Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 194-1 Filed 12/13/19 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 6049
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 194-1 Filed 12/13/19 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 6050
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 194-1 Filed 12/13/19 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 6050
`
`THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN
`
`REDACTED IN ITS ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 194-1 Filed 12/13/19 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 6051
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Exhibit B
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 194-1 Filed 12/13/19 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 6052
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 194-1 Filed 12/13/19 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 6052
`
`THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN
`
`REDACTED IN ITS ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 194-1 Filed 12/13/19 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 6053
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Exhibit C
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 194-1 Filed 12/13/19 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 6054
`
`From:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`Date:
`
`Unikel, Robert
`Max Straus
`bas@skjlaw.com; eormerod@skjlaw.com; John Lahad; Kristi Davis; nbelgam@skjlaw.com; Richard A. Wojtczak; Seth Ard; Steve Susman;
`Beatrice Franklin; Kemper Diehl; Charla Clements; bpalapura@potteranderson.com; dmoore@potteranderson.com; Marek, Michelle;
`rhorwitz@potteranderson.com; sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`RE: Arendi/Google - 30(b)(6) witnesses
`Thursday, October 3, 2019 11:42:22 AM
`
`Max,
`Google identifies the following 30(b)(6) corporate designees for certain topics listed in Arendi’s 30(b)(6)
`Deposition Notice, subject to Google’s stated general and specific objections and responses to the Notice
`topics. Additional designees will be identified shortly for additional aspects of the topics listed in Arendi’s 30(b)
`(6) Deposition Notice.
`On October 9, 2019, in Palo Alto, CA, Google will present Ted Choc as a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designee on the
`following topics included in Arendi’s Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice (subject to, and in accordance with,
`Google’s stated general and specific objections and responses thereto) only as those topics relate to the
`Chrome mobile application:
`· Topic Nos. 16, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34, 36, 38
`On October 10, 2019, in Palo Alto, CA, Google will present Walter Jang as a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designee on
`the following topics included in Arendi’s Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice (subject to, and in accordance with,
`Google’s stated general and specific objections and responses thereto) only as those topics relate to the Google
`Contacts mobile application:
`· Topic Nos. 16, 21, 22, 26, 27, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38
`On October 23, 2019, in Palo Alto, CA, Google will present Evelyn Kao as a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designee on
`the following topics included in Arendi’s Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice (subject to, and in accordance with,
`Google’s stated general and specific objections and responses thereto) only as those topics relate to Linkify,
`Smart Text Selection, and Smart Linkify as part of the Android Operating System:
`· Topic Nos. 16, 19, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 36, 45
`On October 24, 2019, in Palo Alto, CA, Google will present Syed Albiz as a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designee on
`the following topics included in Arendi’s Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice (subject to, and in accordance with,
`Google’s stated general and specific objections and responses thereto) only as those topics relate to the
`functionality of Windu, ContentOneBox, and Smart Text Selection in connection with the Gmail web and mobile
`application:
`· Topic Nos. 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38
`On November 14, 2019, in New York, NY, Google will present Kishore Papineni as a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate
`designee on the following topics included in Arendi’s Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice (subject to, and in
`accordance with, Google’s stated general and specific objections and responses thereto) only as those topics
`relate to the functionality of Google Docs Research, Google Docs Explore, and Smart Text Selection in
`connection with the Google Docs web and mobile application:
`· Topic Nos. 16, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38
