Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 538-4 Filed 10/02/19 Page 1 of 3
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 538-4 Filed 10/02/19 Page 1 of 3
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 538-4 Filed 10/02/19 Page 2 of 3
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 538-4 Filed 10/02/19 Page 2 of 3
`
`From:
`
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Dave
`
`Michael Sherman
`
`Friday, September 27, 2019 7:38 AM
`David Hadden
`Wesley Monroe; Sandy Seth; Stanley H. Thompson Jr.; Jeffrey Gersh; Viviana Boero
`Hedrick; Saina Shamilov; Todd Gregorian
`
`RE: Amazon DJ Action
`
`What you are saying is nonsensical. Agreeing to a stipulation is always more cost effective than summaryjudgment
`motion practice.
`If you are serious, then provide an alternative form of stipulation that you and | most recently referred
`to as a non-opposition (to a not—yet filed motion where we are not mind readers and don't know what’s up your sleeve),
`as the only area of dispute that we are aware of is the consequence of the Court’s claim construction order— which was
`covered by our proposed form of stipulation.
`Regards
`Michael
`
`From: Michael Sherman
`
`Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 6:03 PM
`To: David Hadden <DHadden@fenwick.com>
`Cc: Wesley Monroe <wmonroe@stubbsalderton.com>; Sandy Seth <sseth@stubbsaIderton.com>; Stanley H. Thompson
`Jr. <sthompson@stubbsalderton.com>; Jeffrey Gersh <jgersh@stubbsalderton.com>; Viviana Boero Hedrick
`<vhedrick@stubbsalderton.com>; Saina Shamilov <sshamilov@fenwick.com>; Todd Gregorian
`
`<TGregorian@fenwick.com>
`Subject: RE: Amazon DJ Action
`
`Dave
`
`What is the functional difference between what might be a non-opposed motion for summary judgment versus a
`stipulation of non-infringement? Your response suggests that there are other legal issues outstanding as you ”wait for
`the court to enter summaryjudgment," and we don’t see what you are talking about. And if you do see these other
`issues, then why are you not asking us to include those as part ofthe draft stipulation — minimally for our consideration?
`
`In short, your response doesn’t make sense and the motivation is lacking; rather your response appears designed to
`needlessly increase attorneys’ fees.
`
`Finally, I did realize an oversight in my Monday e—mail and the enclosure. We should have included claim 69 of the ’310
`patent, as that was not covered in our expert report either. That goes to my point of our stipulation that was sent to
`you having been a draft stipulation, and potentially deserving of some tweaks and edits.
`
`Regards
`Michael
`
`From: David Hadden <DHadden afenwick.com>
`
`Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 9:54 AM
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 538-4 Filed 10/02/19 Page 3 of 3
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 538-4 Filed 10/02/19 Page 3 of 3
`
`To: Michael Sherman <masherman stubbsalder'ton.com>
`Cc: Wesley Monroe <wmonroe@stubbsalderton.com>; Sandy Seth <sseth@stubbsalderton.com>; Stanley H. Thompson
`Jr. <sthomgson@stubbsalderton.com>; Jeffrey Gersh <jgersh@stubbsalderton.com>; Viviana Boero Hedrick
`<vhedrick@stubbsaIderton.com>; Saina Shamilov <sshamilonfenwick.com>; Todd Gregorian
`<TGregorian@fenwick.com>; David Hadden <DHadden
`fenwick.com>
`Subject: RE: Amazon DJ Action
`
`Michael,
`Amazon is not interested in entering this stipulation. We will wait for the court to enter summary judgment.
`Take care
`Dave
`
`From: Michael Sherman [mailto:masherman@stubbsalderton.com]
`
`Sent: Monday, September 23,2019 10:15 AM
`To: David Hadden <DHadden fenwick.com>
`Cc: Wesley Monroe <wmonroe@stubbsalderton.com>; Sandy Seth <sseth@stubbsalderton.com>; Stanley H. Thompson
`
`Jr. <sthomgson@stubbsalderton.com>; Jeffrey Gersh <igersh@stubbsalderton.com>; Viviana Boero Hedrick
`<vhedrick@stubbsalderton.com>; Saina Shamilov <sshamilov@fenwick.com>; Todd Gregorian
`<TGre orian
`fenwick.com>
`
`Subject: Amazon DJ Action
`
`Dear Dave:
`
`In my letter to you dated August 19 I proposed stipulating to judgment of non-infringement on the Amazon DJ action
`and to judgment of non—infringement as respects that ’544 patent claims asserted against Twitch and all other website
`operators that are part of the MDL.
`In a call we had shortly after that letter, | reiterated our willingness and inquired
`about our working together to get some form of stipulation on file to accomplish same; you indicated you would raise
`with Amazon and get back to me.
`
`l have not heard back from you on that issue, and to move the ball forward send to you a draft stipulation that accounts
`for the Amazon DJ action (it is attached). Please review and get back to me, and let’s see if we can get this taken care of
`ASAP.
`In a manner of speaking, I do believe we both ”owe” this to the Court, so that the Court needn’t concern itself
`with the pending motion forjudgement on the pleadings directed to CloudFront, set for hearing on October 3.
`I’m sure
`the Court will soon be working this up, and it seems as though the sooner we can get this or a comparable stipulation to
`the Court, the better, so as to save the Court the need for work-up on the motion forjudgment issues.
`
`As for the Twitch/’544 issues, on further reflection I presume you’d agree that there’s no procedural mechanism that
`would now apply to a partial judgment on just that issue. You are certainly aware that we’ve not submitted an expert
`report on infringement as respects the ’544 patent. Are you interested in the preparation of some joint stipulation to
`the Court, covering this issue?
`
`Regards
`Michael
`
`“ Bio
`
`website
`
`