`
`
`
`
`CREE, INC.,
`
`v.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
` 14-cv-737-wmc
`
`HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Today, the court held a telephonic hearing on plaintiff Cree, Inc.’s motion to compel
`
`
`
`(dkt. #56), in which it addressed the parties’ disputes relating to: (1) the scope of defendant
`
`Honeywell International Inc.’s allegedly infringing products; (2) the obligation of Honeywell
`
`to provide technical specifications related to the LEDs and LCDs used in their products;
`
`and (3) financial information related to Honeywell’s specific products. Consistent with the
`
`court’s rulings during that hearing, and for the reasons articulated on the record,
`
`IT IS ORDERED that:
`
`ORDER
`
`1) Plaintiff Cree, Inc.’s motion for leave to file a reply (dkt. #64) is GRANTED.
`
`2) Plaintiff’s motion to compel (dkt. #56) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
`PART as follows:
`
`a. Defendant Honeywell International Inc. is to make a good-faith effort to
`produce within 21 days a list of all its products offered for sale or sold
`from February 15, 2013, to the present, that contain liquid crystal displays
`(“LCD”) backlit with white light emitting diodes (“LEDs”) or phosphor-
`based LEDs, consistent with plaintiff’s description of the allegedly
`infringing products. The court acknowledges Honeywell’s position that
`the actual patents-in-suit do not justify this broad claim of infringement,
`but has no way to make such a determination at this early stage of the
`litigation. Should subsequent proceedings demonstrate that Cree had no
`
`
`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00737-wmc Document #: 65 Filed: 03/18/15 Page 2 of 2
`
`good-faith basis for such sweeping claims, the court would certainly
`entertain a motion to reimburse Honeywell for its discovery costs.
`
`b. By Wednesday, March 25, 2015, plaintiff may file a brief of no more than
`five pages addressing its position that the relevant infringement claims
`date back to a patent issued on March 22, 2011, that likewise covers all of
`Honeywell’s products containing LCDs backlit by white LEDs or
`phosphor-based LEDs. If such a brief is filed, defendant may file a short
`response within seven (7) days of electronic service (or within ten (10)
`days if served by mail).
`
`c. For the products containing LCDs with white backlighting LEDs that
`Honeywell itself manufactures, Honeywell is to produce within 21 days:
`
`i. All remaining documents related to their technical specifications.
`
`ii. The nature of the LED contained in the product.
`
`d. For all other, relevant LCDs and all LEDs, Honeywell is relieved at this
`point of any further obligation to produce technical specifications, unless
`readily available.
`
`e. As to each product identified in response to “a” above: Honeywell is to
`produce within 30 days a statement that indicates: (1) if Honeywell is the
`manufacturer of LCDs contained in that product; and (2) if not, the
`name(s) of the company or companies supplying the product.
`
`f. With respect to damages information, the parties are directed to meet and
`confer to determine a reasonable approach to production of general,
`damages-related information. Cree’s request for product-specific damages
`information is denied at present.
`
`Entered this 18th day of March, 2015.
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/
`________________________________________
`WILLIAM M. CONLEY
`District Judge
`
`2
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
