Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:O4—cv—O1337-JJF Document 345 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 1* of 2
I FIRMUIMI/IFFILIATE OFFICES
V NEW YORK
LONDON
SINGAPORE
LOS ANGELES
MATT Ne1DeRrv1AN ggfgfii,
DIRECT DIAL: 3026574920 HAND,
PERSONAL FAX; 302.597.2542· PHILADELPHIA
E-MAIL: [email protected] SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANClSCO
`WWW.(l1lal1E77ZOI’}'lS.COI71 BALTIMORE
BOSTON
j September 17, 2008 DC
ATLANTA
il;/l$'];EURGH
VIA HAND DELIVERY NEWARK
BOCA RATON
'Ihe Honorable Vincent]. Poppiti N
Blaiulli ROIHS LLP LAKE mnoe
j 1201 North Market Street, Suite 800 HO °“‘M‘“"*‘ my
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: Honeywell International Inc., et al. tr Apple Computer, Inc., et al.
{ C.A. Nos. 04-1337-| |F, 04-1338-| IF
r
Dear Judge Poppiti:
We write on behalf of InnoLux Display Corporation in response to the points raised in Mr.
t Grimm’s letter to you of earlier today forwarding certain documents referenced by Mr. Froio during
yesterday s telephonic hearing.
\With respect to Mr. Rovner’s letter of October 24, 2006, there is no statement or assertion
therein that InnoLux was refusing or had refused to provide discovery to Honeywell because of its
pending motion to dismiss. Rather, the docket for this case clearly shows that Honeywell had
served no requests for any discovery on InnoLux as of October 24, 2006. Mr. Rovner’s letter simply
notes, correctly, that InnoLux had not engaged in any discovery, jurisdictional or otherwise, up to
the date of his letter — indeed, had Innolsux engaged in discovery at that time, Honeywell would
certainly have asserted that InnoLux had waived its personal jurisdiction defense (much as it did in
j May of this year when Innolsux filed a claim construction brief).
I Wth respect to InnoI.ux’s reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss, we submit that Mr.
Grimm and Mr. Proio are merely taking isolated sentences out of the overall context in which they
were used. In this respect, we respectfully direct Your Honor’s attention to the Introduction, where
InnoLux notes that Honeywell’s opposition conceded a lack of jurisdiction on the present record,
but sought to table InnoLux’s motion until jurisdictional discovery could be taken in an effort to
build a case for jurisdiction. It was InnoLux’s position then, as it is now, that even if Honeywell
could prove the facts asserted in its opposition (which, as a practical matter, Honeywell cannot),
there still would not be sufficient basis for the Oourt to exercise personal jurisdiction over InnoLux.
According, Innolsux argued that Honeywell’s request for jurisdictional discovery should be denied
because it was only a delaying tactic, and would not change the ultimate result.
Duma Morzms tw ·
1100 Noam MARKET smear, sum; rzoo wrtmmoron, ma r9sm-rz46 moms; s0z.6s7.4900 mx; 302.657.490l

Case 1:O4—cv—O1337-JJF Document 345 Filed O9/17/2008 Page 2 of 2
| Quane Morris
Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
September 17, 2008
Page 2
For at least these reasons, as well as those advanced in our previous letters to you, we
respectfully request that you deny Honeywell’s suggestion that the issue of fact discovery be tabled
until some later date.
l
Verytrulyyours,
l /s/ Matt Neiderman
1 Matt Neiderman (Del. I.D. No. 4018)
MXN/jrt ‘
cc: Counsel of Record (via e—rnajl and CM/ECP)
l
1
‘
l
l