Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

I I Case 1 :04-cv-01337-JJF Document 123 Filed 06/06/2005 Page 1 of 2
McGarter & English, LLP
Suite 1800
919 N. Market Street K
P.0. Box 111
Wilmington. DE 19899 .
ml s¤2.ss4.6s00
rar s02.9s4.sses ··
Paul A. Bradley www.mccarter.r:om
Partner I
2. . ·
I’g>r§0;.gS?l?6399 |\/ICCARTER
[email protected]
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ·
June 6, 2005 1 l`
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING & HAND DELIVERY ·_‘‘.
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
United States District Court ’f
844 North King Street
Lock Box 10
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Honeywell International, Inc., etal. v. Audiovox Corporation, et al. `
C.A. No. 04-1337
Dear Judge Jordan: I
We write on behalf of Audiovox Electronics Corp. ("AEC”), as well as on behalf of p
Audiovox Communications Corp. ("ACC") which is represented by Duane Morris LLP. AEC
and ACC believe a response to Honeywell’s June l, 2005 letter to the Court is warranted because _
the letter contains misstatements of fact and intent.
Honeywell could have, and should have, sued the manufacturers of LCDs that Honeywell
believed infringed its LCD patent. To the extent that Honeywell professes not to know the E ’..
identity of those manufacturers, the solution is eminently simple, i.e., Honeywell identifies a
device that it believes infringes, the seller of that device identifies the supplier of such device, { ··
and Honeywell amends its complaint to include the identified supplier. Honeywell’s attempt to T
require the defendants to urge their suppliers to voluntarily join the litigation is contrary to logic
and to the procedure outlined by the Court. _ ` _
n Honeywell was dissatisfied with the COl,1I'l’S Order and has attempted to negotiate its way
around the Order. Anticipating failure in its attempt to negotiation an order more to its liking,
Honeywell’s letter is an utterly transparent attempt to obtain reconsideration by the Court of its
Order. _
As is abundantly clear from the following, ACC and AEC have cooperated fully with -
Honeywell, and Honeywell’s bald allegations with respect to the defendants collectively are not " _
based on facts known to Honeywell as to at least some of the defendants. T
iumrrunn smmrunu new rum: cm urwnmc A°°u°v°iilHiIilA°B`Ei`Fliliix) ` L°“°r t°riiiiii§inii)fgiu” 6r6r05‘D§ii.rimunr 2
as¤.zrs.enm zua.sz4.lnuu zrz.aua.sam Qmsgz.4444 21s.m.:aa¤o aoz.9s4.szuu 41u.sss.a5uu -

Case 1:04-cv-01337-JJF Document 123 Filed 06/06/2005 Page 2 of 2 A
@(*0/ARTER ~
The Honorable Kent Jordan
June 6, 2005
Page 2
ACC: ACC does not make LCDs. ACC does not buy LCDs. ACC does not make ji
devices containing LCDs. ACC purchases devices containing LCDs for resale. ACC has no `
knowledge as to the construction of, or manufacturer of, the LCDs in the devices that ACC
purchases for resale.
Honeywell has recently identified a single device as infringing. ACC has filed a third
party complaint against the only entity that supplies that device to ACC. ACC can provide ‘
Honeywell with no information not more readily available from ACC’s device supplier and/or `
the unknown manufacturer of the LCDs in such devices. Q
AEC: AEC does not make LCDs. AEC purchases devices having LCDs for resale but
does not specify the LCD to be used in the devices AEC purchases. AEC also purchases a small
number of LCDs from LCD manufacturers that AEC has shipped to the manufacturer of a LCD-
containing device for inclusion therein. AEC has no knowledge as to the construction ot} or
manufacturer ot] the LCDs in the devices that AEC purchases for resale or the LCDs it purchases
for inclusion in a device.
Honeywell has identified only one AEC device as infringing. That device was purchased
Hom Sharp, who has a license from Honeywell. If and when Honeywell identifies other specific
devices as infringing, AEC will inform Honeywell of the identity ofthe supplier(s) of such _
devices. U
Respectfully submitted,
Paul A. Bradley L is
PAB/ds l -
cc: All counsel
Clerk l ;i_j·
_ Audiovox (Honeywell} - Letter to Judge Jordan 6_6_05.DOC