Pretech_001014
`
`K.J. Pretech Ex. 1029
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02109-RGA Document 81 Filed 08/13/15 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 2052
`
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`Plaintiffs to travel to LG’s counsel’s offices in D.C. or Houston to inspect computcr—aided design
`(CAD) files, and demanded that the CAD files be treated as “source code” with higher levels of
`protection than what is provided by the protective order. With the upcoming hearing imminent,
`on August 3"] LG provided the CAD files for inspection at a third-party site in Dallas. Plaintiffs
`have inspected those files and confirmed that they are E sufficient to show the structure and
`operation of the infringing features (nor do the CAD files warrant any higher level of
`confidentiality than other confidential documents under the protective order). Though the CAD
`files are inadequate as core technical documents, the manner in which LG has produced them
`interferes with Plaintiffs’ ability to use these files. To the extent that LG continues to refuse to
`allow Plaintiffs to have usable electronic versions of the CAD files, Plaintiffs reserve their right
`to raise this issue with the Court.
`
`Despite LG’s deficient production, Plaintiffs served on November 21, 2014, Initial Claim
`Charts with as much detail as possible based upon the limited documents that LG produced.
`
`On December 12, 2014, Plaintiffs served their First Set of Requests for Production on
`LG. See Exhibit A. Request Nos. 7, 8, 10,11, l2,13,14, 15, l6,17,18,l9, 20, 21, 22, 24, and
`27 call for highly-relevant technical documents that demonstrate the design, structure, operation,
`and functionality of the infringing features of the Accused Products. For example, Request Nos.
`16, 17 and 18 ask for technical specifications for each BLU, light guide, and sheet/film within
`each Accused Product. Further, Request No. 19 asks for documents showing testing of the LCMS
`and BLUs within the Accused Products, which LG has also failed and refused to produce.
`
`On March 30, 2015, Plaintiffs served their Supplemental Identification of Asserted
`Patents and Accused Products (“Supplemental
`Identification”), which identified additional
`LCMs that are made and sold by LG. Of the over 1200 additional LCMs identified, LG has
`produced only about 25 additional product specifications, and those specifications are of the
`same insufficient detail as LG’s original core technical document production.
`
`Further, on July 29, 2015, LG admitted that it has technical documents concerning the
`BLUS and BLU components, yet is continuing to withhold them, allegedly because it lacks
`“permission” to produce them. And LG maintains that it cannot obtain other technical documents
`concerning BLUS and BLU components that are allegedly maintained by its suppliers. While LG
`has yet to produce all of its supplier agreements, it is highly likely that LG has the ability to
`request key technical documents from its suppliers. Thus, Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to
`order LG to obtain and produce all documents concerning the design, structure, operation, and
`functionality of the BLUs within the Accused Products.
`
`Plaintiffs recently learned that LG is obstructing similar discovery in the related case
`against Lenovo. Lenovo’s counsel represented that they requested technical documents from LG
`“over a year ago” but have yet to receive any documents. As of this writing, LG has still not
`provided core technical documents for each Accused Product. LG’s failures, refusals, and delays
`violate the Court’s Scheduling Order and the Local Rules, and Plaintiffs respectfully request that
`the Court order LG to produce immediately core technical documents for each and every
`Accused Product, and that LG furnish similar technical documents to Lenovo for production.
`
`Pretech_001015
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02109-RGA Document 81 Filed 08/13/15 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 2053
`
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`LG’s Failure to Produce Financial and Other Documents, and License Agreements
`
`Financial information on accused LCMs—sales, profits, costs
`
`Documents demonstrating the relative value of components in Accused Products
`
`Business plans, forecasts, projected sales, projected profits, budgets
`License agreements
`
`Supplier agreements
`Identification of customers
`
`Additionally, LG has only produced limited financial information. LG has produced no
`financial information about the accused LCMS at all, including sales, profits, and costs. (Request
`Nos. 9, 28, and 29). LG produced no business plans, forecasts, projected sales, projected profits,
`or budgets for the Accused Products (Request No. 31). And LG failed to produce documents
`demonstrating the relative value of each component within the Accused Products. (Request No.
`30). Further, LG has not produced all relevant license agreements (Request Nos. 26 or 31),
`including, for example, LG’s licenses with IP Innovation LLC and Technology Licensing
`Corporation, Tatung Co., ViewSonic Corp., Positive Technologies Inc., O2Micro International
`Ltd. and 02 Micro, Inc., Vizio, Inc., Funai Electric Co., Samsung Display C0,, Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Osram Opto Semiconductors, Sony Corp., and AtratechJapan
`Corp. Notably, the AtratechJapan agreement involves U.S. Patent No. 7,090,387, which has
`claims written to “backlight illumination unit[s]” (or BLUS). Given that LG has had more than
`six months to gather these publicly disclosed agreements and secure whatever consents may be
`needed to produce them, there is no reason that these license agreements should not have already
`been produced. LG has failed to produce all supplier agreements, as covered by Request Nos. 26
`or 31. These agreements pertain not only to Plaintiffs’ development of their damages case, but
`also to confirm LG’s right to obtain documents and information for its suppliers.
`
`LG has not produced any documents that identify customers of the Accused Products, or
`documents that are exchanged with customers relating to the infringing features of the Accused
`Products (other than publicly—aVailable manuals or specifications). At least Request Nos. 25, 28,
`33, and 34 require production of these categories ofdocuments.
`
`letter. The
`in an April 3, 2015,
`Plaintiffs outlined these issues in considerable detail
`parties met and conferred on July 16, and LG promised a production that would address
`Plaintiffs’ complaints regarding outstanding discovery (aside from the CAD files). But LG failed
`to resolve the majority of the deficiencies. Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to order LG to
`comply now, and not wait until the deadline for substantial completion of document production.
`
`LG’s Deficient Intcrrogatorv Responses
`
`LG has also insufficiently answered several of Plaintiffs’ interrogatories. In addition to
`Plaintiffs’ April 3, 2015, letter, Plaintiffs outlined the deficient interrogatory answers in a July
`21, 2015, letter.
`
`_ -
`responses.
`
`These responses are improper, and LG should provide full narrative
`
`Pretech_001016
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02109-RGA Document 81 Filed 08/13/15 Page 4 of 4 PagelD #2 2054
`
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Brian
`
`Farnan
`
`Brian E. Farnan
`
`Counsel of Record (via E-Mail)
`
`Pretech_001017