Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 1 of 96

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 2 of 96

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. and HONEYWELL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES INC., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE COMPUTER, INC., et al., Defendants.
)

1
)

1
) )

1 1 1
)

C.A. No. 04-1338-KAJ (Consolidated)

1

PLAINTIFFS' ANSWERS TO CITIZEN WATCH CO., LTD. AND CITIZEN DISPLAYS CO., LTD.'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 1-9) Plaintiffs Honeywell International Inc. ("Honeywell International") and IIoneywell Intellectual Properties Inc. ("HIPI") (collectively, "Honeywell") hereby serve the following objections and responses to Defendants Citizen Watch Co., Ltd. and Citizen Displays Co., Ltd.'s ("Citizen") First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs (No. 1-9): OBJECTIONS 1. IIoneywell objects to each definition in Citizen's First Set of Interrogatories to the

extent that it is inconsistent with or imposes an obligation beyond that required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any local rule for this Court.

2.

Honeywell objects to each interrogatory in Citizen's First Set of Interrogatories to

the extent that it is inconsistent with or imposes an obligation beyond that required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any local rule for this Court 3. Honeywell objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it is unlimited in time or

scope, overly broad, unduly burdensome or not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 3 of 96

4.

Honeywell objects to each interrogatory to the extent it seeks discovery of

information or production of documents or things protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product immunity or any other privilege or immunity.

5.

Honeywell objects to each interrogatory to the extent it seeks discovery or

information or identification of documents that are a matter of public record or otherwise equally accessible to all parties.
6.

Honeywell objects to each interrogatory to the extent it seeks unrestricted access

to information or identification of documents that are protected from disclosure under a confidentiality obligation imposed by contract, by order or by understanding binding on Honeywell 7. Honeywell reserves the right to modify, supplement, add to or amend the

responses to these interrogatories to the extent required or permitted by the Federal Rulcs of Civil Procedure or any local rule of this Court.

ANSWERS INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify each Citizen product that you contend infringes any claim of the '371 patent and separately identify for each identified product the specific claim(s) that d a r e allegedly infringed and whether you contend the alleged infringement is direct (i.e., under 35 U.S.C. 5 271(a)) or indirect (i.e., under 35 U.S.C. 5 271(b) or (c)).

ANSWER:
Honeywell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for information and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege andlor work product doctrine. Honeywell further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is premature in that Honeywell has not yet received all discovery from Citizen regarding Citizen's products

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 4 of 96

Subject to and without waiving Honeywell's general and specific objections, upon information and belief, based on I-Ioneywell's unilateral investigation, Honeywell states that, for the reasons set forth more fully below, at least the following LCD module manufactured by Citizen infringes claim 3 o f the '371 patent: the K1122I-I-HL module contained in the Matsushita Phone Model X300
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Separately for each Citizen product and specific claim(s) that you identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 as being indirectly infringed under 35 U.S.C. 5 271(b) or (c), state in full your basis for contending that Citizen has induced and/or contributed to infringement o f such claim(s), describing each act performed by Citizen which allegedly induced or contributed to infringement, the direct infringement allegedly resulting from each such act (including the identity o f the Third Party committing the direct infringement),how each such act resulted in direct infringement, and the basis for your contention that Citizen intended to cause such direct infringement and/or the basis for your contention that Citizen knew that such Citizen product was especially made or especially adapted for use in such direct infringement.
ANSWER:

Honeywell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is premature in that Honeywell has not yet received full and complete discovery from Citizen that is relevant to the subject matter o f this Interrogatory, Subject to and without waiving Honeywell's general and specific objections, Honeywell states that the product identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 infringes claim 3 o f the '371 patent and was purchased in the United States. Honcywell further incorporates its response to Interrogatory No. 3 below. Honeywell's investigation is ongoing and Honeywell reserves the right to supplement this response after receipt and review o f further information,including documents and discovery responses from Citizen as well as applicable Court Orders, including orders regarding claim construction

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 5 of 96

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Separately for each Citizen product and each corresponding claim(s) that you identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, provide an infringement chart that identifies the structure of each Citizen product that you allege causes it to infringe each limitation; state whether Honeywell alleges that the limitation is literally infringed or infringed under the doctrine of equivalents; state all factual bases that support your contention that Citizen infringes and identify three (3) persons most knowledgeable about the factual bases that support your contentions of infringement; and identify all documents on which you rely to support your contentions or [sic] infringement.

ANSWER:
Honeywell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is premature in that Honeywell has not yet received full and complete discovery from Citizen that is relevant to the subject matter of this Interrogatory. Subject to and without waiving Honeywell's general and specific objections, Honeywell responds by incorporating its response to Interrogatory No. 1. In addition, Honeywell states that the K1122H-HL module literally infringes claim 3 of the '371 patent for the following reasons:

Claim 3
A display apparatus comprising: a light source; a liquid crystal panel mounted adjacent to said light source for receiving light from said light source; and first and second lens arrays, each having a plurality of individual lenslets, disposed between said light source and said liquid crystal panel for providing a predetermined variation with viewing angle of light transmission from said light source through said lens arrays and said liquid crystal panel,

The LCD module has a backlight. The LCD module has a liquid crystal panel that is mounted adjacent to the backlight and that receives light from the backlight. The LCD module includes two films, which constitute two lens arrays.

Wherein at least one of said first and second lens arrays is rotated about an axis perpendicular to said liquid crystal panel in order to provide a slight misalignment between

The lens arrays provide a predetemined variation in the transmission of light from the backlight through the lens arrays and liquid crystal panel. The variation depends upon viewing angle. Both lens arrays are rotated 10 degrees about the axis perpendicular to the liquid crystal panel, providing a slight misalignment between the lenslets and the liquid crystal panel.

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 6 of 96

/ said lenslets and said liquid crystal panel.
Honeywell states that in determining that this module infringes claim 3 of the '371 patent, Honeywell disassembled the LCD module to determine whether the product contains two or more lens arrays. If so, Honeywell determined whether one or more of the lens arrays was rotated, and if so, Honeywell measured the angle of rotation. The person most knowledgeable about Honeywell's LCD module analysis is Ted Wood Honeywell also states that all past, present, and future versions of the module Honeywell has identified as specifically accused of infringement are likely to practice claim 3 of the '371 patent, which Citizen must identify pursuant to the Court's Order of July 21,2006. This includes both generational changes and related modules adapted based on customer or end product specifications. Honeywell's investigation is ongoing, and Honeywell reserves the right to supplement this response to assert infringement of additional products after the receipt and review of further information, including documents and supplemental discovery responses from Citizen as well as applicable Court Orders, including orders regarding claim construction.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Separately for each claim of the '371 patent that you contend Citizen willfully infringes, specifically identify and describe the period of such alleged willful infringement and all factual bases for your contention; identify all documents upon which you rely or will rely on in support of the factual bases identified and identify three (3) persons most knowledgeable about the factual bases.

