Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 96 Filed 09/08/20 Page 1 of 4
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD., an Irish corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., a Korean
`corporation; LG ELECTRONICS, INC., a
`Korean corporation; and SONY
`CORPORATION, a Japanese corporation,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CASE NO. 6:19-CV-00236-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF
`LETTER ROGATORY TO CASIO COMPUTER CO., LTD.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority to issue Letters Rogatory, Defendants LG
`
`Display Co., Ltd., LG Electronics, Inc., and Sony Corporation (collectively “Defendants”), by and
`
`through their undersigned attorneys, hereby request that the Court issue a Letter Rogatory for
`
`International Judicial Assistance to obtain documents and testimony from Casio Computer Co.,
`
`Ltd. (“Casio”). Plaintiff Solas OLED Ltd. (“Solas”) does not oppose this motion.
`
`Defendants’ use of Letters Rogatory is an appropriate method of obtaining discovery from
`
`Casio because Japan is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad
`
`in Civil and Criminal Matters. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(2)(2)(B); All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651,
`
`1781 (permitting “the transmittal of a letter rogatory or request directly from a tribunal in the
`
`United States to the foreign or international tribunal, officer, or agency to whom it is addressed
`
`and its return in the same manner.”); see also U.S. Dep’t of State, Depositions in Japan,
`
`https://jp.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/attorneys/depositions-in-japan/ (last visited on Jun.
`
`17, 2020).
`
`Judicial assistance between the United States and Japan is governed by Article 5 of the
`
`Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. See Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963),
`
`DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LETTER ROGATORY – Page 1
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1025
`LG Display v. Solas
`IPR2020-01055
`
`Ex. 1025-001
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 96 Filed 09/08/20 Page 2 of 4
`
`available at http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963.pdf
`
`(last
`
`visited Jun. 17, 2020). Article 5(j) of the Convention acknowledges that the use of Letters
`
`Rogatory is an appropriate method of requesting evidence located in a foreign State. See id. As
`
`numerous courts have confirmed, the use of Letters Rogatory has been the traditional method of
`
`requesting foreign judicial assistance in obtaining evidence located aboard. See, e.g., Bakeer v.
`
`Nippon Cargo Airlines, Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90102, *61-62 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (noting that
`
`“[s]ince Japan is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in
`
`Civil or Commercial Matters . . ., [t]he only method for obtaining the testimony of an unwilling
`
`Japanese witness is through ‘a letter rogatory executed by a Japanese court’”); United States v.
`
`Walus, 616 F.2d 283, 304 (7th Cir. 1980) (holding district court should have granted request by
`
`defendant for use of letters rogatory to obtain evidence located abroad that was relevant to
`
`defendant’s case).
`
`The proposed letter submitted herewith solicits documents and deposition testimony from
`
`Casio, through one or more designated officers, directors, managing agents, or other person(s) who
`
`consent to testify on behalf of Casio and answer the questions provided.
`
`The requested order for the issuance of a Letter Rogatory is necessary because Article 17
`
`of the Japan-United States Consular Convention only authorizes American consular officers to
`
`take depositions in Japan “on behalf of the courts or other judicial tribunals or authorities of the
`
`sending state (United States), voluntarily given, in accordance with the laws of the receiving state
`
`(Japan).” This provision regarding the authority of consular officers to take depositions has been
`
`interpreted by the Japanese Government very strictly. See U.S. Dep’t of State, Depositions in
`
`Japan. Japanese law and practice, and the mutually-agreed upon interpretation of the U.S.-Japan
`
`Consular Convention concerning obtaining evidence in Japan, permits the taking of deposition of
`
`a willing witness on U.S. consular premises for use in U.S. courts only: (1) when pursuant to a
`
`commission (Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 28(b)(2)) to take a deposition issued by a court to any Consul or
`
`Vice-Consul of the United States at Tokyo/Osaka; or (2) on notice, provided an order issued by a
`
`court in the United States specifically authorizes a U.S. consular officer to take the deposition on
`
`notice. See id.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LETTER ROGATORY – Page 2
`
`Ex. 1025-002
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 96 Filed 09/08/20 Page 3 of 4
`
`For these reasons, Defendants respectfully request the Court grant its unopposed motion,
