth that there is going to be a substantial amount of third-party discovery going on. So you've heard the invitation, Mr. Lueck. If they're getting out of line, you can seek the Court's assistance in dealing with any problem in that regard. And I endorse that. But we'll go with those limits the manufacturer defendants have laid out.

United States District Court - Honorable Kent A. Jordan

SHEET 11

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-3
38

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 12 of 38
40

1 All right. The discovery cutoff. Of course, 2 3b, glad to see people agreed on that. 3c, we had a disagreement on the discovery 3 4 cutoff as well. And I have the parties positions on this I 5 think pretty well in mind. We're going to go ahead and set 6 the May 30th deadline -- May 30th, 2007 as the discovery 7 cutoff. And in that regard, let me tell you that I 8 9 think that the appropriate limit for amending is going to be I O some months ahead of that. December is too near in time to I I that, Honeywell, and the date proposed by the manufacturer 12 defendants and Optrex is too close. So I'm picking 13 arbitrarily -- well, not entirely arbitrarily. I think this 14 is a fair date to pick -- July 7, 2006 as the date that you 15 should plug into paragraph 2 as the date to join other 16 parties or amend pleadings. 17 I'm happy to see that 3d is agreed to. However, 18 there is a concern here about Honeywell's suggested addition 19 in that regard. So, Mr. Rovner, are you still speaking on !O behalf of the manufacturer defendants? MR. ROWER: Yes, Your Honor. !I THE COURT: Go ahead and explain to me the !2 !3 opposition. And I'll give you a chance to -!4 MR. ROWER: It's very simple. We don't believe !5 it's necessary. We believe that Your Honor's way of doing

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9
IO

I1 12 13 14
15

16 17
18

19 !O
!1

!2 !3 !4 !5

and to make it easier for your chambers to get one uniform response is I think the only way to go and that takes time. And that's the only reason that we put those extra days in there, because it's really a chore to coordinate. I can tell you, just based on preparing for this call. THE COURT: Mr. Kelly, I take it you agree? MR. KELLY: Absolutely, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. I agree as well. This is not the typical case so we'll give you the extra time. And I'm going to take that statement that you have made there, Mr. Rovner, to heart which is I'll be getting a coordinated response and not getting 18 or 20 different letters from defendants. MR. ROWER: We're trying, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I'm happy to see there was agreement on the various points up to paragraph 6. Let me put you on hold for just a moment. (Pause.) THE COURT: When we get to paragraph 7, I'm going to have to shift things a little bit on you. The interim status conference is going to be, fittingly, on Halloween. We're going to scare each other on October 3 I, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.; and this is going to be an in-person conference. So the order will need to be changed in that regard. 1'11 look forward to seeing people in my courtroom 41

39
1 things in other cases is appropriate here. And we don't 2 believe that what they have asked for here is necessary. 3 THE COURT: Mr. Kelly? Mr. Kelly for Optrex. MR. KELLY: Your Honor, 1 agree with Mr. Rovner. 4 5 We believe that 90 days is more than enough. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Lueck. 6 MR. LUECK: Simply put, Your Honor, I think it's 7 8 an additional point that, although not obviously in every 9 patent case, will help the issues, help the parties to focus IO the issues, know what is coming up and hopefully streamline I 1 the issues that have to be presented and the expert 12 discovery as well. This could be voluminous. 13 THE COURT: All right. Well, we're going to go 14 with my standard. It's a 90-day. 15 Discovery disputes. Now, there is some feeling 16 here that you need some additional time for putting stuff 17 together. What is the issue there? Mr. Lueck, I'll give I8 you the ball first on this one. 19 MR. LUECK: I believe, Your Honor, the 48 hours !O is the standard turnaround time; and we're fine with that. !I THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Rovner. !2 MR. ROWER: Your Honor, in this situation we do !3 feel that we need to have a little bit of variation from !4 your standard order just because of the number of defendants !5 that we have to coordinate and make it easier for Honeywell 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
IO I1

12
13

14
15 16 17
18

19
10

!1

!2 !3 14 !5

on October 3 1st; okay? At 4:30. And that I will need your status reports no later than October 24th. And, of course, a coordinated response on behalf of the defense would be appreciated to the extent that is possible. Let's talk about the tutorial. What is the nature of the problem or disagreement here, Mr. Lueck? MR. LUECK: Your Honor, the dates on the one hand, and then simply that Honeywell proposes that the parties be permitted to submit a videotape of no more than 30 minutes at the hearing. This would be something in the nature of an animation to explain the technology. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Rovner. MR. ROWER: Your Honor, other than the date, our point only is that the tutorial is what Your Honor requests all the time and this seems like a double tutorial. They can videotape what they present in court. I thought, we thought that is what Your Honor wanted. This just seems like two tutorials and that is just really our objection. THE COURT: All right. Well, two for the price of one. The short answer is if they want to come into court and use their time to play a video and answer questions, that's okay with me. As far as the date goes, we're going to go ahead

United States District Court - Honorable Kent A. Jordan

SHEET 12

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-3
42

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 13 of 38
44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

and do this on December 22nd, 2006 and we'll pick it up at 9:30 a.m. All right. Looking at case dispositives. In this instance, we're going to go with the June 30th date. June 30,2007. And the briefing you proposed on the Honeywell and the manufacturer defendants' side is fine. That's the route we'll go there. Similarly, we'll go with the November 9, 2006 proposal that Honeywell and the manufacturer defendants have agreed on for paragraph 1 1. Looking at paragraph 12, our hearing on these matters is going to be -- excuse me. That's just paragraph 13. Our hearing on these matters is going to be on August 30th, 2007. We'll have that beginning at 9:30 a.m. Now, looking down at paragraph 15. I'm going to set this for a pretrial conference on December 17,2007 at 4:30 p.m. That means I'm going to need a form of pretrial order, final pretrial order no later than November 16,2007. All right. As to the issue in paragraph 16, why don't you explain to me your position. I think it's kind of obvious but I will go ahead and take your position on the record, Mr. Rovner. And Mr. Kelly, I'll let you join in or disagree, as you choose, for Optrex on handling motions in limine; which Honeywell, I take it, proposes to handle as I 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9
IO 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 !O !I !2 !3 !4 !5

plaintiff and not multiple responses. However, I will -I'm just reluctant to say, yes, go ahead and everybody can file their own because litigation being what it is, people, if given an opportunity to speak or write, typically will take it. And I will get duplicative submissions. And that's significantly unhelpful. So I will limit it with leave for people to request an opportunity to file something additional, if they have something that is truly different than the position that should be generally or is being generally taken by other defendants. So let me ask you if you folks would wordsmith that concept, if you understand what I'm getting at. Are you with me, Mr. Rovner? MR. ROWER: Yes, I am, Your Honor. THE COURT: And, Mr. Lueck, if you understand what I'm getting at, then you folks ought to be able to come up with the language that would fit in paragraph 16 on that point, please. MR. LUECK: Yes, Your Honor. We'll do so. THE COURT: All right. Now, let's talk about trial. Why don't I hand the ball to you first, Mr. Lueck, to make your pitch on behalf of the position you folks have taken. MR. LUECK: Our view of it, Your Honor, is there 45

1 typically do and you guys do not. Go ahead. MR. ROWER: Your Honor, this is Phil Rovner. 2 3 Actually, my feeling was that Honeywell was trying to 4 deviate. They wanted more coordination than we're required 5 to do. We're certainly going to try to make this a 6 coordinated response. And certainly if you narrow the trial 7 group, it's much more, it's obviously more doable to get a 8 single five-page motion in limine. But I think we would 9 want the ability or the defendant could want the ability to 10 add a page or two if their issues are different. Certainly, 11 it's the same global motion but if there is a certain fact 12 or two that plays to an individual defendant, they would 13 want the right to add to it. We do not want to overpaper 14 anything at that point at all. 15 THE COURT: Mr. Kelly, do you have anything you 16 want to add on that? MR. KELLY: No, Your Honor. 17 18 THE COURT: Mr. Lueck? 19 MR. LUECK: Yes, Your Honor. We wanted to try 20 to streamline it as much as possible. We recognize that it 21 is a departure. 22 THE COURT: Well, it's actually not so much of a 23 departure in this respect. That typically I'm not dealing 24 with 18 sets of defendants, so what I'm used to seeing is a 25 coordinated defense response to a motion in limine from the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
IO I1 12

13 14 15 16 17 18
1 9

!O
!I !2 !3 !4 !5

are more common issues than the defendants recognize and that coming into this we now have 18 groups. Seventeen of the 18 agreed to speak with one voice on this issue except with respect to the infringement claims. And looking at what we believe will be the issues in claim construction, the resolution of a large bulk of those issues, we simply would go back to our point that we do believe that the ball can be advanced in a simpler fashion than is being right now as to those issues. The other aspect of this is, Your Honor, that there is a 271 issue out there as to whether the defendants are going to come in and claim that there is no meaning to this trial because they, themselves don't enforce their manufactured products into the United States. And that's why we believe it's important to deal with that infringement issue, so that we can connect that up with the customer defendants. THE COURT: Well, let me ask, are you suggesting, sir, that if they were to lose at a trial on validity and unenforceability so that your claims were found to be valid and enforceable, that you would then somehow not be in as good a position as -- I mean that somehow affects your ability to go after people for liability? Help me understand that. I'm not sure I'm following you. MR. LUECK: I don't know that it means that we

