Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:O4—cv—O1337-JJF Document 342 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 1 of 3
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
E;i;‘."{t§.AIiTz‘i..tDtER EIEXTRAIHDY Tue BRANDYWINE BUILDING JHELWLQPEEY
RICHARD A. LEVINE BRENT C. SHAFHER ]()()() WEST STREET 17TH FLOOR SEAN M. BEACH EVANGELOS KOSTOULAS
RICHARD A. ZAPPA DANIEL P. JOHNSON ’ DONALD J. BOWMAN, JR JOHN C. KUFFEL
FREDER1CKW.IOBST CRAIG D. GREAR WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801 MICHELE SHERRETTA BUDICAK TIMOTHY E. LENGKEEK ,
RICHARD H. MORSE TIMOTHY JAY HOUSEAL JEFFREY T. CASTELLANO ANDREW A. LUNDGREN ‘
DAVID C. MCBRIDE MARTIN LI5[?N§§N P,O, Box 391 ggltggriaixlsshilrli/[COA·1;§ (MD ONLY) %"[TH}1§WN?A1£UN'N
J M.N P LINE . R OND 0YLE RIA . TINELLI
CCi0EI1GHA.KA§SI»gr;ON Cl\l§[•ARRFLINN WILMINGTON° DELAWARE 19899`O391 KRISTEN SALVATOREDEPALMA KATHALEENMCCORMICK
BARRYM.W1LLOUGHBY NATALLE WOLF (302) 5-/1_66OO MARGARET M. DIBIANCA TANWIY L. MERCER
ANTHONY G. FLYNN LISA B. GOODMAN MARY F. DUGAN MARIEETH L. MINELLA
JEROME K. GROSSMAN JOHN W. SHAW (800) 253 -2234 (DE ONLY) ERIN EDWARDS D. PON MUTTAMARA-WALKER J
EUGENE A. DIPRINZIO JAMES P. HUGHES, JR. FAX: (302) 5*/1_1253 KENNETHLENOS MICHAEL SNEIEURG [
JAMES L. PATTON, JR. EDWIN J. HARRON KERRIANNE MARIE FAY (PA & NJ ONLY) I
ROBERT L. THOMAS MICHAEL R. NESTOR —~·-··— J AMES J. GALLAGHER JENNIFER R. NOEL
W LI D,J N ROLINP.B1SSELL W AME. GA GO AD W.P It
TIIJILOHAIN; J. SSYHEEEO SCOTT A. HOLT UO WEST PINE STREET SIEAIEIIT. GREECxER RT RofiElxT F. 19c1;I1;R1TI, JR. QE
BRUCE L. SILVERSTEIN JOHN T. DORSEY P~O· Box 594 NATHAN D. GROW SARABETH A. REYEURN
WILLIAM W. BOWSER M. BLAKE CLEARY GEORGE-OWN DELAWARE 19947 STEPHANIELHANSEN CHERYL A. SANTANIELLO 3
LARRY J . TARAEICOS CHRISTIAN DOUGLAS WRIGHT ’ JAMES L. HIGGINS MICHAEL P. STAFFORD I
RICHARD A. DILIBERTO, JR DANIELLE GIBBS (302) 8566571 PATRICK A. JACKSON RICHARD J. THOMAS
MELANIE K. SHARP JOHN J. PASCHETTO (300) 255-2234 (DE ONLY) DAWN M. JONES MARGARET B. WHITEMAN
CASSANDRA F. ROBERTS NORMANM. POWELL FAX (302) 8569338 KAREN E. KELLER SI-1ARONM.ZIEG
RICHARD J .A. POPPER ELENA C. NORMAN ·
A.C E LM ON s c s c I
?éE“5€{`Mm*.§?§JALSH J$’§2°E MSS? WW-YeuNeeeNAWAY·eeM JOH§’§‘I’3fa23EZi%N,JR. CUR$i2?“CR%‘$$i§éR
JANET Z} CHARLTON l OF COUNSEL
DIRECT DIAL; 3O2'5'/1'6743 PATRIC1AA.WIDDOSS BRUCEIVLSTARGATT
DIRECT FAX: 302-576-3517 ;TUARTBBY§;;JNG 2 A
DWARD . XWELL, ND tg
[email protected] JOSYWAINGERSOLL

September 12, 2008
**REDACTED - PUBLIC VERSION**
I
t
BY E-FILE, E-MAIL, AND HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Vincent J . Poppiti, Special Master Q
Blank Rome
1201 N. Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, Delaware 19801 lg
Re: Honeywell International Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer et al., C.A. No. 04-
1337-JJF et al. §
l
Dear Judge Poppiti: T
We write on behalf of Sony Corporation ("Sony") with respect to the Proposed Amended
Scheduling Order under discussion from the September 4, 2008 hearing to raise issues that are
specific to Sony.
By way of background, Sony’s role in this litigation is as a customer defendant. Sony
believes that it should be dismissed from this litigation because Honeywell ignored Judge
J ordan’s case management directives to reconfigure this case to pursue Sony’s suppliers.
Following Sony’s identification of its module suppliers, Honeywell was ordered to file an
amended complaint and pursue any supplier against whom it wanted to claim infringement. l
te Heuev/Well, ueue ef Whem ever were pursued- t
Honeywell deliberately chose not to sue them, presumably because they are licensed. Sony
thereafter was stayed in its capacity as a customer defendant and did not participate further in the
litigation.
DB01;2632167.1 058*/04.1004 *