`
`endorse the attached Letter Rogatory, and direct the Clerk to place the Court’s seal upon them and
`
`return them to Defendants for delivery to the foreign jurisdiction.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Jennifer H. Doan
`Jennifer H. Doan
`Texas Bar No. 08809050
`Email: jdoan@haltomdoan.com
`Joshua R. Thane
`Email: jthane@haltomdoan.com
`Texas Bar No. 24060713
`J. Randy Roeser
`Email: rroeser@haltomdoan.com
`Texas Bar No. 24089377
`Cole A. Riddell
`Email: criddell@haltomdoan.com
`Texas Bar No. 24105423
`HALTOM & DOAN
`6500 Summerhill Road, Suite 100
`Texarkana, Texas 75503
`Tel: 903.255.1000
`Fax: 903.255.0800
`
`Douglas E. Lumish
`California State Bar No. 183863
`Email: doug.lumish@lw.com
`Gabriel S. Gross
`California State Bar No. 254672
`Email: gabe.gross@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`140 Scott Drive
`Menlo Park, California 94025
`Tel: 650.328.4600
`Fax: 650.463.2600
`
`Joseph H. Lee
`California State Bar No. 248046
`Email: joseph.lee@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor
`Costa Mesa, California 92626
`Tel: 714.540.1235
`Fax: 714.755.8290
`
`DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LETTER ROGATORY – Page 3
`
`Ex. 1025-003
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 96 Filed 09/08/20 Page 4 of 4
`
`Blake R. Davis
`California State Bar No. 294360
`Email: blake.davis@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Tel: 415.391.0600
`Fax: 415.395.8095
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.;
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.; and
`SONY CORPORATION
`
`Gregory S. Gewirtz (pro hac vice)
`Email: ggewirtz@lernerdavid.com
`Jonathan A. David (pro hac vice)
`Email: jdavid@lernerdavid.com
`LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
`KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK, LLP
`20 Commerce Drive
`Cranford, New Jersey 07016
`Tel: 908.654.5000
`Fax: 908.654.7866
`Email: litigation@lernerdavid.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`SONY CORPORATION
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on the 8th day of September, 2020, I electronically filed this
`document with the Clerk of Court via the Court’s CM/ECF system which will send notification of
`such filing to all counsel of record, all of whom have consented to electronic service in this action.
`
`/s/ Jennifer H. Doan
`Jennifer H. Doan
`
`DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LETTER ROGATORY – Page 4
`
`Ex. 1025-004
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 96-1 Filed 09/08/20 Page 1 of 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD., an Irish corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CASE NO. 6:19-CV-00236-ADA
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., a Korean
`corporation; LG ELECTRONICS, INC., a
`Korean corporation; and SONY
`CORPORATION, a Japanese corporation,
`
`Defendants.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Defendants LG Display Co., Ltd., LG Electronics, Inc., and Sony
`
`Corporation’s Unopposed Motion for Issuance of Letter Rogatory to Casio Computer Co., Ltd.
`
`(“Motion”). Being well-advised that it is unopposed, and having fully considered the Motion, the
`
`Court is of the opinion that the Motion should be GRANTED. Attached hereto are signed and
`
`stamped copies of the issued Letter Rogatory to Casio Computer Co., Ltd.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED this _____ day of ____________________________, 2020
`
`_________________________________
`ALAN D. ALBRIGHT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Ex. 1025-005
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 96-2 Filed 09/08/20 Page 1 of 33
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD., an Irish corporation,
`
`CASE NO. 6:19-CV-00236-ADA
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., a Korean
`corporation; LG ELECTRONICS, INC., a
`Korean corporation; and SONY
`CORPORATION, a Japanese corporation,
`
`Defendants.
`
`REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE (LETTER ROGATORY)
`
`The United Stated District Court for Western District of Texas presents its compliments to
`
`the appropriate Judicial Authority in Japan and has the honor to request your competent Court by
`
`directing its constable or bailiff to serve the enclosed documents pertaining to a civil dispute on
`
`Casio Computer Co., Ltd. (“Casio”) to be used in the civil proceedings before this court in the
`
`above captioned matter.
`
`I.
`
`REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
`
`The undersigned, Honorable Alan D. Albright, District Judge for the United State District
`
`Court for the Western District of Texas, requests the assistance described herein as necessary in
`
`the interests of justice. In particular, the undersigned requests that you cause, by your proper and
`
`usual process, to allow representatives of Defendants LG Display Co., Ltd., LG Electronics, Inc.,
`
`and Sony Corporation (collectively “Defendants”) to obtain documents and deposition testimony
`
`from the following foreign third party:
`
`Casio Computer Co., Ltd.