United States District Court - Honorable Kent A. Jordan

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF SHEET 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO

Document 1059-3
46

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 14 ofMonday, March 13,200 38
48

II 12 13 14
15

16 17 I8 I9
!O

!1

!2 !3 !4 !5

can't go after them, Your Honor. It's a question of when to reach the issues in our view. And the issue on the 271 that I'm trying to explain is that the defendants have not yet taken a position as to whether they actually put the products that we're arguing about into the stream of commerce in the United States. I'm saying that the infringement trial is a necessary step to that in order to resolve that issue and actually get the actual products in front of the Court that have infringed in the U.S. THE COURT: All right. MR. LUECK: And that issue is kind of out there as a stalking horse right now, and it's one of the reasons why we believe the structure that we proposed is one that makes logical sense overall to the resolution of the case. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Rovner, you are speaking to this again? MR. ROVNER: Well, I was thinking as to how we were staging this trial and what we were putting forward in terms of validity/unenforceability and whether we thought it was a 10-day trial and whether we thought it was -- how much time we would need following the pretrial conference. I am not the spokesman on the 271 issue, if that is what you want to hear first. THE COURT: No, I want to hear on what I asked about and what you just said your position is. So if you 47

1 to be planning and scheduling around those trial dates,

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
IO I1

12 13 14
15 16 17

18
19 !O

!I !2 !3 !4

!5

January 28th to February 8,2008; 22 hours per side. That means it's going to have to be coordinated on the defense side. And I'm taking the defendants at their word that they've got common issues on these fronts and it can be coordinated, so it's going to be 22 hours per side: plaintiffs having 22 and the manufacturing defendants set having 22. All right. Now, Mr. Grimm, this is kind of a tall order, I guess, because this is more complicated than the usual thing; but I would appreciate if you folks on the plaintiffs' side would take the laboring oar and make sure that what we've discussed in this call gets into a final form that is circulated among the parties and everybody agrees that it accurately reflects what we've discussed on this call so that you can send that over to me for signature. All right? MR. GRIMM: We will do that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I appreciate everybody's time and attendance. We're finally going to get ourselves a scheduling order here. I will look forward to hearing from the Matsushita folks so we can resolve the issue you have raised in a separate call. I also look forward to hearing from the parties as soon as practicable about the issue I have raised
49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
IO I1

12 13 14
15

16 17 18
9 !O !1

!2 !3

! 4
!5

don't have anything to add, that's great, I've read your position. MR. ROVNER: Our feeling is that -- I can actually, without having talked to the group, because we have now got a trial that is going to go on validity and enforceability issues with four to five defendants, we don't feel that we're going to need six weeks between the pretrial and the trial. That was something that we built-in because of our numbers. And also, we probably would be flexible a bit on the IO-day trial. But that is really all I would need to add on that. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Kelly, you've had separate positions. I'll give you a chance to speak, if you would like, sir. MR. KELLY: Your Honor, given your decision there are going to be four or five going together, Optrex joins with what Mr. Rovner had to say. THE COURT: All right. Well, here is how this comes down. I'm going to set this for 10 days in the hopes that it can be done in less, but we'll take 10 trial days and we'll run the trial from January 28th to February 8, 2008. And, of course, by the time we get to that, we should be in a position, if things haven't otherwise resolved themselves, to know exactly who is going to be in that mix. But whoever is going to be in that mix needs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
IO I1

12 13 14
15

16
17

18 19
!O

!I !2 !3

!4 !5

which has not been resolved, and that is how do we select this group to go to trial? The thinking of anybody who is not in this group should be you're on this boat all the way to the point of pretrial. I mean I'm not absenting people from being involved in the discovery process, okay? Let me rephrase that. At least through the discovery process, I expect people to be involved. When it comes time for case dispositive motions, and those kinds of things, by then I'm going to want just a group that we're going to need to deal with. So it would be a help I'm sure to everybody if we knew sooner rather than later who that group was going to be. Let me ask you if you've got out -- first, I'll ask the manufacturer defendants. What is a reasonable time frame for me to be asking you folks to have some discussions amongst yourselves to take a position with Honeywell on? MR. ROWER: Your Honor, this is Phil Rovner. I think that if we can be given about 10 days to talk amongst ourselves, and then we can -- and I'll initiate the call with Mr. Lueck and Mr. Woods within two weeks to try to get discussions going. THE COURT: Mr. Lueck, are you comfortable with that? MR. LUECK: Yes, that's fine with us, Your