ANSWER:
Honeywell objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is premature in that IIoneywell has not yet received full and complete discovery from Citizen that is relevant to the subject matter of this Interrogatory. I-Ioneywell also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 7 of 96

calls for information and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege andlor work product doctrine. Honeywell states that discovery previously served on Citizen, if properly answered, would provide Honeywell with the information necessary for analyzing a number of issues posed in this Interrogatory. Subject to and without waiving Honeywell's general and specific objections, Honeywell states that at least since the filing of this suit on October 6, 2004, Citizen has been aware that Honeywell has asserted infringement against Citizen's customers for direct infringement of claim 3 of the '371 patent. To the extent Citizen continued to manufacture the accused LCD module after it received notice of infringement, it is liable for willful infringement. Honeywell's investigation is ongoing and Honeywell reserves the right to supplemcnt this response after receipt and review of further information, including discovery responses from Citizen as well as applicable Court Orders.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Separately for each Citizen product identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, state the exact date upon which you first became aware of such product or a product of a third party containing such product, identify the person who first acquired such awareness, and describe the activities taken by you to investigate whether such product or third party product containing such product infringes any claim of the '371 patent. ANSWER: Honeywell objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Honeywell also objects to this

Interrogatory to the extent it calls for information and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege andlor work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving Honeywell's general and specific objections, Honeywell first became aware of the K1122H-HL module in November 2005. In determining that this

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 8 of 96

product infringes claim 3 of the '371 patent, Honeywell disassembled the LCD module to first determine whether the product contains two or more lens arrays. If so, Honeywell then

determined whether one or more of the lens arrays was rotated, and if so, measured the angle of rotation. 'The person most knowledgeable about Honeywell's LCD module analysis is Ted Wood.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Separately, for each LCD model that Honeywell has determined does not infringe the '371 patent, identify the module, the product from which it was taken and each limitation of the claims of the '371 patent which is not infringed.

ANSWER:
Honeywell objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Honeywell further objects to this Interrogatory as calling for information protected by the attorney-client privilege andlor work product doctrine.

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Separately, for each Citizen product identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, identify all products of End Product Manufacturers which include such Citizen product.

ANSWER:
Honeywell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is in the defendants' knowledge, possession and control. and not Honeywell's. Honeywcll further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is premature in that Honeywell has not yet received all of thc discovery Honeywell has requested from the defendants that would inform Honeywell's response to this Interrogatory. Honeywell further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent the information requested is better known to third parties, including Citizen's own customers.

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 9 of 96

Honeywell further states that Matsushita identified Citizen as a supplier of LCD modules, specifically the K1122H-HL modules contained in the Matsushita Phone Model X300 MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP

OF COUNSEL,: Martin R. Lueck Matthew L. Woods Stacie E. Oberts Michael D. Okerlund Denise S. Rahne Peter N. Surdo Marta M. Chou ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P. 2800 LaSalle Plaza 800 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402-201 5 (612) 349-8500 Anthony A. Froio Marc N. Henschke Alan E. McKenna Jeremy C. McDiarmid ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P. 11 1 Huntington Avenue, Suite 1300 Boston, MA 02199 (617) 267-2300 November 6,2006
544493

Leslie A. Polizoti (&299) Maria Granovsky (114709) 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 (302) 658-9200 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Honeywell International Inc. and IIoneywell Intellectzral Properties Inc.

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 10 of 96

VERIFICATION
I, David Brafman, Assistant General Cousel, IP Litigation of Honeywell International Inc., have read the foregoing responses, know the contents thereof and state that the facts stated therein are either based upon my personal knowledge and are known by me to be true, or are not within my personal knowledge, but have been assembled by authorized employees and counsel for Honeywell International Inc. andior Honeywell Intellectual Properties Inc., and as to such facts I am informed and believe that they are true. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 5 1746, I verify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: \ h & ,2006 , &

By:

>JSJ /
David Brafman IF' Litigation

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 11 of 96

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 6, 2006, I caused to he served true and correct copies of the foregoing on the following by hand and by e-mail: John W. Shaw Monte T. Squire YOUNG CONAWAY STARGAT'I & TAYLOR LLP 1000 West Street, 17th Floor P.O. Box 391 Wilmington, DE 19899-0391 William J. Wade RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER One Rodney Square P.O. Box 551 Wilmington, DE 19899-0551

Attorneys for Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America and ST Liquid Crystal Display

Attorneys for Arima Display Corporation, Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co., and Matsushita Electrical Corporation ofAmerica

Karen L. Pascale YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP The Brandywine Building, 17th floor 1000 West Street Wilmington, DE 19801

Philip A. Rovner POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor 1313 N. Market Street P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899

Attorneys for Optrex America, Inc.

Attorneys for Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. and Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc.
David J. Margules John M. Seaman BOUCHARD MARGULES & FRIEDLANDER, P.A. 222 Delaware Ave., Suite 1400 Wilmington DE 19801

Thomas L. Halkowski FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1100 P.O. Box 1114 Wilmington, DE 19899-1114

Attorneys for Casio Computer Co., Ltd. Attorneys for Citizen Watch Co., Ltd and Citizen Displays Co., Ltd

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 12 of 96

Robert J. Katzenstein Robert Karl Beste, I11 SMITH, KATZENSTEM & FURLOW LLP 800 Delaware Avenue, 7th Floor P.O. Box 410 Wilmington, DE 19899 Attorneys for Seiko Epson Corporation Richard L. Honvitz David E. Moore POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor 1313 N. Market Street P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899 Attorneys for BOE Hydis Technology Co., Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Toppoly Optoelectronics Corp., Koninklijke Philips Electronics N. V., Philips Electronics North America Corp., Wintek Corp., Wintek Electro-Optics Corporation, Samsung SDI America, Inc. and Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.

William J. Marsden, Jr. Raymond N. Scott, Jr. FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. 919 North Market Street, Suite 1100 Wilmington DE 19899-1 114 Attorneys for International Display Technology and International Display Technology USA, Inc.

Daniel V. Folt Gary W. Lipkin DUANE MORRIS LLP 1100 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801-1246 Attorneys for InnoLux Display Corporation

I also certify that on November 6, 2006, I caused to be served true and correct copies of the foregoing on the following by e-mail: Robert C. Scheinfeld BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112 Attorneys for Hitachi Displays, Lid. Richard D. Kelly Andrew M. Ollis OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C. 1940 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 223 14 Attorneys for Optrex America, Inc.

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 13 of 96

Elizabeth A. Niemeyer FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. 901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 York M. Faulkner FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. 11955 Freedom Drive Reston, VA 20190
Attorneys for Toppoly Optoelectronics, Wintek Corp. and Wintek Electro-Optics Corporation

Stephen S. Komiczky PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 3579 Valley Centre Drive San Diego, CA 92130 Hamilton Loeb PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 875 15th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005
Attorneys for Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. and Samsung SDIAmerica, Inc.

John T. Johnson FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. Citigroup Center - 52nd Floor 153 East 53rd Street New York. NY 10022-4611
Attorneys for Casio Computer Co., Ltd.