`6-2, Hon-machi 1-chome, Shibuya-ku
`Tokyo 151-8543, Japan
`
`The evidence sought is outlined in Attachment A. Responses returned to this Court may
`
`be submitted as evidence at trial and may be necessary for the conclusion of this proceeding.
`
`LETTER ROGATORY TO CASIO – Page 1
`
`Ex. 1025-006
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 96-2 Filed 09/08/20 Page 2 of 33
`
`As allowed by international laws of Japan, please have all returned evidence verified and/or
`
`certified as to completeness and authenticity.
`
`If any portion of this Request is deemed to be unacceptable under the laws of Japan, please
`
`disregard that portion and continue to comply with as much of the Request as legally permissible.
`
`II.
`
`FACTS OF THE CASE
`
`Plaintiff Solas OLED Ltd. (“Solas” or “Plaintiff”) alleges infringement of United States
`
`Patent Nos. 7,573,068, and 7,907,137 (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”) by Defendants. The
`
`Patents-in-Suit were originally assigned to Casio. Each of the inventors named on the faces of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit were employed by Casio at the time of the alleged conception and reduction to
`
`practice of the subject matter of the Patents-in-Suit. Solas then acquired the Patents-in-Suit from
`
`Casio on April 11, 2016.
`
`Casio possesses unique information concerning the research and development of the
`
`subject matter claimed in the Patents-in-Suit, including the facts and circumstances surrounding
`
`the alleged conception and reduction to practice of the subject matter of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`Defendants further believe that Casio is knowledgeable about any public use of the subject matter
`
`of the Patents-in-Suit, including the publication of the subject matter of the Patents-in-Suit and
`
`sale or offer for sale of products embodying the subject matter of the Patents-in-Suit. Defendants
`
`further believe that Casio has information concerning the ownership, licensing, and valuation of
`
`the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`III.
`
`EVIDENCE TO BE OBTAINED
`
`The evidence to be obtained are identified in Attachment A. It is respectfully requested
`
`that a judicial authority of Japan order Casio to produce copies of documents and other property
`
`as described in Attachment A. It is additional requested that a judicial authority of Japan compel
`
`Casio to make available a suitable representative to provide testimony regarding the deposition
`
`topics set forth in Attachment A.
`
`IV.
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`In this matter, a Protective Order has been entered that governs the production of
`
`documents, testimony and any record of the testimony. A copy of this order is attached hereto for
`
`LETTER ROGATORY TO CASIO – Page 2
`
`Ex. 1025-007
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 96-2 Filed 09/08/20 Page 3 of 33
`
`your reference as Attachment B. Because this action involves confidential and propriety business
`
`information, the Protective Order serves to protect such information from public disclosure. Any
`
`responses to this Letter, which may be used as evidence in the above-captioned litigation, may be
`
`designated and treated appropriately under the Protective Order.
`
`V.
`
`URGENCY
`
`A response is requested by September 11, 2020, or as soon as practicable. Expedient
`
`treatment of this request will allow the parties to obtain and review the produced documents and
`
`obtain testimony before the cutoff of fact discovery in this matter.
`
`VI.
`
`RECIPROCITY
`
`The United Stated District Court for Western District of Texas is willing and able to provide
`
`similar assistance to the judicial authorities of Japan, should a similar Request for International
`
`Assistance be received from those authorities.
`
`VII. REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS
`
`Should there be any costs associated with the service herein, it will be the responsibility of
`
`the attorneys for Defendants to reimburse the appropriate Judicial Authority in Japan concerning
`
`the same. Please direct any correspondence or communications concerning costs to:
`
`Douglas E. Lumish
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`140 Scott Drive
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Tel: 650.328.4600
`Fax: 650.463.2600
`Email: doug.lumish@lw.com
`
`Date:
`
`(SEAL OF COURT)
`
`The Honorable Alan D. Albright
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT
`JUDGE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS
`
`800 Franklin Avenue, Room 301
`Waco, Texas 76701
`
`LETTER ROGATORY TO CASIO – Page 3
`
`Ex. 1025-008
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 96-2 Filed 09/08/20 Page 4 of 33
`
`ATTACHMENT A
`
`DEFINITIONS
`
`The following words and phrases are defined and used herein as follows:
`
`1.