`On November 14, 2019, in New York, NY, Google will present Brian Kravitz as a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate
`designee on the following topics included in Arendi’s Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice (subject to, and in
`accordance with, Google’s stated general and specific objections and responses thereto) only as those topics
`relate to Google Docs Research and Google Docs Explore within the Google Docs web and mobile application:
`· Topic Nos. 16, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 36, 38, 45
`On November 20, 2019, in Palo Alto, CA, Google will present Ibrahim Elbouchikhi as a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate
`designee on the following topics included in Arendi’s Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice (subject to, and in
`accordance with, Google’s stated general and specific objections and responses thereto) only as those topics
`relate to the Android Operating System and to devices, in general, running the Android Operating System:
` · Topic Nos. 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 33, 36, 38, 45
`On November 22, 2019, in Palo Alto, CA, Google will present Abodunrinwa Toki as a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 194-1 Filed 12/13/19 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 6055
`
`designee on the following topics included in Arendi’s Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice (subject to, and in
`accordance with, Google’s stated general and specific objections and responses thereto) only as those topics
`relate to the functionality of Linkify, Smart Text Selection, and Smart Linkify within the Android Operating
`System:
`· Topic Nos. 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36
`Rob
`
`
`
`____________________________________________________________________________
`Robert Unikel | Partner, Litigation Department
`Paul Hastings LLP | 71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4500, Chicago, Illinois 60606 |
`Direct: +1.312.499.6030 | Main: +1.312.499.6000 | Fax: +1.312.499.6131
`| robertunikel@paulhastings.com | www.paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`From: Max Straus <MStraus@susmangodfrey.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 1:57 PM
`To: bpalapura@potteranderson.com; dmoore@potteranderson.com; Marek, Michelle
`<michellemarek@paulhastings.com>; rhorwitz@potteranderson.com; Unikel, Robert
`<robertunikel@paulhastings.com>; sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`Cc: bas@skjlaw.com; eormerod@skjlaw.com; John Lahad <jlahad@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Kristi Davis
`<KDavis@susmangodfrey.com>; Max Straus <MStraus@susmangodfrey.com>; nbelgam@skjlaw.com; Richard A.
`Wojtczak <rwojtczak@susmangodfrey.com>; Seth Ard <sard@susmangodfrey.com>; Steve Susman
`<SSusman@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>; Kemper Diehl
`<KDiehl@susmangodfrey.com>; Charla Clements <CClements@susmangodfrey.com>
`Subject: [EXT] Arendi/Google - 30(b)(6) witnesses
`
`Rob and Michelle,
`
`Could you please provide Google’s current list of 30(b)(6) designees by topic number, especially for next week’s
`depositions of Ted Choc and Walter Jang?
`
`Thank you.
`
`Sincerely,
`Max
`
`Max Straus | Susman Godfrey LLP
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor | NY, NY 10019
`(212) 729-2048 (office) | (610) 213-6194 (mobile)
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 194-1 Filed 12/13/19 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 6056
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Exhibit D
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 194-1 Filed 12/13/19 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 6057
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 194-1 Filed 12/13/19 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 6057
`
`THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN
`
`REDACTED IN ITS ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 194-1 Filed 12/13/19 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 6058
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Exhibit E
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 194-1 Filed 12/13/19 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 6059
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Marek, Michelle
`Tuesday, October 22, 2019 9:50 PM
`Max Straus; bpalapura@potteranderson.com; dmoore@potteranderson.com; rhorwitz@potteranderson.com; Unikel, Robert;
`sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`bas@skjlaw.com; eormerod@skjlaw.com; John Lahad; Kristi Davis; nbelgam@skjlaw.com; Richard A. Wojtczak; Seth Ard; Steve Susman;
`Beatrice Franklin; Kemper Diehl; Charla Clements; Laurenzi, Robert; Marshall, Mindy
`RE: Arendi/Motorola - Meet & Confer Follow-up
`
`Max,
`
`
`This email is in response to Arendi’s October 19th correspondence concerning the meet-and-confer with Motorola on October 16th.