United States District Court - Honorable Kent A. Jordan

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-3
50

Filed 06/13/2008

Monday, Page 15 of 38 March 13,2006

1 Honor. THE COURT: All right. Then 1'11 look forward 2

3 to hearing from you folks. I'll give you a couple weeks to 4 deal with it after that. So I'll give you about a month, 5 and then I would like to hear from people with some kind of 6 status report that tells me your positions. All right? MR. ROVNER: Your Honor, again this is Phil 7 8 Rovner. When you say your positions, you mean in terms of 9 how we're going to decide ultimately? I just want to make 0 sure that everyone is aware of what Your Honor wants. THE COURT: Well, what 1 would like is as much 1 2 as you can give me. The ideal would be if 1 got a letter 3 that was a joint letter from everybody that said, you know 4 what? We talked about it and we think these are the four 5 folks to go to trial first on the schedule that you have 6 given us. And everybody is in agreement. That would be the 7 ideal world. But if I'm not going to get the ideal world, 8 I'd like to at least get some sense of what competing 9 proposals are or even competing ways to approach the 1 question because you may disagree on even the appropriate 0 !I way to look at this, how do I get to this smaller group. !2 So within a month, that ought to be plenty of 13 time for even this large group of defendants to speak !4 amongst themselves and then to speak to Honeywell and for !5 people's positions to be formulated and put in front of

51
1 me, I think. MR. ROVNER: That sounds good, Your Honor. 2 3 Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Well, I appreciate 4

5 6 7 8
9 IO I1 12 13
14 15

everybody's time and attendance on the call today. I'm going to put out a short order which simply notes the things that I have already stated on the record here with respect to the Nokia motion and the motion to bifurcate that was submitted by Toshiba, and good enough. We'll hear from you folks in about a month. Thanks very much. (The attorneys respond, "Thank you, Your Honor.") (Telephone conference ends at 11:13 a.m.)

16 17
18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25
I

United States District Court - Honorable Kent A. Jordan

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-3

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 16 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-3

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 17 of138

-t
I

04-1337 [z] - 1:8, 9:16 04-1338[2]- 1:14, 9:16 04-1536[1]-I:I9 05-874 [I] - 1218

1

I21 - ia:23,34:7 1 10 [5] - 29124,36:25, 47:19, 47:20, 49:19 IO-day [z] - 46:20, 47:lO 1O:OO 121 - 1122,8:23 11[I] -42:lO 11:I3 [I] 51 : I 3 12[11-42:11 13121- 1:22, 42113 1337111- 9:19 15[1]-42:15 16131 -42:19,42:20, 44:ia 160 111 - 3413 I 7 [I] 42:16 18 [14] - 2511 5,25125, 28:10, 29:1, 29:18, 2922, 30:13, 31:9, 31:18, 40:12, 43:24, 452, 45:3 19[2]-21:15,31:18

2
- 19:25, 34:10, 38:15 20 [I] 40:12 2005[31-26:12, 29:16, 29:18 2006 [6] - 1122, 3511, 38:14, 40:23, 42:1, 4218 zoo7 (51 - 38:6,42:5, 42:14, 42:16, 42:19 2008 121 47:22, 48:2 22 141 - 4812,48:6, 48:7, 48:8 22nd [I] - 42:l 24th [I] 41 :3 26th [I] 35:l 271 [3] - 45:l I , 4612, 46:22 28th [z] - 47:21, 48:2
2[3]

,

-

'