`
`The terms “You,” “Your,” or “Casio” refer to Casio Computer Co., Ltd., and any
`
`of its officers, directors, employees, agents, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, and
`
`successors, as well as all persons subject to Casio’s direction or control and all persons acting or
`
`purporting to act on behalf of Casio.
`
`2.
`
`The term “Current Litigation” refers to the litigation entitled Solas OLED Ltd. v.
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd., LG Electronics, Inc., and Sony Corporation, Civil Action No. 6:19-CV-
`
`00236-ADA, filed in the Western District of Texas on April 1, 2019.
`
`3.
`
`The term “Defendants” refers to LG Display Co., Ltd., LG Electronics, Inc., and
`
`Sony Corporation, collectively.
`
`4.
`
`The terms “Solas” or “Plaintiff” refer to Solas OLED Ltd., and any of its officers,
`
`directors, employees, agents, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, and successors.
`
`5.
`
`The term “Third Party” refers to any person or entity other than You, Solas or
`
`Defendants.
`
`6.
`
`“Related Patents” shall mean any patent or patent application related to U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 7,573,068 and 7,907,137, including without limitation: any continuation, continuation-in-
`
`part, divisional, or provisional patent or patent application; any domestic or foreign counterpart
`
`patent or patent applications; any patents or patent applications relating to the technologies covered
`
`by U.S. Patent Nos. 7,573,068 and 7,907,137.
`
`7.
`
`The term “Prior Art” means all documents, public uses, sales, offers for sale, or
`
`other events that may constitute, refer to, or relate to prior art to the U.S. Patent Nos. 7,573,068
`
`and 7,907,137. “Prior Art” is to be understood in its broadest possible sense and includes anything
`
`that alone, or in combination with other art, could potentially be relevant prior art to the U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 7,573,068 and 7,907,137.
`
`Ex. 1025-009
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 96-2 Filed 09/08/20 Page 5 of 33
`
`8.
`
`The term “communication,” or any variant thereof, includes any contact between
`
`two or more persons by which any information, knowledge, thought, idea, or belief is transmitted
`
`or conveyed, or attempted to be transmitted or conveyed. This term includes, without limitation,
`
`written or electronic contact by means such as letters, memoranda, telegrams, telecopies, telexes,
`
`facsimiles, e-mails, or any other document; and oral contact, such as face-to-face meetings or
`
`telephone conversations, whether recorded or not recorded in any document.
`
`9.
`
`The term “document(s)” shall include wherever applicable and without limitation,
`
`originals and copies and translations of any sort, whether handwritten, typed, printed, or otherwise
`
`produced, as well as data retrievable from electronic storage media.
`
`10.
`
`The term “concerning” means relating to, referring to, describing, evidencing, or
`
`constituting.
`
`11.
`
`The terms “person” or “party” or “entity” refers to and includes any natural person,
`
`as well as any juristic person (e.g., corporation) or any business entity (e.g., partnership or joint
`
`venture) and his, her, its, or their officers, agents, and employees.
`
`12.
`
`The term “produce” means to provide legible, complete, and exact copies of
`
`responsive documents to the undersigned counsel, or to make such documents available to the
`
`undersigned counsel for inspection and reproduction.
`
`13.
`
`The terms “relate to,” “related to,” “relates to,” “refers to,” “relating to,” or
`
`“referring to,” mean mentioning, discussing, reflecting, containing, stating, describing,
`
`embodying, evidencing, constituting, dealing with, or making reference to or relating to in any
`
`way.
`
`14.
`
`The term “thing” shall mean any physical specimen or other tangible item other
`
`than a document, in Your possession, custody, or control.
`
`15.
`
`To bring within the scope of this Notice all conceivably relevant matters or
`
`information which might otherwise be construed to be outside the scope, the following apply:
`
`a)
`
`the singular of each word shall be construed to include its plural and vice versa;
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1025-010
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 96-2 Filed 09/08/20 Page 6 of 33
`
`b) “and” as well as “or” shall be construed both conjunctively as well as
`
`disjunctively;
`
`c) “each” shall be construed to include “every” and vice-versa;
`
`d) “any” shall be construed to include “all” and vice-versa;
`
`e) “including” shall be construed to mean “including, without limitation”; and
`
`f)
`
`the present tense shall be construed to include the past tense and vice-versa.
