T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc. v AU Optronics Corporation, et al

Filing 85

REPLY (re 61 MOTION to Dismiss DEFENDANTS JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AMENDED COMPLAINT ) filed byAU Optronics Corporation, AU Optronics Corporation America Inc. (Nedeau, Christopher) (Filed on 1/31/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

CHRISTOPHER A. NEDEAU (CA SBN 81297)
CARL L. BLUMENSTEIN (CA SBN 124158)
PATRICK J. RICHARD (CA SBN 131046)
KEVIN T. COLLINS (CA SBN 185427)
SALEZKA L. AGUIRRE (CA SBN 260956)
NOSSAMAN LLP
50 California Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.398.2438
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

11

Attorneys for Defendants
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION and
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA

12

[additional defendants on signature page]

10

13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

15
16
17
18
19

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

Case No. 3:11-cv-02591 SI

3:11-CV-02591 SI

MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827 SI

T-MOBILE U.S.A., INC.,

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART
AMENDED COMPLAINT

20
21
22
23

Plaintiff,
vs.
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

Date:
Time:
Location:

February 10, 2012
9:00 a.m.
Courtroom 10, 19th Floor
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102

24
25
26
27
28
MASTER FILE NO: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
125697_3.DOC
CASE NO: 3:11-cv-02591 SI
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AMENDED COMPLAINT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1
2

PAGE

3
4
5

I.

INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1

6

II.

ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................................2
A.

7
8

1.

10

The Class Plaintiffs In The Indirect Purchaser Class Actions Cited By
T-Mobile Lacked Standing to Bring California Law Claims. ...........................2

2.

9

The DPP Class Action Did Not Toll T-Mobile’s California Claims. ................4

B.

T-Mobile’s California And New York Law Claims Fail Because T-Mobile
Has Not Alleged That It Purchased Any Alleged Price-Fixed Products In
These Two States. ..........................................................................................................5

C.

T-Mobile Acknowledges That It Is Not Bringing Any Sherman Act Or
Clayton Act Claims For Damages Based On Indirect Purchases From OEM’s............6

D.

11

T-Mobile Concedes That It Is Not Asserting Any Donnelly Act Claims Based
On Purchases Prior To The Enactment Of New York’s Illinois Brick Repealer...........6

12
13
14
15
16

If The Court Considers T-Mobile’s Tolling Arguments, T-Mobile’s California
State Law Claims Should Be Dismissed As Untimely. .................................................2

III.

CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................................6

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MASTER FILE NO: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
125697_3.DOC
i
CASE NO: 3:11-cv-02591 SI
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AMENDED COMPLAINT

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1
2

I.

3

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc’s (“T-Mobile”) Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Motion to

4

Dismiss in Part Amended Complaint (“Opposition”) reflects T-Mobile’s awareness of the fatal defects

5

in its Amended Complaint which require Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) to be granted.

6

As the Court is aware, Defendants’ Motion raised four issues:

7

1.

Whether T-Mobile’s California state law claims should be dismissed as untimely.

8

2.

Whether T-Mobile’s claims brought under the laws of California and New York must be

9
10

dismissed under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution because T-Mobile does not allege that
it purchased LCD products in these states.

11

3.

Whether T-Mobile’s Sherman Act claims, based upon indirect purchases of LCD

12

products, should be dismissed for lack of standing under the Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois Brick

13

Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977).

14
15

4.

Whether T-Mobile’s New York Donnelly Act claims for indirect purchases made prior to

December 23, 1998, should be dismissed for lack of standing.

16

T-Mobile’s Opposition concedes that issues 2 through 4, above, should be answered

17

affirmatively, requiring dismissal of its Amended Complaint as requested. With regard to issue number

18

1, above, T-Mobile acknowledges that “this Court need not reach these arguments if it dismisses the

19

claims for lack of standing.” (Opp. p. 2:7-8.) However, if the Court reaches the statute of limitations

20

issue, T-Mobile has failed to allege any facts to toll its California claims past December 2006—when

21

the alleged conspiracy became public knowledge—and these claims should be dismissed as untimely.

22

T-Mobile’s reliance on three “placeholder” class actions filed by plaintiffs residing in Tennessee,

23

Florida, and New Mexico with cookie-cutter listings of alleged state statute violations cannot toll the

24

statute of limitations for its California claims. Nor does the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (“DPP”)

25

consolidated class action complaint filed in November 2007 save T-Mobile’s claims as the DPP

26

complaint did not allege any California claims. Simply, the answer to all four issues above is “yes,”

27

requiring the Motion to be granted in its entirety.

28

///
MASTER FILE NO: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
125697_3.DOC
1
CASE NO: 3:11-cv-02591 SI
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

II.

2

ARGUMENT
A.

3
4

If The Court Considers T-Mobile’s Tolling Arguments, T-Mobile’s California State
Law Claims Should Be Dismissed As Untimely.

T-Mobile relies on three early “placeholder” class actions and the DPP consolidated class action

5

in a futile attempt to save its time-barred California state law claims which have a four-year statute of

6

limitation. T-Mobile references three indirect purchaser class action complaints: (1) Audio Video

7

Artistry v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02848 (W.D. Tenn.), Dkt. No. 1 (“AVA

8

Compl.”); (2) Jafarian v. LG Philips LCD Co. Ltd., et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00994-SI (N.D. Cal.), Dkt.

9

No. 1 (“Jafarian Compl.”); and (3) Minoli, et al. v. LG Philips LCD Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 6:07-cv-

10

00235-MV-WDS (D.N.M.), Dkt. No. 1 (“Minoli Compl.”) for the proposition that these cases tolled its

11

state law claims. T-Mobile also references the DPP consolidated class action, which does not allege

12

California claims, as grounds for tolling its time-barred claims. However, none of these class actions

13

tolled T-Mobile California claims.

14

1.

15
16

The Class Plaintiffs In The Indirect Purchaser Class Actions Cited By
T-Mobile Lacked Standing To Bring California Law Claims.

AVA, Jafarian, and Minoli were very early class action complaints filed in December 2006,

17

February 2007, and March 2007, respectively.1 (Opp. pp. 4-5.) Each of these complaints contained

18

outrageously broad definitions of the respective putative class. (See, AVA Compl. ¶ 19, Jafarian Compl.,

19

¶ 19, and Minoli Compl. ¶ 39.) More importantly, none of the named plaintiffs in AVA, Jafarian, and

20

Minoli resided in or were alleged to have any contacts with California. (See, AVA Compl., ¶ 4, Jafarian

21

Compl., ¶ 11, and Minoli Compl. ¶¶14, 15.) To the contrary, the named plaintiff in AVA resided in

22

Tennessee, the named plaintiff in Jafarian resided in Florida, and the named plaintiffs in Minoli resided

23

in New Mexico. (Id.) As a result, these three indirect class actions cannot toll the statute of limitations

24

on T-Mobile’s California state law claims.

25
26
27
28

1

T-Mobile alleges in the Amended Complaint that only AVA and Minoli tolled the statute of limitations. (Amd.
Compl. ¶ 279.) There is no allegation in the Amended Complaint regarding Jafarian. T-Mobile has failed to
request the Court to take judicial notice of any of the complaints and all should be disregarded as a matter of law.
Lee v. Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001) (As a general rule, a district court may not consider any
material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion. However, a court may take judicial notice of matters
of public record outside the pleadings.).

MASTER FILE NO: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
125697_3.DOC
2
CASE NO: 3:11-cv-02591 SI
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

The Ninth Circuit district courts have held that under American Pipe & Construction Co. v.

2

Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), the filing of a purported class action does not toll the statute of limitations

3

for claims that the proposed class representative had no standing to assert. See Maine State Ret. Sys. v.