Case 1:O4—cv—O1337-JJF Document 342 Filed O9/17/2008 Page 2 of 3
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
September 12, 2008
Page 2
It appears from the Proposed Amended Scheduling Order that Your Honor intends to lift
the stay with respect to any customer defendant who remains in the litigation, and has indicated
that any remaining customer defendant would be part of a second wave trial. Sony is concerned a
with the implications of such a change to the case schedule. To the extent Sony is not dismissed {
from the current proceedings, it would be difficult for Sony to meaningfully participate in the
Supplemental Markman Briefing process and/or to proceed to trial when Honeywell chose not to
include the real parties in interest — Sony’s LCD module suppliers — in these proceedings.
Because the manufacturers are the real party in interest and have an obligation to their customers,
courts have recognized that in order to prevent the possibility of abuse, patentees must first
proceed against the manufacturers. See, ag., Katz v. Lear Siegler Inc., 909 F.2d 1459, 1464 ,
(Fed. Cir. 1990). Here, Honeywell has refused to dismiss Sony even though it will not/can not
sue Sony’s suppliers. Forcing Sony to actively participate in this litigation will permit
Honeywell to circumvent conventional procedures by seeking a finding of infringement as to
LCD modules whose manufacturers are not present to defend them. Honeywell’s letter dated
September 11, 2008 argues that the Supplemental Markman Briefing process should be kept in
place so that there can finality in the first trial against the manufacturers, however, Honeywell’s
contention is undermined by its own actions. By not including Sony’s suppliers in the case, there
can be no finality at least with respect to Sony’s suppliers, because they would not be bound by
any rulings, e. g. , claim constructions, issued in this case.
In addition to not having its suppliers in the litigation, the Proposed Amended Scheduling
Order would require Sony to review extensive discovery developed during the four years this
case has been pending, analyze products that it did not design or build for possible infringement
risks and decide within seven days after its motion to dismiss is denied or when the court issues a
A preliminary Markman ruling (whichever is later).
and does not know the specifics as to the structure of
those modules. Sony would absolutely need to involve its suppliers if it were to actively .
participate in this litigation, and that would take time. Moreover, Sony does not even have
produce specific infringement contentions from Honeywell.2 In sum, it is nearly impossible for
Sony to make an informed decision as to whether it wishes to engage in the Supplemental
Markman Briefing process.
In view of the above, and assuming Sony is not dismissed from this action and a stay is
no longer an option, Sony respectfully requests that Your Honor exercise the Court’s inherent
q power to "control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for
itself, for counsel and for litigants," and dismiss Sony without prejudice from the present
1
1 Honeywell’s suggestion that the customer defendants simply stipulate to Judge Farnan’s ruling does not I
solve the problem, because Sony’s suppliers are not part of the case and Sony can not bind them.
2 During the meet and confer between the parties, Honeywell agreed to consider the customer defendants’ =
request for infringement contentions/claim charts with respect Sony’s specific accused modules. Honeywell’s letter Q
dated September ll, 2008 does not address this point and only agrees to provide customer defendants "with {
’ discovery responses served to date regarding its infringement contentions? Honeywell’s infringement contentions %
to date likely do not address the Sony accused products.
DB01;2622167.1 2 0587041004 t

A l
Case 1 :04-cv-01337-JJF Document 342 Filed O9/17/2008 Page 3 of 3
- ·· YOUNG CONAWAY STAROATT & TAYLOR, LLP
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
September 12, 2008
Page 3
litigation. See, ag., L.E.A. Dynatech, Inc. v. Allina, 49 F.3d 1527, 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1995) '
* (quoting Landis v. North Am. C0., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) and affirming district court’s
A dismissal without prejudice as an alternative to staying case after the patentee’s reissue
application had been pending for seventeen months). The present case against Sony has been
L pending for 4 years and the real parties in interest are not even involved despite Honeywell being
ordered to amend the comp1aint to include them. The mere fact that Sony remains named in this l
case is prejudicial to Sony. Id Even if Sony goes to trial in the present proceedings, it does not
preclude a second proceeding against or by the manufacturers. No efficiency is obtained by
having Sony proceed as a customer defendant in this case, and, in fact, it would be a waste of the
parties’ and the Court’s resources to do so. Therefore, Sony respectfully submits that dismissal 5
without_ prejudice is the fairest way to handle Sony’s particular predicament. A
- i
L ‘ l
‘ Respectfully submitted,
Andrew A. Lundgren (N O. 4429)
cc: CM/ECF list (by e-filing)
Tara L. Laster, Esquire (by e-mail) [[email protected]]
Elizabeth A. Sloan, Esquire (by e-mail) [Sloan@B1an1 . Carrie David (by e-mail) [David—[email protected]]
Mary C. LeVan (by e-mail) [[email protected]] A i
A Clerk of Court (by hand) 1
Thomas C. Grimm, Esquire (by hand) . l
A Matthew L. Woods, Esquire (by e-mail) [[email protected]] _
» Redacted Version by e-filing and e—mail on counsel only
1
DBO1:2632167.1 3 osa704.1o04