-

16:7, 1822, 18:23, 192, 19:12, 19:23, 20:2, 20:7, 20:12, 3 [I] - 2015 20:14, 32:l 30 [Z]- 41 1 1,4215 1 accurate [I] - 21:21 30th [4] - 38:6, 4214, accurately 111 - 48:15 42:14 accused [I] - 2920 31 [I] - 40:22 Actions[ii - 1.4 31st[I] - 41:l activities 121 - 18:2, 35 111 - 29:22 I a:4 3b[1]- 38:2 actual [11 - 46:8 3C [I] 38:3 add [q - 43:10, 43:13, 3d [1] - 38117 43:16, 47:1, 47:ll addition 111 - 38:18 4 additional [4] - 35:10, 39:a, 39:16,44:a 4 [I] 20:11 address(21- 14:16, &O-some[i] 29:19 2825 48[11 39:19 addressed [I] - 28:15 4:30 [3] - 40:23, 41:1, addresses 111 - 28: 17 42:17 adjust [I] - 37:11 advanced p] - 28:11, 5 28:12,45:a affects 111 - 4522 5 1 - 20:12 11 affords [1] - 3594 afternoon [I] - 9:8 6 ago [2] - 1422, 29:25 agree[4]- 17:19, 6 1 - 40:16 11 39:4, 40:6, 40:8 agreed [e]- 20:18, 7 34:8, 38:2, 38:17, 4210, 45:3 7[3]- 16:5, 3 8 ~ 4 , agreement131- 21:19, 40:19 40:16, 50:16 agrees [I] - 48:15 8 ahead [io] - 8:25, g z , 25:14,38:5, 8 121 - 47:21, 4812 38:10, 38:22, 41:25. 3th 111 - 34:2 42:22, 43:1, 44:2 a1[51-1:4, I:IO, 1.8, 1:13, 1:19 9 alerting [I] - 26:22 3 [I] - 42:8 Alexandriap]- 2:19 30 [I] 39:5 almost [2] - 29:15, 90-day [I] - 39:14 31:14 9:30 121 - 4212, 42114 alonep] - 23:2, 33:21 alter[i] - 36:5 amend[i] - 38:16 A amendedI11- 1514 Ab121- 8:10, 12:lO amending [I] - 38:9 ability 141 37:2, 43:9, America[no] - 1:15, 45:23 220, 3:21,4:11, ablepi - 26:23, 44:17 423, 6:12, 6:13, 7 5 , absenting [i]4 9 5 1214, 12:20, 13:3, Absolutely[z]- 36:7, 13:4, 13:12, 22:22, 40:7 2224, 23:1, 235, absolutely [z] - 36:19, 23:18, 24:12 37:3 amount [3] - 34:25, accept [I] - 30:7 36:13, 37:20 accomplished1111 and-a-half[I] - 31:14

-

~

-

r\nderson[q- 6 2 , 8:2, 10:14, 10:18 \ndrew[41- 2:19, 5:15, 1 0 5 , 14:19 \ndy[i] - 1215 Angeles[3] - 3:6, 3:13, 4:14 animation[I] - 41:12 answer 141 24:7, 32:25, 41:22, 41:23 apologies 111 24:17 Appearances[7] - 2: 1, 3.1, 4.1, 5:1, 6.1, 7.1, 8:l Applep] - 1:13, 5 1 2 , 10:3 appreciate 141- 16% 48:11,4a:19, 51:4 appreciated [I] - 41 :4 approach [z] 32: 19, 50:19 appropriate[31- 38:9, 39:1, 50:20 arbitrarily 121 - 38:13 argue[i] - 35:15 arguing 111 - 46:5 argument [I] - 37:17 Arimap] - 3:25, 1 4 5 , 25:23 arrays 111- 28:23 A ~ h t [ - ]215 l art[i]- 31:ll Ashby[Zl- 212,9116 aspect [I] - 4510 assertion 121 - 19:7, 20:9 assessment [I] 16:24 assigning[i] - 19:19 assistance [I] - 37:23 assume[ri- 33:25 attaching(11-34:18 ittachment [I] - 34:3 attendance [z]4820, 51 :5 attorneysp]- 51:11 \U[6] - 3121, 3121, 13:11, 13:12, 23:4 \udiovox[a] - 1:7, 722, 11:21 hgUSt[II - 42113 aware[z]- 36:3, 5O:lO

-

-

-

B
back-and-forth[I] 19:13 background [I] 33:25

-

-

Baker[6]-7:ll, 7:17, 11:6, ll:lO, 11:14, 11:17 Balick[z]- 23, 9:17 ball (31 - 39:18, 44:22, 45:7 Barry[z]- 6:6, 13:20 basedp] - 17:18, 1720, 4 0 5 Beach~n] 520,13:8 beginning [2] - 8:23, 42:14 behalf 1151- 2:13, 8:10, 10:14, 11:24, 1 2 5 , 1225, 13:7, 13:11, 15:25, 19:9, 29:6, 30:17, 3820, 41:4, 44:23 believes[i] - 36:19 below 131 - 4:4, 5:4, 6:4 below-listed[z] 4:4, 5:4 below-