4

Countrywide Fin. Corp., 722 F. Supp. 2d 1157, 1166-67 (C.D. Cal. 2010); In re Wells Fargo Mortgage-

5

Backed Certificates Litig., No. 09 CV 01376, 2010 WL 4117477, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2010);

6

Boilermakers Nat’l Annuity Trust Fund v. WaMu Mortg. Pass Through Certificates, Series AR1, 748 F.

7

Supp. 2d 1246, 1258-59 (W.D. Wash. 2010); Palmer v. Stassinos, 236 F.R.D. 460, 464-66 (N.D. Cal.

8

2006). As this Court already held in Office Depot, Inc v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., No. 3:11-

9

cv-02225-SI, Docket No. 79, with regard to the AVA complaint cited by T-Mobile here, “the Court finds

10

that tolling would be inappropriate. It is apparent from the face of the complaints Office Depot has

11

identified that the plaintiffs lacked standing. Accordingly, the Court agrees with defendants that Office

12

Depot may not rely on these purported class actions to toll its California claims.” Citing, In re Morgan

13

Stanley Mortg. Pass-Through Certificates Litig., ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2011 WL 4089580 (S.D.N.Y.

14

2011) (“[t]here may be circumstances where the representative so clearly lacks standing that no

15

reasonable class member would have relied.”).2

16

Here, the plaintiffs in T-Mobile’s referenced class actions reside in Tennessee, Florida, and New

17

Mexico and, therefore, patently lacked standing to assert claims under California law. See Pecover v.

18

Electronics Arts Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 976, 984-85 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (dismissing eighteen state law

19

claims where “[t]he named plaintiffs . . . alleged no basis for standing to bring claims under the laws of

20

other states”); In re Graphics Processing Units Litig. (“GPU”) 527 F. Supp. 2d 1011, 1026-27

21

(dismissing claims under the laws of seven states because “no named plaintiff resides in those states . . .

22

[a]ccordingly, no named plaintiff has standing to bring antitrust claims in those states.”). Accordingly,

23

T-Mobile’s reliance on these “placeholder” complaints, with their conclusory allegations and wholesale

24

lists of alleged state law violations, does not save its California claims. As none of the plaintiffs in the

25
26
27
28

2

See, PC Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, et al v. AU Optronics Corporation et al., No 3:11-cv-04119-SI,
Document No 63, p. 4, n.4, holding that the PC Richard plaintiffs could not rely on two indirect purchaser class
actions to invoke Arizona law when the named class plaintiffs were not Arizona residents. See also, Interbond
Corporation of America v. AU Optronics Corporation et al., No. 3:11-cv-03763-SI, Document No. 54, p. 4 , n.3,
holding that Brandsmart could not rely on two indirect purchaser class actions to invoke Florida law when the
named class plaintiffs did not reside in Florida.

MASTER FILE NO: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
125697_3.DOC
3
CASE NO: 3:11-cv-02591 SI
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

referenced class actions had standing to bring California law claims, these claims should be dismissed

2

from T-Mobile’s Amended Complaint as untimely.

3
4

2.

The DPP Class Action Did Not Toll T-Mobile’s California Claims.

Neither the DPP consolidated complaint, nor any of the amended complaints filed in the DPP

5

thereafter, tolls T-Mobile’s state law claims. The DPP complaint only asserted federal law claims and

6

did not allege state law claims. (DPP Cons. Compl. ¶¶ 189-195) (MDL Dkt. No. 1416).) Moreover, the

7

DPP complaint was only brought on behalf of direct purchasers. (Id. at ¶ 68.)

8
9

Under American Pipe, the DPP complaint tolled the statute of limitations only for the claims it
actually asserted. See Johnson v. Ry. Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454, 467 (1975) (“the tolling effect

10

given to the timely prior filings in American Pipe . . . depended heavily on the fact that those filings

11

involved exactly the same cause of action subsequently asserted); Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker,

12

462 U.S. 345, 354 (1983) (Powell, J. concurring) (American Pipe does not “leav[e] a plaintiff free to

13

raise different or peripheral claims following denial of class status”); Williams v. Boeing Co., 517 F.3d

14

1120, 1136 (9th Cir. 2008); In re Vertrue Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 712 F. Supp. 2d 703, 718-19

15

(N.D. Ohio 2010) (“only the claims expressly alleged in a previous federal lawsuit are subject to

16

tolling”). Because the DPP complaint stated only federal claims and was brought on behalf of direct

17

purchasers, it did not toll T-Mobile’s California state law claims, and, in particular, did not toll T-

18

Mobile’s indirect claims.