Alan M. Grimaldi HOWREY LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401
Attorneys for Koninklijke Philips Electronics I K, and Philips Electronics North America t Corporation

John Flock KENYON & KENYON One Broadway New York, NY 10004-1050
Attorneys for Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, and ST Liquid Crystal Display Corporation

Kevin M. O'Brien BAKER & McKENZIE LLP 8 15 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20006
Attorneys for BOE Hydis Technology Co., Ltd

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 14 of 96

Robert L. I-iails, Jr. KENYON & KENYON 1500 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005-1257
Attorneys for Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, and ST Liquid Crystal Display Corporation

David J. Lender Steven J. Rizzi WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifih Avenue New York, NY 10153
Attorneys for Maisushita Electrical Industrial Co. and Matsushiia Electrical Corporation of America

Stuart Lubitz HOGAN & HARTSON LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Attorneys for Seiko Epson Corporation, Citizen Waich Co., Lid. and Citizen Displays Co., Ltd.

Lawrence Rosenthal Matthew W. Siegal STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038-4982
Attorneys for Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. and Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc.

Dan C. Hu TROP PRUNER & IIU, P.C. 1616 South Voss Road Suite 750 Houston, TX 77057-263 1
Attorneys for Arima Display Corporation

Donald R. McPhail DUANE MORRIS LLP 1667 K Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006
Attorneysfor InnoLux Display Corporation

~ & Granovsky (b4709) a

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 15 of 96

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. and HONEYWELL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES INC., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE COMPUTER, INC., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 04-1338 (KAJ) CONSOLIDATED

NOTICE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 6, 2006, copies of (1) Plaintiffs' Answers to Citizen Watch Co., Ltd. and Citizen Displays Co., Ltd.'s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-9), and (2) Plaintiffs' Objections and Responses to Defendants Citizen Watch Co., Ltd. and Citizen Displays Co., Ltd.'s First Set of Requests for Production were caused to be served upon counsel of record in the manner indicated: BY HAND & E-MAIL: John W. Shaw Monte T. Squire YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP 1000 West Street, 17th Floor P.O. Box 391 Wilmington, DE 19899-0391 Attorneys for Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America and ST Liquid Crystal Display William J. Wade RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER One Rodney Square P.O. Box 551 Wilmington, DE 19899-0551 Attorneys for Arima Display Corporation, Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co., and Matsushita Electrical Corporation of America

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 16 of 96

Karen L. Pascale YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP The Brandywine Building, 17th floor 1000 West Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Optrex America, Inc.

Philip A. Rovner POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor 1313 N. Market Street P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899 Attorneys for Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. and Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. David J. Margules John M. Seaman BOUCHARD MARGULES & FRIEDLANDER, P.A. 222 Delaware Ave., Suite 1400 Wilmington DE 19801 Attorneys for Citizen Watch Co., Ltd. and Citizen Displays Co., Ltd.

Thomas L. Halkowski FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1100 P.O. Box 1114 Wilmington, DE 19899-1114 Attorneys for Casio Computer Co., Ltd.

Robert J. Katzenstein Robert Karl Beste, III SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & FURLOW LLP 800 Delaware Avenue, 7th Floor P.O. Box 410 Wilmington, DE 19899 Attorneys for Seiko Epson Corporation

William J. Marsden, Jr. Raymond N. Scott, Jr. FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. 919 North Market Street, Suite 1100 Wilmington DE 19899-1114 Attorney for International Display Technology and International Display Technology USA, Inc.

2

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 17 of 96

Richard L. Horwitz David E. Moore POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor 1313 N. Market Street P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899 Attorneys for BOE Hydis Technology Co., Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Toppoly Optoelectronics Corp., Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Philips Electronics North America Corp., Wintek Corp., Wintek Electro-Optics Corporation, Samsung SDI America, Inc. and Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.

Daniel V. Folt Gary W. Lipkin DUANE MORRIS LLP 1100 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801-1246 Attorneys for InnoLux Display Corporation

BY E-MAIL: Robert C. Scheinfeld BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112 [email protected] Attorneys for Hitachi Displays, Ltd. Attorneys for Optrex America, Inc. Andrew M. Ollis OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C. 1940 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 [email protected]

3

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 18 of 96

Elizabeth A. Niemeyer FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. 901 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 [email protected] York M. Faulkner FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. 11955 Freedom Drive Reston, VA 20190 [email protected] Attorneys for Toppoly Optoelectronics, Wintek Corp. and Wintek Electro-Optics Corporation John T. Johnson FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. Citigroup Center - 52nd Floor 153 East 53rd Street New York, NY 10022-4611 [email protected] Attorneys for Casio Computer Co., Ltd.

Stephen S. Korniczky PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 3579 Valley Centre Drive San Diego, CA 92130 stephen [email protected] Hamilton Loeb PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 875 15th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 [email protected] Attorneys for Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. and Samsung SDI America, Inc.

Alan M. Grimaldi HOWREY LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 [email protected] Attorneys for Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., and Philips Electronics North America Corporation Kevin M. O'Brien BAKER & McKENZIE LLP 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 kevin.m.o'[email protected] Attorneys for BOE Hydis Technology Co., Ltd.

John Flock KENYON & KENYON One Broadway New York, NY 10004-1050 [email protected] Attorneys for Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, and ST Liquid Crystal Display Corporation

4

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 19 of 96

Steven J. Rizzi WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 [email protected] Attorneys for Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co. and Matsushita Electrical Corporation of America Matthew W. Siegal STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038-4982 [email protected] Attorneys for Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. and Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. Donald R. McPhail DUANE MORRIS LLP 1667 K Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 [email protected] Attorneys for InnoLux Display Corporation

Stuart Lubitz HOGAN & HARTSON LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 [email protected] Attorneys for Seiko Epson Corporation, Citizen Watch Co., Ltd. and Citizen Displays Co., Ltd.

Dan C. Hu TROP PRUNER & HU, P.C. 1616 South Voss Road Suite 750 Houston, TX 77057-2631 [email protected] Attorneys for Arima Display Corporation

5

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 20 of 96

MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP /s/ Maria Granovsky Thomas C. Grimm (#1098) Leslie A. Polizoti (#4299) Maria Granovsky (#4709) 1201 N. Market Street, 18th Floor P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 (302) 658-9200 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Honeywell International Inc. and Honeywell Intellectual Properties Inc.

OF COUNSEL: Martin R. Lueck Matthew L. Woods Stacie E. Oberts Michael D. Okerlund Denise S. Rahne Peter N. Surdo Marta M. Chou ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P. 2800 LaSalle Plaza 800 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015 (612) 349-8500 Anthony A. Froio Marc N. Henschke Alan E. McKenna Jeremy C. McDiarmid ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P. 111 Huntington Avenue, Suite 1300 Boston, MA 02199 (617) 267-2300
515565

November 6, 2006

6

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 21 of 96

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 6, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to the following: John R. Alison, Parker H. Bagley, Robert J. Benson, Robert Karl Beste, III, Elizabeth L. Brann, Christopher E. Chalsen, Hua Chen, Jay C. Chiu, Arthur G. Connolly, III, Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Francis DiGiovanni, Thomas M. Dunham, Kevin C. Ecker, Amy Elizabeth Evans, York M. Faulkner, Maxwell A. Fox, Terry D. Garnett, Christopher J. Gaspar, Alexander E. Gasser, Alan M. Grimaldi, Thomas C. Grimm, Thomas Lee Halkowski, Angie Hankins, Richard L. Horwitz, Dan C. Hu, John T. Johnson, Robert J. Katzenstein, Nelson M. Kee, Richard D. Kelly, Matthew W. King, Stephen S. Korniczky, Gary William Lipkin, Hamilton Loeb, Robert Maier, David J. Margules, David Ellis Moore, Carolyn E. Morris, Arthur I. Neustadt, Elizabeth A. Niemeyer, Kevin M. O'Brien, Andrew M. Ollis, Karen L. Pascale, Adam Wyatt Poff, Leslie A. Polizoti, Alana A. Prills, Steven J. Rizzi, Lawrence Rosenthal, Avelyn M. Ross, Philip A. Rovner, Diana M. Sangelli, Robert C. Scheinfeld, Carl E. Schlier, Chad Michael Shandler, John W. Shaw, Matthew W. Siegal, Neil P. Sirota, Monte Terrell Squire, William J. Wade, Peter J. Wied, Roderick B. Williams, Vincent K. Yip, Edward R. Yoches.