`
`INSTRUCTIONS
`
`1.
`
`Each request should be construed independently and not with reference to any other
`
`request for the purposes of limitation.
`
`2.
`
`If You encounter any ambiguity in construing any request, any applicable
`
`definition, or instruction, set forth the matter deemed too ambiguous and the construction You
`
`selected or used in responding to the request.
`
`3.
`
`If You object to any portion of the request, identify the portion to which You object,
`
`state the basis for the objection, and respond to the remainder.
`
`4.
`
`If You object to any request by contending that it is overbroad, provide a response
`
`that narrows the request in a way that eliminates the purported over-breadth, and state the extent
`
`to which Your response has narrowed the request.
`
`5.
`
`If any of the requested documents are withheld from production (including by
`
`redaction) including on the grounds of attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine,
`
`furnish a privilege log of such documents providing at least the following information for each
`
`such document: the document’s date, signatory or signatories, author(s), addressee(s), each other
`
`person who received a copy, the subject-matter of the document, its location and custodian, and
`
`the basis for the claim of privilege. Such information should be supplied in sufficient detail to
`
`permit the requesting parties to assess the applicability of the privilege claimed.
`
`6.
`
`If any of the requested documents were discarded, destroyed, or redacted in whole
`
`or in part (unless such redaction was done for the purpose of withholding the redacted portion from
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1025-011
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 96-2 Filed 09/08/20 Page 7 of 33
`
`production), state: (a) the date of the discard, destruction, or redaction; (b) the reason for the
`
`discard, destruction, or redaction; (c) the identity of the person(s) who discarded, destroyed, or
`
`redacted the document; and (d) the location of the files where the document was maintained prior
`
`to its discard, destruction, or redaction, and the identity of each person having had access to those
`
`files.
`
`7.
`
`In answering each request, furnish all information that is now available to You
`
`regardless of whether the information is possessed directly by You or Your agents, employees,
`
`representatives, independent contractors, investigators, or unless privileged, by Your attorneys or
`
`by their agents, employees, representatives, or investigators.
`
`8.
`
`In producing documents, produce the originals if the originals differ in any respect
`
`from copies. Documents that are in paper form or that constitute other physical objects from which
`
`recorded information may be visually read, as well as audio or video tapes and similar recordings,
`
`should be produced in their original form or in copies that are exact duplicates of the originals.
`
`Computer files and similar electronic records should be produced in a readable form mutually
`
`agreed upon by the parties.
`
`9.
`
`In producing documents, all documents that are physically attached to each other
`
`shall be produced in that form. Documents are to be produced in their entirety without redaction.
`
`Documents should be produced either (a) as they are kept in the ordinary course of business,
`
`complete with the original file folders, binders, or other containers in which they are stored (or
`
`legible copies of the labels from those folders, binders, or containers), or (b) organized according
`
`to the document request(s) to which they are responsive. If You elect the latter mode of production,
`
`each document or set of documents from a particular file, binder, or other container should be
`
`accompanied by a legible copy of the label from that container or some other reliable indicator of
`
`the file from which it was taken.
`
`10.
`
`Any information disclosed by You pursuant to this request may, if appropriate, be
`
`protected by the provisions of the Protective Order between the parties in the Current Litigation
`
`4
`
`Ex. 1025-012
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 96-2 Filed 09/08/20 Page 8 of 33
`
`(attached hereto as Attachment B), including producing documents with the designation,
`
`“CONFIDENTIAL,” or “RESTRICTED - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.”
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1025-013
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 96-2 Filed 09/08/20 Page 9 of 33
`
`DOCUMENTS REQUESTED
`
`REQUEST NO. 1: All documents, things, and communications relating to the
`
`preparation, decision to file, filing, or prosecution of any applications leading to the issuance of
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,573,068 and/or 7,907,137, whether or not presented to the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office.
`
`REQUEST NO. 2: All documents, things, and communications relating to the
`
`conception, initial disclosure, or actual or constructive reduction to practice of each alleged
`
`invention described or claimed in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,573,068 and/or 7,907,137, including without
`
`limitation, schematics, drawings, research data, memoranda, meeting minutes, analytical data,
`
`reports, and invention disclosures.