19

T-Mobile’s reliance on Hatfield v. Halifax PLC, 564 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2009), which

20

interpreted California law with regard to equitable tolling for class action claims in a cross-jurisdictional

21

context, is misplaced. Contrary to T-Mobile’s contention, Hatfield expressly held that the application of

22

cross-jurisdictional equitable tolling is limited to California residents. Hatfield held, “[a]lthough we

23

conclude that California would allow its resident class members to reap tolling benefits under its

24

equitable tolling doctrine, the same cannot be said for the non-resident class members.” Id. at 1189; see

25

also, Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) (“the weight of authority and

26

California’s interest in managing its own judicial system counsel us not to import the doctrine of cross-

27

jurisdictional tolling into California law.”). Here, T-Mobile, which has its principal place of business in

28

Washington and is incorporated in Delaware, (Amd. Compl. ¶ 22), cannot take advantage of the
MASTER FILE NO: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
125697_3.DOC
4
CASE NO: 3:11-cv-02591 SI
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

residency exception in Hatfield.3 See, Office Depot, Inc v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., No. 3:11-

2

cv-02225-SI, Docket No. 79., (“Hatfield, however, held only that California residents could take

3

advantage of equitable tolling based upon class actions filed in other jurisdictions.”)

4

None of the class actions cited by T-Mobile save its time-barred California claims. T-Mobile’s

5

California state claims were brought by T-Mobile more than four years after the alleged conspiracy was

6

publicly disclosed and, therefore, must be dismissed as time-barred.

7

B.

8

T-Mobile’s California And New York Law Claims Fail Because T-Mobile Has Not
Alleged That It Purchased Any Alleged Price-Fixed Products In These Two States.

T-Mobile’s Opposition “acknowledges the Court’s prior rulings” likely bar its California state

9
10

law claims because it cannot allege that it purchased LCD products in California. (Opp. p. 1:6-10.)

11

Instead, T-Mobile requests the Court to reconsider its previous ruling because of T-Mobile’s “significant

12

presence in California . . . .” (Opp. p. 1:12-16) Surprisingly, T-Mobile ignores the effect of the Court’s

13

prior rulings on its New York Donnelly Act claims, although the Amended Complaint is completely

14

barren of any allegations regarding any purchases of LCD products in the State of New York.4 The

15

same due process rules of law that require T-Mobile’s California state law claims be dismissed require

16

the dismissal of T-Mobile’s New York claims.
This Court has made it abundantly clear that, “Due Process requires a plaintiff seeking to bring

17
18

claims under a state’s antitrust law to demonstrate that the purchases giving rise to those claims occurred

19

within that state.” In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig. (State of Fl.), No. M 07–1827 SI, 2011

20

WL 1100133, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2011); see also, In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig.

21

(Costco), No. M 07-1827 SI, ECF No. 3396, at 3-5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2011) (dismissing plaintiff’s

22

state law claims because it did not allege that it purchased the allegedly price-fixed products in those

23

states); In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation (AT&T Mobility), 2010 WL 2609434, at *2-3

24

(holding that “in order to invoke the various state laws at issue, plaintiffs must be able to allege that ‘the

25

occurrence or transaction giving rise to the litigation’ – plaintiffs’ purchases of allegedly price-fixed

26
27
28

3

4

Additionally, should this Court find that any one of the class actions toll T-Mobile’s claims, “tolling [should be]
limited to the defendants, products, and conspiracy period identified” in the class action complaint. See MDL Dkt.
No. 4601 at 6; MDL Dkt. No. 4602 at 5.
T-Mobile mentions in footnote 2 of the Opposition that Defendants argue that T-Mobile’s Donnelly Act claims for
indirect purchases should be dismissed on standing grounds, but makes not attempt to respond to this argument.

MASTER FILE NO: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
125697_3.DOC
5
CASE NO: 3:11-cv-02591 SI
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

goods – occurred in the various states”); In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation (Nokia), 2010

2

WL 2629728, at *3-4 (same); In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig. (Motorola), No. M 07-1827

3

SI, 2010 WL 2610641, at *8-9 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2010) (same); Pecover v. Elecs. Arts. Inc., 633 F.

4

Supp. 2d 976, 984 (N.D. Cal. 2009); In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litig., 527 F. Supp. 2d

5

1011, 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2007). T-Mobile does not, and cannot, allege that it purchased allegedly price-

6

fixed LCD products in California or New York. As a result of the Court’s prior rulings, and as

7

implicitly acknowledged by T-Mobile, its claims based on California and New York law fail on due

8

process grounds and should be dismissed.

9

C.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

T-Mobile Acknowledges That It Is Not Bringing Any Sherman Act Or Clayton Act
Claims For Damages Based On Indirect Purchases From OEM’s.

T-Mobile explicitly acknowledges that Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), bars it
from recovering damages under the federal antitrust laws for indirect purchases of LCD products. (Opp.
p. 1:23-26, n.1.) While its Amended Complaint is less than clear on this issue, T-Mobile is explicit in its
Opposition: “T-Mobile has alleged that it purchased cellular phones containing LCD screens directly
from Defendants, and it is asserting damages claims under the Sherman Act solely with respect to such
direct purchases.” (Id.) Accordingly, by T-Mobile’s own admission, Defendants’ Motion should be
granted to the extent the Amended Complaint seeks federal redress for indirect purchases of LCD
products.

19

D.

20

T-Mobile Concedes That It Is Not Asserting Any Donnelly Act Claims Based On
Purchases Prior To The Enactment Of New York’s Illinois Brick Repealer.

21

T-Mobile’s Opposition for the first time unambiguously states that it “does not seek relief under

22

New York’s Donnelly Act for indirect purchases made before the effective date of New York’s Illinois

23

Brick repealer amendment, December 23, 1998.” (Opp. p.1, n.1.) The Motion should thus be granted as

24

to any claims based on such purchases.

25

III.

26

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss (i) T-Mobile’s

27

California Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Act claims as untimely; (ii) T-Mobile’s state law

28

claims because T-Mobile has failed to allege that they are based on alleged price-fixed goods purchased
MASTER FILE NO: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
125697_3.DOC
6
CASE NO: 3:11-cv-02591 SI
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

in California and New York; (iii) T-Mobile’s claims under the Sherman Act and Clayton Act based on

2

indirect purchases; and (iv) to the extent the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss T-Mobile’s

3

New York claims on due process grounds, any New York Donnelly Act claims based on purchases

4

made before the enactment of New York’s Illinois Brick repealer amendment.

5
6

Respectfully submitted,

7
8
9
10

DATED: January 31, 2012

BY:

/s/ Christopher A. Nedeau
Christopher A. Nedeau
Attorneys for Defendants
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION and
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA

11
12

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

By: /s/ Harrison J. Frahn IV
Harrison J. Frahn IV
James G. Kreissman (Bar No. 206740)
Harrison J. Frahn IV (Bar No. 206822)
Jason M. Bussey (Bar No. 227185)
Arka D. Chatterjee (Bar No. 268546)
2550 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, California 94304
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
CHIMEI INNOLUX CORPORATION, CHI MEI
CORPORATION, CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS
USA, INC., CMO JAPAN CO., LTD., NEXGEN
MEDIATECH, INC., AND NEXGEN
MEDIATECH USA, INC.

