SOME INTERESTING PARTS OF DOC 147 SAMSUNG vs EDIG 1-
in response to
by
Message: PACER e.Digital
SOME BICKERING BETWEEN SAMSUNG AND EDIG ,THEN EXCELLENT RESPONSE
FROM EDIG ATTORNEY MATT YUNGWIRTH AT THE END
SAMSUNG'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXPEDITE THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE
CONCERNING SAMSUNG'S MOTION TO COMPEL INFRINGEMENT
CONTENTIONS IN COMPLIANCE WITH PATENT RULE 3-1 AND TO LIMIT
e.DIGITAL TO ITS PRIOR THEORIES
Pursuant to Local Court Rule CV-7(e), Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
("Samsung") respectfully moves the Court for an order shortening the response time of Plaintiff
e.Digital Corporation ("e.Digital") to Samsung's Motion To Compel Infringement Contentions In
Compliance With Patent Rule 3-1 And To Limit e.Digital To Its Prior Theories (the "Motion to
Compel"). This motion is unopposed by e.Digital.
As fully explained in Samsung's accompanying Motion to Compel, Samsung believes
that e.Digital's Infringement Contentions are inadequate and fail to present crystallized
infringement theories, contrary to this District's Patent Rules. Specifically, Samsung believes
that e.Digital has failed to provide detailed claim charts identifying "specifically where each
2
element of each asserted claim is found within each" of the more than 130 different Samsung
products e.Digital accuses of infringement. P.R. 3-1(c). Samsung also believes that e.Digital
has shifted its theory of infringement in each new version of its Infringement Contentions,
including the latest, served on February 20, 2009. Finally, Samsung believes that e.Digital's
inadequate contentions and attempt to rewrite its theory of the case, without showing good cause
and obtaining Court permission, have severely compromised Samsung's ability to develop its
non-infringement, invalidity, and damages defenses.
For more than two months, Samsung has attempted to resolve these issues with e.Digital
directly, through a number of meet-and-confer attempts and through correspondence, but the
parties have been unable to resolve these issues. Samsung believes that the case schedule now
prevents it from waiting any longer to involve the Court in this matter, as claim construction
proceedings begin in less than a month, on March 23.
Although the parties are in disagreement concerning the adequacy of the contentions,
e.Digital is not opposed to expediting the briefing schedule so that these issues can be resolved
as quickly as is possible.
Samsung therefore respectfully requests this Court to order e.Digital to respond to
Samsung's Motion to Compel by 5:00 p.m. CDT on Tuesday, March 17, 2009; to order Samsung
to file its reply brief in support of the Motion to Compel by 5:00 p.m. CDT on Thursday, March
19, 2009; and, if e.Digital chooses to file a sur-reply, to order it to do so by 5:00 p.m. CDT on
Monday, March 23, 2009.
Dear Todd:
This letter is a follow up on our March 4 meet-and-confer in Dallas regarding e.Digital's
PICs, as amended. As we suggested during the conference and upon further reflection, we are
confident that the "in person" meet-and-confer in Dallas was for no purpose other than
Samsung's "checking the box" before filing its pre-conceived motion to compel rather than
engaging in good faith discussions to resolve the parties' disputes.
Exemplary of this was Samsung's repeated reluctance to engage in specific substantive
discussion regarding most of the specific alleged deficiencies. Although we started off the meetand-
confer with a specific discussion of the control circuitry elements of claim 1, 10 and 11 of
the '774 Patent, Samsung quickly diverted the purported "meet-and-confer" into an abstract
general discussion of its concerns regarding e.Digital's initial investigation and original PICs.
Our efforts to satisfY Samsung's requests for supplementation over the last several weeks have
been sincere and diligent, and it was disappointing to say the least that Samsung was reluctant to
discuss in good faith most of the perceived remaining deficiencies and a course of action to
address them. I did not fly to Dallas so that Samsung could "check the box." Instead I was
prepared to work through the specifics of Samsung's concerns. That did not happen and I am
confident that the Court did not implement the in person meet-and-confer requirement simply for
one side to tell the other that it is filing a motion to compel.