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 22 of 96

I also certify that on November 6, 2006, I caused to be served true and correct copies of the foregoing on the following by hand and by e-mail: John W. Shaw Monte T. Squire YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP 1000 West Street, 17th Floor P.O. Box 391 Wilmington, DE 19899-0391 Attorneys for Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America and ST Liquid Crystal Display William J. Wade RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER One Rodney Square, P.O. Box 551 Wilmington, DE 19899-0551 Attorneys for Arima Display Corporation, Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co., and Matsushita Electrical Corporation of America

Karen L. Pascale YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP The Brandywine Building, 17th floor 1000 West Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorney for Optrex America, Inc.

Philip A. Rovner POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor 1313 N. Market Street P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899 Attorneys for Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. and Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. David J. Margules John M. Seaman BOUCHARD MARGULES & FRIEDLANDER, P.A. 222 Delaware Ave., Suite 1400 Wilmington DE 19801 Attorneys for Citizen Watch Co., Ltd. and Citizen Displays Co., Ltd.

Thomas L. Halkowski FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1100 P.O. Box 1114 Wilmington, DE 19899-1114 Attorneys for Casio Computer Co., Ltd.

2

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 23 of 96

Robert J. Katzenstein Robert Karl Beste, III SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & FURLOW LLP 800 Delaware Avenue, 7th Floor P.O. Box 410 Wilmington, DE 19899 Attorneys for Seiko Epson Corporation Richard L. Horwitz David E. Moore POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor 1313 N. Market Street P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899 Attorneys for BOE Hydis Technology Co., Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Toppoly Optoelectronics Corp., Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Philips Electronics North America Corp., Wintek Corp., Wintek Electro-Optics Corporation, Samsung SDI America, Inc. and Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.

William J. Marsden, Jr. Raymond N. Scott, Jr. FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. 919 North Market Street, Suite 1100 Wilmington DE 19899-1114 Attorney for International Display Technology and International Display Technology USA, Inc. Daniel V. Folt Gary W. Lipkin DUANE MORRIS LLP 1100 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801-1246 Attorneys for InnoLux Display Corporation

I further certify that on November 6, 2006, I caused to be served true and correct copies of the foregoing on the following by e-mail: Robert C. Scheinfeld BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112 [email protected] Attorneys for Hitachi Displays, Ltd. Attorneys for Optrex America, Inc. Andrew M. Ollis OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C. 1940 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 [email protected]

3

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 24 of 96

Elizabeth A. Niemeyer FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. 901 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 [email protected] York M. Faulkner FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. 11955 Freedom Drive Reston, VA 20190 [email protected] Attorneys for Toppoly Optoelectronics, Wintek Corp. and Wintek Electro-Optics Corporation John T. Johnson FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. Citigroup Center - 52nd Floor 153 East 53rd Street New York, NY 10022-4611 [email protected] Attorneys for Casio Computer Co., Ltd.

Stephen S. Korniczky PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 3579 Valley Centre Drive San Diego, CA 92130 stephen [email protected] Hamilton Loeb PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 875 15th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 [email protected] Attorneys for Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. and Samsung SDI America, Inc.

Alan M. Grimaldi HOWREY LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 [email protected] Attorneys for Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., and Philips Electronics North America Corporation Kevin M. O'Brien BAKER & McKENZIE LLP 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 kevin.m.o'[email protected] Attorneys for BOE Hydis Technology Co., Ltd.

John Flock KENYON & KENYON One Broadway New York, NY 10004-1050 [email protected] Attorneys for Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, and ST Liquid Crystal Display Corporation

4

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 25 of 96

Steven J. Rizzi WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 [email protected] Attorneys for Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co. and Matsushita Electrical Corporation of America Matthew W. Siegal STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038-4982 [email protected] Attorneys for Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. and Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. Donald R. McPhail DUANE MORRIS LLP 1667 K Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 Attorneys for InnoLux Display Corporation

Stuart Lubitz HOGAN & HARTSON LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 [email protected] Attorneys for Seiko Epson Corporation, Citizen Watch Co., Ltd. and Citizen Displays Co., Ltd.

Dan C. Hu TROP PRUNER & HU, P.C. 1616 South Voss Road Suite 750 Houston, TX 77057-2631 [email protected] Attorney for Arima Display Corporation

/s/ Maria Granovsky Maria Granovsky (#4709) [email protected]
515565

5

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 26 of 96

VERIFICATION
/

I, David Brafinan, Assistant General Cousel, P Litigation of Honeywell International Inc., have read the foregoing responses, know the contents thereof and state that the facts stated therein are either based upon my personal knowledge and are known by me to be true, or are not within my personal knowledge, but have been assembled by authorized employees and counsel for Honeywell International Inc. and/or Honeywell Intellectual Properties Inc., and as to such m facts I a informed and believe that they are true. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 9 1746,I verify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United S a e that the foregoing is true and correct. tts
I
I

Date:

2006

HONEYWl2LL INTERNATIONAL INC.

.
By: David Brafinan

c-

IP Litigation

MP3 20180783.1 520 tU6

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 27 of 96

EXHIBIT B
FULLY REDACTED

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 28 of 96

EXHIBIT C

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 29 of 96

I

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

I

MATTHEW WOODS L.
612-349-8272

May 27,2005 Via E-Mail

ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD Re: Honeywell International Inc., et al. v. Audiovox Communications Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 04-1337 (KAJ) Honeywell International Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 04-1338 (KAJ) Optrex America, Inc. v. Honeywell International Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 04-1536 (KAJ) Our File No. 019896-0229

Dear Counsel: As you know, since November of 2004, Honeywell has always identified the bases for its infringement claim in response to requests from individual defendants. As a result, Honeywell was dismayed when the defendants represented to the Court that Honeywell had not "stepped up" and informed them which products were being accused of infringement. In order to avoid any further inaccuracies in the record, we thought it would be worthwhile to consolidate the information previously provided to individual defendants in one global letter to all defendants. For many parties, the information below is redundant of information already provided. Given the Court's direction that the case be reconfigured as a case against the LCD Module Suppliers, we have also identified specific LCD module models, where such information is available. Viewed from the perspective of the end product manufacturers, Honeywell has confirmed that the following products practice at least Claim 3 of the `371 patent, and, if not licensed, infringe that patent:
Apple: Notebook models Powerbook G4, i book G4 12-inch. Areus: Camera models DC3640, DC3520, DC1730.

- Phone model 4100. ACC:

A T

L A N

T

A , B

0 S

T

0 N . L

O S

A N G E L

E S

M

I N N

E A P

0 L I S

N A P

L E S . S A

I

N

T

P

A

U L . W

A

S H

I N

G T 0 N .

D . C

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 30 of 96

ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD May 27,2005 Page 3 Viewed from the perspective of the LCD module suppliers, Honeywell has confirmed that the following LCD modules practice at least Claim 3 of the '371 patent, and, if not licensed, infringe that patent:
ArimaDisplav: part number MC 16G03A.

- part numbers AO15AN02, AO15AN03, B121EWO1. AU: - part numbers 3L15DD052741, 3Y0325721, 3H16ACB000374, 4B Casio: - part number CLAA150XHOl. CPT:

1 8 0 0 0 7 147, 4A16AWB725030, 3L16ARD009138, 3E16ZB 109369, 9H25AEB27418, 3D16RD150663, 4D25ADN02731.

Seiko Epson: part numbers 2F0145P00, CV90-1216-01, L2F0011 S5, L2F50011, L2F500.. ., L2F50 126. Giantplus: part number 30703941. Hannstar: part number HSD150PXll-B. Hitachi: part numbers 05D97VMB42HY 05D96VMR42TY 05D97VMB415, TX39D89VC1FAAY TX06D16MlEA4, TX41D97VClHAA.
ID Tech: part numbers AXGOlA, N141X7-LO4, N150X4-LO1 LG Phillips: part numbers LBO7OWO2, LP154WO1, LP15OXO8, LP171WO1, LP171WO2.

-part numbers NL2432HC22-23B, 35FF007-A. NEC:
Optrex: part numbers F-5 1629, F5 1719AA. Panasonic: part number EDTCA32QSF. Ouanta: part numbers QD 141XlLH03, QD 141X1LH12, QD 14FLL07, QD 15XL06. Samsung: part numbers LTNl52W5-LO2, LTNl54Xl-LO1 , LTS350Q1-PE1, LTNl54X1-LO2, LTNl7OWX-L03, LTN 154P 1. SamsungI SDI: part numbers LJ41-02032AY LJ41-01753A. Sanyo: part numbers 127CLxD, 127CLXD 345F06EY 127CLXE 329A05AY 127CLXE.

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 31 of 96

ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD May 27,2005 Page 2

- DVD player model D1210. AEC:
Casio: Portable television models EV680, EV570, and SY3OC; PDA model EG800. Concord: Camera model 43602.

- Notebook models Inspiron 8600, PPO2X, Inspiron I8000 PPO1, Inspiron 600M, Inspiron Dell:
700M, Inspiron 9200.
Fuji: Camera models A210, S3000.

Fuiitsu: Notebook models Lifebook N5010, Lifebook P1120.

Kodak: Camera models CX 6230, DX 4530, Easy-Share CX 4230. Kyocera: Phone models Kyocera 7135, KX 414, SE47; Camera model SL300R. Matsushita: Phone models G51M, X70; Notebook model Toughbook Y2. Navman: Portable navigation devices PiN Pocket PC, iCN510 Pocket PC. Nikon: Camera models Coolpix 2100, Coolpix 3100. Nokia: Phone models 3650,3600,3620,3660, NGage QD, 6600,6620, NGAGE. Olympus: Camera models C740U2, Stylus 300. Pentax: Camera models OptioS4i, OptioS40. Sanyo: Phone models SCP 7300, SCP 8100, SCP 5500.
Sony: PDA models PEG-TJ27, PEG SJ33, DSCP32; Notebook model PCG-TR3A. PCGV505EX; DVD models DW-FX700, MV71OlDS, MV65ST; Camera models DSCP72; FD83.

Sony Ericsson: Phone model 2200.

Toshiba: PDA model E805; Notebook models M205S810, P25S520; DVD model SD P2500.

***

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 32 of 96

ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD May 27,2005 Page 4
Sharp: part numbers LSOl5A3GS03, LS040V7DD02, LQ106KlLA01, LQ154MlLW02, LQ121XlLS30, LM15SGFNZO7, LS021B8UB03AY LS021B8UB02GY LS021BU803A, RLCO048AFZZyLQ150UlH22, LS040V7DDO1, LQ154MlLM02. ST-LCD: part numbers ACX507ALQ-2(A), ACX507ALZ-2, ACX3 16AKM-8, ACX509AKM7, ACX3 13EKM-7, ACX309AKB-2. TM-Display: part numbers LTD121KM1KYLTM09C362, LTD121EA4XYY TFD70W82AY LTM09C362EY LTP234QV-C01, LTD- 141EM3MY LTM1OC32OS, LTD 121EA41, LTD 121KAOS, LTM09C362V. Toppoly: part number TD035SHEB4. Wintek: part number 3Y0325721.

Unknown LCD module supplier(s1: part numbers A0367104-A7, LP8745A, AAOlB 0463T1DO, CV90-13161-01BY LP8658-B, GML0385A.

***
Given what appears to be widespread infringement throughout the industry, Honeywell reasonably believes that these two lists are by no means a comprehensive list of infringing products for any party. Honeywell's infringement assertion against the parties in the above referenced actions relates to all portable electronic devices manufactured or sold by individual parties that contain LCD modules which practice the claimed invention or, in the case of module suppliers, those infringing LCD modules themselves. Suffice it to say that any and all products which use the LCD modules identified above, or any similar module (e.g., a light source, an LCD panel and two lens arrays, one of which is misaligned) will be the subject of Honeywell's infiingement claim. Information regarding additional infringing products manufactured or sold by the parties in these actions will be identified during the discovery phase of this litigation after the defendants have provided information regarding their product lists and the components used in those products. Very truly yours, ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.

Matthew L. Woods MLWIms

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 33 of 96

ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD May 27,2005 Page 5
C : Martin R. Lueck Thomas G. G r i m (via e-mail) Steven J. Balick (via e-mail)

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 34 of 96

ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD May 27,2005 Page 6 bc: Anthony A. Froio Marc N. Henschke Stacie C. Oberts

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 35 of 96

From: To: Date: Subject: America Dear Counsel:

Mary Ann Schumacher Apple, Optrex Counsel; Audiovox Counsel 5/27/2005 4:23:41 PM Honeywell, et al. v. Apple Computer, et al., Audiovox Communications, et al. & Optrex

Attached please find correspondence from Matthew L. Woods regarding the above files.

Mary Ann Schumacher Legal Administrative Assistant to Matthew L. Woods and Sonya C. Seidl 612-349-8552 fax: 612-339-4181 e-mail: [email protected]

cc:

Lueck, Martin R.; [email protected]; [email protected]

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 36 of 96

EXHIBIT D

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
:

Document 1059-2

SHEET 1

--

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 37 of 96 September 9,2005 Friday,
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

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

9
10

..................................
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al. Plaintiffs,

Defendants.

11
12
V.

13

APPLE COMPUTER, INC., et al.,
14

NO. 04-1338 (KAJ) Defendants.

15 16 17 18 19 20

- - -

Wilmington, DE aware Friday, September 9, 2005 at 10:40 a.m. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

BEFORE :

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

- - APPEARANCES: ASHBY & GEDDES BY: STEVEN J. BALICK, ESQ and

21 22 23 24 25

Brian P. Gaffigan Registered Merit Reporter

_

_

_

~

United States District Court for the District of Delaware Before the Honorable Kent A. Jordan

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 38 of 96

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
=

Document 1059-2
2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 39 of 96 September 9,2005 Friday,

SHEET 2

~

1

APPEARANCES:

(Continued)

1
2

RpPEARANCES:

(Continued)

0

2
3

MORRTS NlCHOLS ARSHT 6 TUNNEL?. BY: TU C. O R I W . ESQ.,

3

XITSB 6 RICHAQDSON. P.C. BY: TW-S L. -OWSXT,

ESQ.

a

and

4 5

Counsel for Nakie. Inc.. Casio. Inc., C i i s i o computer a & apple computer 1°C. " and

6
7

(Minneapolis, Lonneootn1
and

7
B

a
9

FISH 6 RICHI(RDSO)I, P.C. BY: JOHN T. JOHNSON. ESP.. and lgwlS E. WUDNELL, Til, ESQ. (New iork, New Yorkl

HONEYWELL TNTERNRTlONlil BY: 3 . DAVID B m , ESQ.
Counliel on behalf of Honeywell *nternaLional. Inc.. and Honeywell lnrelleorual Properties. Tnc.

9

counss1 for casio, inn., casio cmmputer
and
fTS" 6 RTC-SON. P.C. BY: I(ELLY C . KVNSIIKER, ESQ. IRedxood City, C s l i f o m i a l

10

10
I1

11
12

12
13

13

counsei for apple CoFQuter inc.
and

14
15
16
BY:

I4
15 MOOAN 6 SXRTSON, LLP ROBERT J. BENSON, ESQ. (loa mge1es. California1 Counsel for Seiko Epson C o w . , uyocera Wireleas corp.
YOUNG S*ARG?.TT L BY: JORN W . S m W . ESQ.

FISH
BY:

15
17
18

P.C. ULliREN A. DEDNAN. ESQ. iWaahingkon, District o f Columbia)
6 RTCiaPaSOII,

17

Counsel for N o k i a . Tnc.
RICHAQDS m Y T O N 6 FINDER BY: C X X M . S-mR, ESQ.
and

la
19 20 21 22 23 24 25

co-x

19

TATLOR
20

Counsel for oiympus corporation, olympun -rima, inc.. s o w corporation, m sony corporation of America n d
and

21

-s I
BY:

22
23

BEACH, LIP N E U 1. SLIFXIN, E S Q . ( P i t t r f o r d , New Yorkl

Counsel for Eatitman Kodak

24
25

e
I
2

5

1
2

IIPPERRANCES:

(Continuedl

3

KENYON 6 KENYON BY: ROBERT L. WUL.5. ESQ. (Wa.hington, District Of Columbia1
and

3

BX:

POTTER ANDERSON 6 CORRWII, LLP RICWLRD 1. HORWITZ, ESQ.
covnsei tor Concord canens. Dell, rno. Rijitliu LinUted, R i j i t s u America, In=., hijitsu Computer PrOdnCta Of America, In-., Toshiba Corporation. Toshiba America, Tnc., Wlnrek Electro-CmCica Cemoration. Sanvo

4
5

6
7

KENYON 6 KENYON BY: JOXN FLOCK, ESQ. (New York, Ner York)

a
9

Counsel f o r Sony Corporation. and Sony corporation O -erica f
and

9

and

10
11
12

Counsel f o r O l w u s Corpoiation. and
O l ~ U America, Trio. S

12 13

Counsel f o r N i k a n Corporation. Nikon Ino.
and

13
14
15

RICHARDS IaYTON h FTNGER BX: WllZlAM 3 . W E . ESQ.
and

14

15

KATTEN MUCXlN R O S E W BY: MICHREL A. DO ESQ. (Chicago, Illinois1

16
17
WETI. MTSHIII. b MlUiGES BY: STEPWEN J. P I I Z Z I , ESQ.

16
I7

C o u n ~ e lfor Sanyo Elaseric C o . I t d . and Sanyo North America
end

(New Pork. New York)

in
counsel for MafSuShifa Ele.triE.1
19
20 Industrial Co. And Mnksushita Eieotical corporation of America

18

19 20

OSLON SPlVAK MECLELUIND M I 6 NEUSTADT, R m BY: WZL E. SCHLIER, ESQ. (Alexandria. viiglnial

P.C

Counsel for Toahiba America 21 21

0

and
22 23 24 25
22

23 24

VlNSON 6 ELKltiS BP: RODERICK 8 . WILLIAMS, ESQ.

(avscin,

~axasi

Counsel for Dell, 1°C.

United States District Court for the District of Delaware Before the Honorable Kent A. Jordan

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
~

SHEET 3

-

Document 1059-2
6

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 40 of 96 September 9,2005 Friday,
8

a
LO

counsel for Wintsk Electro-Optics
C0rpOratio.l

11
ad "

12 13
14
HOWREY SIMON W O L D 6 WHITE, U P BY: AmN M. GRTMRI-DI, and NELSON M . KEE. ESQ.

(Washington, DiStXiEt of Columbia1
Counsel for Philips Elastionica
NOiQrth -erica

15
16

corp.

and

21 22 BY:
COliCOBn uu(EwA CORE SCOTT I. W E S T . E S P . (Hollyrood, F l o r i d a )

Counsel for Concord c-ra

21 . 25

a
1 2
3
4 BY: RPPEAPAwCES:

7

9
9

(Continued)

SACCHNOFF 6 -VEX B l Rm D. ROCHE, ESQ.

lfhioago, Illinois)
Couneel for Rrgur a/k/a Hartford C O m p Y f e r Oraup, =no.
W T T e R r n E R S 0 N 6 CORRWN, LLP PHTLiP A. RO-R, ESP.

5

6
7
BY:

8

and

counsel cor

12 13
Irl

And

mji Photo Film C o . , Led mji Photo frlm U.S.A. IDC.

. .