`
`REQUEST NO. 3: Documents relating to any assignment or transfer of rights by Satoru
`
`Shimoda, Tomoyuki Shirasaki, Jun Ogura, or Minoru Kumagai or other agreement relating to U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 7,573,068 and/or 7,907,137, including but not limited to any agreements to cooperate
`
`in legal proceedings concerning patents.
`
`REQUEST NO. 4: All documents, things, and communications relating to the first use,
`
`first public use, first sale, or first offer for sale within the United States of any alleged invention
`
`claimed by U.S. Patent Nos. 7,573,068 and/or 7,907,137.
`
`REQUEST NO. 5: Any Prior Art or any documents, communications, and things
`
`pertaining to any Prior Art relating to any of the alleged inventions claimed in U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,573,068 and/or 7,907,137.
`
`REQUEST NO. 6: All documents, communications, or
`
`things concerning any
`
`agreements relating to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,573,068 and/or 7,907,137, including but not limited to
`
`any agreements to sell, purchase, or assign the patent, or to assist with litigation relating to those
`
`patents, and any licenses or covenants not to sue relating to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,573,068 and/or
`
`7,907,137.
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1025-014
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 96-2 Filed 09/08/20 Page 10 of 33
`
`REQUEST NO. 7: All documents, things, and communications concerning any
`
`valuation of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,573,068 and/or 7,907,137, or any portfolio containing those
`
`patents.
`
`REQUEST NO. 8: All documents, things, communications relating to any offer,
`
`proposal, or request to license, assign, transfer, purchase, or sell U.S. Patent Nos. 7,573,068 and/or
`
`7,907,137, including as part of a larger portfolio, including all communications with any
`
`prospective licensee, assignee, or purchaser and any drafts of agreements.
`
`REQUEST NO. 9: All documents, things, or communications relating to Solas,
`
`including but not limited to documents concerning Your relationship with Solas, Your negotiations
`
`and other communications with Solas, any agreements or drafts of agreements with Solas, and
`
`communications about the Current Litigation.
`
`REQUEST NO. 10: Documents sufficient to identify any products developed by You, in
`
`whole or in part, that include an active matrix organic light emitting (OLED) display and were
`
`made, offered for sale, sold or imported within the United States from August 11, 2009 until now.
`
`REQUEST NO. 11: Any analysis of, or communication with Solas or a Third Party
`
`concerning,
`
`the
`
`validity/invalidity,
`
`enforceability/unenforceability,
`
`or
`
`infringement/noninfringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,573,068 and/or 7,907,137 or foreign
`
`counterparts thereof.
`
`REQUEST NO. 12: Documents sufficient to identify (i) all products that have been
`
`marked with U.S. Patent Nos. 7,573,068 and/or 7,907,137 or otherwise marked to give notice that
`
`said product is covered by a patent pursuant to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,573,068 and/or 7,907,137, and
`
`(ii) the quantity and monetary amount of all sales (on a monthly basis) of such products in the
`
`United States.
`
`REQUEST NO. 13: Documents sufficient to identify the current contact information for
`
`Satoru Shimoda, Tomoyuki Shirasaki, Jun Ogura, or Minoru Kumagai, including all email
`
`addresses, phone numbers, home and business mailing addresses.
`
`7
`
`Ex. 1025-015
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 96-2 Filed 09/08/20 Page 11 of 33
`
`REQUEST NO. 14: All agreements relating to Ortus Technology Co., Ltd., including but
`
`not limited to any agreements to license, sell, purchase, or assign any patents from You to Ortus
`
`Technology Co., Ltd. or Toppan Printing Co. Ltd.
