Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01337-JJF Document 122 Filed 06/06/2005 Page 1 of 2
Potter
H Anderson
ta. Corroon rrr
Richard L. Horwitz
Partner
13`l3 North lvlnrlrcLS1rcet Attorney at Law
EO. Bas 951 rhorwltz@ponerm1derson com
\tl;m;ngitm, DE 19599-9953 302 984·6027 Direct Phone
3()g gg.; 60.3;) 302 658-1192 Fax
\\’\\'\’r'.|)lllll!l"Zlll[ll3['¢·i[IE!~|!(ll¥t
June 6, 2005
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
AND HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
844 King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: Honeywell International Inc., etal. v. Audiovox Communications Corp., etal.
C.A. No. 04—l337~KAJ
Honeywell International Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al..
C.A. 04-1338-KAJ
Optrex America, Int:. v. Honeywell International Inc., et ai.
C.A. No. 04~1536—KA.I
Dear Judge Jordan:
l am. writing on behalf of defendants in response to Mr. GIlIT1.I'i'1'S Jtme 1, 2005
letter. We were surprised to receive it, since Honeywell’s own proposal for a schedule to meet
and confer in advance of Your Honor's June 17 deadline contemplated a response from us on
May 25 (which we did), a response from them on June 1 (which they did not, instead writing to
the Court), and further communications leading to a teleconference among the parties on I une
10. See Exhibits A and B to Honeywell June 1 letter to the Court. We believe Honeywel1’s letter
is premature, raises certain issues not raised with the Court in papers or in Court, and appears to
be an attempt to reargue certain positions, rather than work with the Court's directives from the
hearing transcript and the Courts subsequent order.
Rather than respond to all of the statements in l—loneywell's letter, suffice it to say
that we disagree with many of them, and we remain willing and available to meet with
Honeywellis counsel on June 10, as Honeywell originally proposed, and thereafter to present a
proposal to the Court on Jtme 17, as requested by the Court. An example ofthe prernature (and
inaccurate) nature of l—Ioneywell’s letter is its misrepresentation of defendants' position with
respect to the so—callecl °‘hybrid" defendants. Defendants did not state that the case against the
hybrid defendants is now stayed — we stated in my May 25 letter that the discovery already
served by Honeywell was stayed as to all defendants, and that until Honeywell identities the
products at issue, a defendant will not know which products it sells, if any, are part of the case.

Case 1 :04-cv-01337-JJF Document 122 Filed 06/06/2005 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
June 6, 2005
Page 2
A defendant must know which products are accused by Honeywell of infringement before that
defendant can attempt to identify the source of the LCD modules within those products. That is
defendants' position, which we thought was clear and would have been explained to Honeywell
if HoneywelI’s counsel had asked, rather than prematurely writing to the Court.
We plan to provide our proposal(s) to the Court by the Iune 17m deadline, as
specified in the Court’s Order, after further attempts at discussions with Honeywell, unless Your
Honor directs us to respond to the Court in another fashion at an earlier time.
Respectfully,
Richard L. Horwitz
RLH/sssost
cc: Clerk of the Court (via ECP and hand delivery)
All Local Counsel of Record (via ECF and hand delivery)