DVANx MOPRis BY: 0 . JOSEPH ENGLISH, ESQ. (Washington, District Of COlumbiDl

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19

20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT Counsel, this is Judge Jordan. I apologize keeping you waiting. The folks who were in the queue ahead of you exceeded their allotted time but we were able to work some things out and 1 appreciate your patience. Why don't we go ahead and I'll get a roll call from you folks of who is on the line and who you represent. Okay? Let's start with the plaintiff. MR. GRIMM: Good morning, Your Honor. It's Tom Grimm at Morris Nichols for Honeywell. On the line with me today; first, Your Honor may recall Honeywell filed two separate actions so on the line with me also is John Day of the Ashby & Geddes firm. Our co-counsel on the line with us this morning are Martin Lueck, Matt Woods and Stacie Roberts at the Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi firm. And also on the line this morning with us is David Brafman, Intellectual Property counsel for Honeywell. And that's for all plaintiff Honeywell. THE COURT All right. Let's just start down the list of defendants. Go ahead. MR. HORWITZ: Your Honor, this is Rich llorwitz at Potter Anderson on behalf of a number of defendants. And with me on the line,1'11 go through the list. THE COURT Well, you need to tell me which defendants you are here for. I h o w this is --

U n i t e d States District Court for the District of D e l a w a r e Before the H o n o r a b l e Kent A. J o r d a n

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 41 ofFriday, Sepiember 9. 2004 96

MR. HORWITZ: That's fine. I'm on the line for

1 & English on behalf of Audiovox Electronics Corporation. MR. POFF Your Honor, Adam Poff from Young 3 Conaway on behalf of the Pentax defendants. And also 4 Michael Fink from Greenblum and Bernstein on behalf of

5 6 7 8 9

11
13

17 I8 19
21 23 25

for Philips, Alan Crimaldi and Nelson Kee; for Fujitsu, Christopher Chalsen; for Sanyo, Michael Dorfman; for Toshiba, Carl Schlier; for Nikon, Barry Graham; for Wintek York Faulkner, We are on alone for Concord Camera. And for Samsung SDI, Stephen Korniczky. MR. LAMPERT One correction. This is Scott Lampert for Concord Camera. MR. HORWITZ: I'm sorry, Scott. I didn't realize you were on. THE COURT All right. Thanks. Is there anybody else on? MR. WADE Your Honor, it's Bill Wade at Richards Layton & Finger; and I'm on for the Matsushita defendants along with Steve Rizzi and perhaps David Lender from Weil, Gotshal& Manges. MR. BENSON: Your Honor, this is Robert Benson of Hogan & Hartson on for Seiko Epson and Kyocera Wireless. MR. KATZENSTEIN Your Honor, this is Robert Katzenstein. I'm Mr. Benson's local counsel. MR. HALKOWSKI: Your Honor, this is Tom Halkowki on behalf ofNokia, Apple and Casio. And with me

MR. SHAW Your Honor; John Shaw for the Olympus 7 and Sony defendants, and 1 believe Richard Rosati and Bob 8 Hails is for Olympus. MR. ROSATI: Rich Rosati for Olympus. MR. SHAW: And Bob Hails is for the Sony MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, James Olsen from 14 Connolly Bove for the Sony Ericsson defendants. MR. ENGLISH: Your Honor, this is Joe English 16 from Duane Morris on behalf of Audiovox Communications Corp. THE COURT And do we have anybody else on? MR. FLOCK: Your Honor, this is John Flock from 19 Kenyon & Kenyon, also on for Sony corporation. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. PASCALE: Your Honor, this is Karen Pascale 22 from Bouchard Margules & Friedlander for Optrex America 23 which is the named plaintiffs in the 04-1536 action; and on 24 the line with me is Andrew Ollis from the Oblong Spivack

I on the line on behalf ofNokia is Lauren Degnan; and on 2 behalf of Apple, Kelly Hunsaker; and on behalf of Casio: 3 John Johnson and Lewis Hudnell. Thank you. THE COURT All right. MR. ROWER: Your Honor, this is Phil Rovner for 6 the Fuji Photo Film defendant. With me on the line is L a q 7 Rosenthal from Stroock Stroock & Lavan in New York. THE COURT Okay. MR. ROCHE Your Honor, Brian Roche in Chicago I O for Hartford Computer Group. THE COURT And is somebody on with you, sir, as 12 local counsel? MR. ROCHE: No. THE COURT: Have you arranged for local counsel? MR. ROCHE: Yes, we have local counsel from 16 Cross & Simon. THE COURT: All right. Typically, we look for 18 those folks to he on those calls too unless excused. But 19 thanks for identifying yourself.
MR. SHANDLER: Your Honor, Chad Shandler for 22 Richard Layton for Eastman Kodak. With me on the line is THE COURT Anybody else? MR. WALSH: Your Honor, Tom Walsh with McCarter

THE COURT: Okay. Do I have anybody else?

7 8 9 10 1I
13 14 I5
16

We are together because in spite of what I thought was pretty clear direction a few months ago, we still haven't been able to get plaintiffs and defendants moving forward on this case, and I received a letter on August 22nd from Mr. Grimm saying, "hey, since our correspondence to you in June, we're still at odds." So, I've taken a look at the correspondence but why don't I give you a chance to tell me what you think the points in dispute are that can't he resolved without my intervention so we can get a scheduling order in place: short of me just imposing one. Who is speaking on behalf of the plaintiffs on
MR. GRIMM: Your Honor, this is Tom Grimm,

THE COURT Mr. Lueck. MR. LUECK: Good morning, Your Honor. I think I 24 can give you a snapshot here of where we've made progress, 25 where we haven't and I think give the Court an idea of how

U n i t e d States District Court for the District of Delaware Before the Honorable Kent A. Jordan

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

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 42 ofFriday, September 9,2005 96
16

/I
1 three ofthe defendants, Nikon, Concord Camera and Fuji. 1

14 1 we might be able to resolve the logjam so we can transition 2 this case from the customer defendants to the module maker

5 6 7
8 9 IO I1 12 13
14

15
17

I8
20 21 22 23 24 25

Basically, what we have asked for in discovery from the customer defendants is a list of all products sold in the United States in the categories that are set forth in the complaint going back from October 6th, 1998 to the present. And we've asked for the identity of a module ma!ier for each of those products and the LCD module model number. And the reason we've asked for that information is so that we can match up the LCD modules that were manufactured overseas to the end products that were actually imported into the United States and sold because those are the ones that are going to be at issue for both liability and ultimately, down the road, damage. THE COURT All right. I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Lueck. Five it to me one more time. What is it that you specifically asked for in discovery? MR.LUECK: What !vetre asking for is a list of all --and let me just back up. This is for the customer defendants. A list of all products sold in the United States in the categories set forth in the complaint from October 6th, 1998to the present. And that's consistent with the patent statute of limitations, six years back from the date of filings of the complaint. The products.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13
14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

believe we're close to resolving it with Nokia and Olympus but were unable to make progess with the others. THE COURT: All right. And what is the basis of your agreement with the ones you have resolved it with? MR. LUECK: In essence, Your Honor, they have agreed to provide us that infomation: A historical list of products going back to 1998, the identity of the module maker for each product and the LCD module number that is in the product. THE COURT: All right. And is that really the heart of the dispute? Is there some other thing going on that Ineed to know about or is this really a kind of an Alphonse-and-Gaston thing about who goes through the door first? MR.LUECK: Yes, I think that is correctly summarized, Your Honor. I believe if we can resolve this issue, we can make a lot of progress to resolving everything else. THE COURT Okay. Who wants to take this up in the first instance for the defendants? MR. HORWITZ: Your Honor, this is Rich Horwitz. I think that you have captured what the main dispute is and, really, it boils down to who should go first. Based on what Your Honor told us when we were in

THE COURT All right. Now, before you go 2 further, let me ask you what I took it to be the other 3 side's position and just have you respond to it directly. 1 think they were saying to saying to me, these 5 guys should be identifying the products they think infringe 6 in the first instance. Am Iright that that is a point of 7 contention or am I wrong about that? MR. LUECK You are correct, Your Honor, as to 9 some of the defendants. THE COURT What is your response? MR. LUECK Our response to that is we have 12 identified all of the products that we have purchased and 13 torn down and found specific instances of infringement. 14 We're unable to buy every product that is out there, and in I5 fact for the products that are in the past, we have no idea 16 whether we would have all of those or not have all of them. I7 And we don't believe on a going-forward basis, it should he 18 our burden to buy every single product of every single 19 company, tear it down and then make an individual charge of 20 infringement. 21 We have given them all the information we have 22 to date. And, in addition, we have offered to tear down 23 any products they want to send us and we will give them a 24 response on the results of that tear-down. And that really 25 is the logjam right there. We have resolved that issue with

1 front of you, I think we quoted the language from the 2 transcript where we think it's their obligation to come 3 first as the plaintiff charging infringement. There may be some defendants who want to speak 5 specifically because the burdens on defendants are different 6 depending on how many products fall within the eight 7 categories that were mentioned in the complaint for the time 8 period that we're talking about here, to reach back and grab 9 things for plaintiff with no firm charge of infringement. IO And 1 think that is the nub of the controversy. There are some other issues that haven't been 12 discussed yet today that plaintiff raised in its submissions 13 and we responded to that we thought were outside the scope 14 of what the Court ordered, but that is kind of a collateral 15 matter to the main issue which is the one that you have been
18 that they should be able to jump in at this point, if they 19 want to add argument on their specific circumstances. THE COURT: Okay. Who wants to speak? Don't be

MR. GRAHAM: Your Honor, this is Barry Graham 23 for the Nikon defendants. And I hope everyone can hear me 24 well. I had to be on a cell phone today. As Mr. Lueck acknowledged, which I appreciate,

United States District Court for the District of D e l a w a r e Before the Honorable Kent A. Jordan

1 2 3 4

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
SHEET 6

-

Document 1059-2

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 43 of 96 September 9,2005 Friday,

5 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 13 14
I5 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

18 that Nikon has resolved, has given Honeywell what it asked for. We gave them specific information in July, and the way I read the Court's May 18th order. Nikon and other customer defendants were under basically a conditional stay. And I would like, at least for Nikon, and there may be others, to ask the Court to change the conditional stay into a real stay while the other parties resolve their differences with the plaintiff. THE COURT All right. Does anybody else want tospeak? MR. ROSENTHAL Your Honor, this is Lawrence Rosenthal for Fuji. In fairness to the other defendants who still have this dispute, as you may recall, Fuji asked the Court to limit the case to the eight categories. Honeywell has now conceded that is what the case is limited to. And if the case is limited to eight categories, this case becomes a single product case for Fuji and the burden became finite and easy to satis&. I think you will hear from other defendants that that is not the case. THE COURT: Is there anybody else? MR.RIZZI: Your Honor, this is Stephen Rizzi of Weil Gotshal for the Matsushita defendants. Just to give you a sense of an example where we're not similarly situated to some of these defendants

20 I Mr. Lueck, back to you. I'll give you a chance to rebut. MR. LUECK: Thank you, Your Honor. Basically 3 it's hard for me to understand how the burden could be 4 greater on the defendants to provide this information than 5 on Honeywell to go out and try to uncover every product that 6 each of these defendants have sold in the past. THE COURT Well, wait. I've got to wrestle 8 with you on that premise because at the start, I moved from 9 the baseline understanding that the way our adversary system I works is you learn of something that tells you you've been O I I wronged and then you go and you draft a complaint that 12 identifies that wrong and you come to court and you bring 13 somebody in to answer for that wrong. So when you start by 14 saying, gee, let's look at who has got the greater burden I5 here, why is it the burden of defendants in the first 16 instance to tell you everything they ever made with an LCD 17 module in it when there's apparently a reluctance or 18 unwillingness or inability on your part in the first 19 instance to make a c a e that a product actually does 22 23 24 25 I'm probably giving away the way I'm thinking right now, aren't I? I'm having a real problem with the fundamental premise with your argument which is "e think there is other stuff out there that infringes and we want to know everything you made in the last six years so we can

19
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I O I1

21
1 decide whether we got a case against you or not. That just 2 isn't how it works. MR. LUECK: Well, Your Honor, I believe we have 4 made that showing. And what we have done is we've gone out 5 and bought a large number of products from a wide range of 6 customers or end manufacturing defendants. We've tom them 7 down. We've given the defendants detailed information on 8 what we believe is the infringement. We identified the 9 eight product ranges where we found it. The modules come from module makers overseas. I 1 We have no access to those individuals. And I think we've 12 satisfied our Rule 11 burden, we satisfied the pleading 13 burden on it, and then it becomes an issue of whether or 14 not this is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible 15 information, which we believe it is, and then it is an issue 16 of looking at the relative burdens. And in our view on 17 burden; we have a right to recover for damages going six 18 years back from the date of the complaint. These models 19 change rapidly and often. And we simply have no access to 20 records that would show us what those models have been. THE COURT Well, let me ask this, because 22 maybe we're talking past each other. When you say you have 23 satisfied your initial burden, is the assertion that you are 24 making that we have identified products, we've told them the 25 products that infringe and the only question is whether,

12 13 14 15 16 I7
18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

like Nikon and Fuji, Matsushita is a very diverse electronics company and has products that span many of the categories. And if you literately consider going back six years, all LCD-containing products in those categories, there are hundreds, if not perhaps more than a thousand products in this action. Honeywell has identified three products of Matsushita that are accused of infringement. We, months ago, told Honeywell who the LCD suppliers are for those products: two cell phones and one laptop. And just as sort of a fundamental matter of discovery and burden shifting. we don't believe that identification ofthree products justifies discovery of hundreds, if not perhaps a thousand products that may or may not be accused of infringement. The burden is squarely on Honeywell to identify which products they believe infringe and the case should be framed around those products. And we do not believe that merely identifying three products justifies essentially a fishing expedition into all products going backs six years which could number well into the hundreds, if not more. THE COURT Okay. I got you. Does anybody else feel like they want to say something? (Pause.) THE COURT All right. Hearing nothing,

United States District Court for the District of Delaware Before the Honorable Kent A. Jordan

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 1059-2
ii

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 44 ofFriday, September 9, 2005 96

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9

IO
II 12 13 14
15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25
~

through various generations of different models of this product, somehow there is some difference? Or is there something else going on that I'm not getting. MR. LUECK: No: I think you have captured it. We've identified what the products are that have infringed and we've specified what those types of products are and we've given them specific model numbers as to ones we've been able to purchase and tear down, hut that doesn't mean that we know all of the generations of those products that they have introduced in the past. THE COURT All right. I'm going to ask the gentleman who spoke on behalf of Matsushita, the Weil Gotshal attorney if he wl speak up at this point and il answer that point, which is: Hey, we're not just on some wholesale fishing expedition. We've identified a product and a product line and we just need to know the different model numbers in that product line so that we're sure that we've had a chance to investigate this product thoroughly, which is what I understand MI. Lueck to be saying, What is your response to that? MR. BRAFMAN: Your Honor,