26
27
28
MASTER FILE NO: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
125697_3.DOC
7
CASE NO: 3:11-cv-02591 SI
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

COLLETTE ERICKSON FARMER
& O'
NEILL LLP

By: /s/ William S. Farmer, Jr.
William S. Farmer, Jr.
William S. Farmer, Jr. (Bar No. 46694)
235 Pine Street, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES, LTD., TATUNG
COMPANY, and TATUNG COMPANY OF
AMERICA, INC.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By: /s/ Stephen P. Freccero
Stephen P. Freccero
Melvin R. Goldman (Bar No. 34097))
Stephen P. Freccero (Bar No. 131093)
Derek F. Foran (Bar No. 224569)
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
EPSON IMAGING DEVICES CORPORATION,
EPSON ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., AND
SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MASTER FILE NO: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
125697_3.DOC
8
CASE NO: 3:11-cv-02591 SI
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

K&L GATES LLP

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

By: /s/ Ramona M. Emerson
Ramona M. Emerson
Hugh F. Bangasser (admitted pro hac vice)
Ramona M. Emerson (admitted pro hac vice)
Christopher M. Wyant (admitted pro hac vice)
925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Jeffrey L. Bornstein (Bar No. 99358)
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
HANNSTAR DISPLAY CORPORATION

13
14

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

By: /s/ Kent M. Roger
Kent M. Roger
Kent M. Roger (Bar No. 95987)
Herman J. Hoying (Bar No. 257495)
Minna L. Naranjo (Bar No. 259005)
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
HITACHI, LTD., HITACHI DISPLAYS, LTD. and
HITACHI ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), INC.

25
26
27
28
MASTER FILE NO: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
125697_3.DOC
9
CASE NO: 3:11-cv-02591 SI
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON
LLP
By: /s/ Michael R. Lazerwitz
Michael R. Lazerwitz
Michael R. Lazerwitz (admitted pro hac vice)
Jeremy J. Calsyn (Bar No. 205062)
Lee F. Berger (Bar No. 222756)
One Liberty Plaza
New York, NY 10006
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
LG DISPLAY CO, LTD, and LG DISPLAY
AMERICA INC.

10
11

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP

12

By: /s/ Robert D. Wick
Robert D. Wick

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Robert D. Wick (admitted pro hac vice)
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., and
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
By:_/s/ John M. Grenfell
John M. Grenfell
John M. Grenfell (Bar No. 88500)\
Jacob R. Sorensen (Bar No. 209134)
Fusae Nara (admitted pro hac vice)
Andrew D. Lanphere (Bar No. 191479)
50 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
SHARP CORPORATION AND SHARP
ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
MASTER FILE NO: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
125697_3.DOC
10
CASE NO: 3:11-cv-02591 SI
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

WHITE & CASE LLP

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

By: /s/ John H. Chung
John H. Chung
Christopher M. Curran (admitted pro hac vice)
John H. Chung (admitted pro hac vice)
Martin M. Toto (admitted pro hac vice)
Kristen J. McAhren (admitted pro hac vice)
1155 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
TOSHIBA CORPORATION, TOSHIBA MOBILE
DISPLAY CO., LTD., TOSHIBA AMERICA
INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., TOSHIBA
AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

By: /s/ Allison A. Davis
Allison A. Davis
Allison A. Davis (Bar No. 139203)
Sanjay Nangia (Bar No. 264986)
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Nick S. Verwolf (admitted pro hac vice)
777 – 108th Ave. N.E., Suite 2300
Bellevue, WA 98004
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
SANYO CONSUMER ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

25
26
27
28
MASTER FILE NO: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
125697_3.DOC
11
CASE NO: 3:11-cv-02591 SI
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

By: /s/ Brendan P. Cullen
Brendan P. Cullen
Brendan P. Cullen (Bar No. 194057)
Shawn Joe Lichaa (Bar No. 250902)
1870 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, California 94303
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Garrard R. Beeney
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004-2498
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA
CORPORATION
Pursuant to General Order 45, Part X-B, the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this
document has been obtained from the signatories to this document.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MASTER FILE NO: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
125697_3.DOC
12
CASE NO: 3:11-cv-02591 SI
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AMENDED COMPLAINT