`
`DEPOSITION TESTIMONY TOPICS
`
`TOPIC NO. 1: Subject-matter of all topics described in the above Document Requests 1–
`
`14, including, but not limited to:
`
`1. Agreements relating to U.S. Patent No. 7,573,068 and/or U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,907,137, including all licenses related to the patents and all agreements with the
`
`inventors of the patents;
`
`2. Prior Art relating to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,573,068 and/or 7,907,137;
`
`3. Any products developed that include an active matrix organic light emitting
`
`(OLED) display and were made, offered for sale, sold or imported within the United
`
`States from August 11, 2009 until now;
`
`4. The prosecution, conception, and reduction to practice of the purported inventions
`
`disclosed in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,573,068 and/or 7,907,137;
`
`5. The design, development, or commercialization of any display practicing any claim
`
`of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,573,068 and/or 7,907,137 by You or any entity licensed or
`
`contracted by You; any efforts to mark the display(s) with the patents; and the sales
`
`of such displays in the United States;
`
`6. Any valuation of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,573,068 and/or 7,907,137, alone or as part of
`
`a portfolio;
`
`7. Offers or requests to license or transfer ownership of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,573,068
`
`and/or 7,907,137;
`
`8. The purported validity, enforceability, or potential infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,573,068 and/or 7,907,137;
`
`8
`
`Ex. 1025-016
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 96-2 Filed 09/08/20 Page 12 of 33
`
`9. Your relationship with Solas, including any negotiations and agreements between
`
`You and Solas.
`
`10. Your relationship with Ortus Technology Co., Ltd., including any agreements
`
`between You and Ortus Technology Co., Ltd.
`
`11. Your relationship with Toppan Printing Co. Ltd., including any agreements
`
`between You and Toppan Printing Co. Ltd.
`
`TOPIC NO. 2: Authentication of documents produced pursuant to the above Document
`
`Requests, for example as records of Your regularly conducted business activity.
`
`TOPIC NO. 3: Document preservation procedures relating to the documents identified in
`
`the above Document Requests, and Your efforts to find and retrieve documents.
`
`TOPIC NO. 4: Any privilege log produced by You in response to this Request, the
`
`documents and things identified on it, and the bases for withholding or redacting each such
`
`document or thing.
`
`9
`
`Ex. 1025-017
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 96-2 Filed 09/08/20 Page 13 of 33
`Case 6:19-cv-00236—ADA Document 96-2 Filed 09/08/20 Page 13 of 33
`
`ATTACHMENT B
`ATTACHMENT B
`
`Ex. 1025-018
`
`Ex. 1025-018
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 65 Filed 02/03/20 Page 1 of 18Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 96-2 Filed 09/08/20 Page 14 of 33
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`SOLAS OLEO LTD., an Irish corporation,
`
`CASENO. 6:19-CV-00236-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., a Korean
`corporation; LG ELECTRONICS, INC., a
`Korean corporation; and SONY
`CORPORATION, a Japanese corporation,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`WHEREAS, Plaintiff Solas OLEO Ltd. ("Plaintiff' or "Solas") and Defendants LG
`
`Display Co., Ltd. ("LG Display"), LG Electronics, Inc. ("LG Electronics"), and Sony Corporation
`
`("Sony") (collectively, "Defendants"), hereafter referred to as the "Parties," believe that certain
`
`information that is or will be encompassed by discovery demands by the Parties or is otherwise
`
`required to be disclosed or exchanged in the course of this action, involves trade secrets,
`
`confidential business information, or other proprietary information of the Parties or persons who
`
`are not Parties to this Action ("Third Parties");
`
`WHEREAS dissemination and disclosure of such information could severely injure or
`
`damage the Party or Third Party disclosing or producing the information and could place the Party
`
`or Third Party at a competitive disadvantage;
`
`WHEREAS, the Parties request the entry of a protective order limiting disclosure thereof
`
`in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c):
`
`THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated among the Parties and ORDERED that:
`
`-1-
`
`Ex. 1025-019
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 65 Filed 02/03/20 Page 2 of 18Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 96-2 Filed 09/08/20 Page 15 of 33
`
`1.
`
`Each Party may designate as "CONFIDENTIAL," "RESTRICTED -- ATTORNEYS'
`
`EYES ONLY,'' or "RESTRICTED-LIMITED ACCESS MA TERI AL," in whole or in part,
`
`any document, information or material that constitutes or includes, in whole or in part,
`
`confidential or proprietary information or trade secrets of the Party or a Third Party to whom
`
`the Party reasonably believes it owes an obligation of confidentiality with ·respect to such
`
`document, information or material ("Protected Material"). Such Protected Material
`
`includes, but is not limited to, non-public, sensitive, trade secret, marketing, customer,
`
`financial, research, product-development, regulatory, manufacturing/distribution or other
`
`information protectable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(l)(G). Protected
`
`Material shall be designated by the Party producing it by affixing a legend or stamp on
`
`such document, information or material as follows: "CONFIDENTIAL," "RESTRICTED
`
`-· ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY," or "RE