Indeed, Samsung's apparently predetermined decision to file a motion to compel was
most clearly evidenced by your statements that Samsung intends to file a motion to compel
information that e.Digital already agreed to supplement by March 31, 2009. In particular,
DUANE MORRIS LLP
1180 WEST PEACHTREE STREET, SUITE 700 ATLANTA, GA 30309-3448 PHONE: 404.253.6900 FAX: 404.253.6901
DuaneMorris
Todd Friedman
March 6, 2009
Page 2
e.Digital explained its position that most of the detailed information sought by Samsung was not
publicly available, but could be found in certain block diagrams that Samsung recently produced.
Indeed, many of those diagrams are designated by Samsung as "Confidential-Outside Counsel
Only."l
This letter is a follow up on our March 4 meet-and-confer in Dallas regarding e.Digital's
PICs, as amended. As we suggested during the conference and upon further reflection, we are
confident that the "in person" meet-and-confer in Dallas was for no purpose other than
Samsung's "checking the box" before filing its pre-conceived motion to compel rather than
engaging in good faith discussions to resolve the parties' disputes.
Exemplary of this was Samsung's repeated reluctance to engage in specific substantive
discussion regarding most of the specific alleged deficiencies. Although we started off the meetand-
confer with a specific discussion of the control circuitry elements of claim 1, 10 and 11 of
the '774 Patent, Samsung quickly diverted the purported "meet-and-confer" into an abstract
general discussion of its concerns regarding e.Digital's initial investigation and original PICs.
Our efforts to satisfY Samsung's requests for supplementation over the last several weeks have
been sincere and diligent, and it was disappointing to say the least that Samsung was reluctant to
discuss in good faith most of the perceived remaining deficiencies and a course of action to
address them. I did not fly to Dallas so that Samsung could "check the box." Instead I was
prepared to work through the specifics of Samsung's concerns. That did not happen and I am
confident that the Court did not implement the in person meet-and-confer requirement simply for
one side to tell the other that it is filing a motion to compel.
Indeed, Samsung's apparently predetermined decision to file a motion to compel was
most clearly evidenced by your statements that Samsung intends to file a motion to compel
information that e.Digital already agreed to supplement by March 31, 2009. In particular,
DUANE MORRIS LLP
1180 WEST PEACHTREE STREET, SUITE 700 ATLANTA, GA 30309-3448 PHONE: 404.253.6900 FAX: 404.253.6901
DuaneMorris
Todd Friedman
March 6, 2009
Page 2
e.Digital explained its position that most of the detailed information sought by Samsung was not
publicly available, but could be found in certain block diagrams that Samsung recently produced.
Indeed, many of those diagrams are designated by Samsung as "Confidential-Outside Counsel
Only."l
However, we did not identify any technical documents for the remaining accused products that
would satisfy Samsung's Patent Rule 3-4 obligations. To the extent that you believe other
documents produced by Samsung represent the technical documents that Samsung was required
to produce for the remaining accused products, pursuant to Patent Rule 3-4, please provide the
Bates numbers of those documents.3 Otherwise, please confirm the date on which Samsung will
supplement its Patent Rule 3-4 disclosures.
3 e.Digital does not concede that the minimal technical documents produced by Samsung
with respect to the above-identified accused products satisfy Samsung's Patent Rule 3-4
obligations related to those products. That issue will be addressed in separate correspondence.
Todd Friedman
March 6, 2009
Page 4
We look forward to your quick response.
cc: Allen Gardner (via email)
Woody Jameson
James Sze (via email)
Michael Smith (via email)
Sincerely,
DuaneMorris MATT YUNGWIRTH
would satisfy Samsung's Patent Rule 3-4 obligations. To the extent that you believe other
documents produced by Samsung represent the technical documents that Samsung was required
to produce for the remaining accused products, pursuant to Patent Rule 3-4, please provide the
Bates numbers of those documents.3 Otherwise, please confirm the date on which Samsung will
supplement its Patent Rule 3-4 disclosures.
3 e.Digital does not concede that the minimal technical documents produced by Samsung
with respect to the above-identified accused products satisfy Samsung's Patent Rule 3-4
obligations related to those products. That issue will be addressed in separate correspondence.
Todd Friedman
March 6, 2009
Page 4
We look forward to your quick response.
cc: Allen Gardner (via email)
Woody Jameson
James Sze (via email)
Michael Smith (via email)
Sincerely,
DuaneMorris MATT YUNGWIRTH
10 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply