Cree, Inc. v. Honeywell International Inc.

Filing 65

ORDER granting 64 Motion for Leave to File Brief in Reply; granting in part and denying in part 56 Motion to Compel by Plaintiff Cree, Inc. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 3/18/2015. (arw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

CREE, INC.,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
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,

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
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 phosphorbased 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

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