`
`Regarding Arendi’s concern with Motorola’s stated objections to the accused products at issue in this suit:
`
` As stated in our meet and confer on Wednesday, October 16th, and as we have stated since Arendi served its contentions early this year, Motorola’s
`position is that the Accused Products are only those devices identified in Arendi’s 4(a) disclosures for which Arendi provided complete infringement
`contentions (as required by the rules). As we previously informed you, both Google and Motorola have treated, and currently are treating, as
`accused only those combinations of device, operating system, and applications for which Arendi provided complete infringement charts. The
`discussions between Arendi and Motorola in Spring 2019 certainly did not involve any concessions from Motorola as to the sufficiency of Arendi’s
`infringement charts against Motorola, and indeed the correspondence between the parties confirms that Motorola specifically pointed out the
`numerous inadequacies with Arendi’s infringement charts, which never were rectified by Arendi’s provision of additional charts regarding accused
`devices and applications relating to Google. As stated in correspondence dated February 28, 2019 from Motorola, Arendi’s cursory and conclusory
`reference to countless Accused Products (without any explanation of how those devices allegedly infringe) was, and is, insufficient. Representative
`claim charts are proper only if they clearly articulate and explain how and why a charted product combination truly is representative of, and is a fair
`example of, all other accused products—something that Arendi never has done.
` Motorola explicitly and clearly reserved the right to challenge Arendi’s infringement contentions, and never waived its objections as to the
`sufficiency of Arendi’s charts. (See Rob Unikel’s April 15, 2019 email, “In making and agreeing to this proposal, neither Google nor Motorola
`concedes that the February 13, 2019 supplemental initial claim charts are otherwise adequate or sufficient pursuant to the requirements of the District
`of Delaware local rules or under the governing case law . . . it remains Arendi’s obligation ultimately to prove that every accused product or service
`(including every accused combination of device, app/program and operation system) actually practices each and every element of any asserted patent
`claim.”) From Motorola’s perspective, there certainly was no “deal” that had been reached with regards to the sufficiency of Arendi’s limited
`charts. We would request that you review the correspondence between the parties, and point out any agreement or “deal” that Arendi believes is no
`longer being honored.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 194-1 Filed 12/13/19 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 6060
`
`
`
`Next, regarding Arendi’s request for a declaration and a production of financial information to show the dates of last sale, manufacture, and importation of
`non-Android devices, we are working with the client to obtain this information, and will be providing a response shortly. As of now, you have identified a
`single non-Android phone (the Brute) that you allege was made or sold by Motorola after Mar. 29, 2011; promptly advise if there are others you are aware
`of.
`
`
`As to Arendi’s concern over Motorola’s document production, we can assure you that, notwithstanding the persistent insufficiency of Arendi’s infringement
`charts and contentions, Motorola (and Google) have been expansive and, indeed, over-inclusive in their document collection and production efforts -
`providing information regarding a number of devices, products, applications, and functionalities that have never been properly accused. Your stated concern
`based on nothing more than the number of documents produced is baseless. As to your specific questions/issues:
`
` Motorola’s financial document production: we have conferred with our client regarding the creation of the summary financial document that was
`produced. The financial document shows units sold, revenues, costs, and profits from 2006 until 2018, for each of the devices listed in Arendi’s 4(a)
`disclosures (even those not properly accused). The underlying data used to create the document consists of countless individual purchase orders,
`which would require an enormous and unreasonable undertaking to collect and produce. If the summary financial document does not contain data
`that you believe is relevant and should have been produced in response to a particular Request for Production, we would ask that you put in writing
`the financial data that you seek.
` Motorola’s custodial document production: the production of Mr. Hengel’s and Mr. Clarke’s custodial data was made on October 19. The production
`of Mr. Snow’s custodial data was made on October 22.
`If there are specific RFPs to which Arendi believes Motorola has failed to respond, or to which Arendi believes Motorola should provide a
`supplemental response, detail the basis for your belief in writing in order to guide any supplementation efforts (if necessary and appropriate).
`Motorola requested as much during our October 16th meet and confer.
`
`
`
`
`
`Finally, I am generally responding to your characterizations of our discussions regarding specific 30(b)(6) topics. Let me note at the outset that your
`descriptions are largely incorrect and misconstrue our positions in many ways. As we have said on multiple occasions, we will be making available
`witnesses to testify regarding matters relevant to the case, subject to appropriate limitations and objections, though we cannot anticipate your specific
`questions or your particularized areas of inquiry until the depositions occur and the questions are actually asked. We do not expect there to be any
`meaningful disputes that cannot be resolved.
`
`
`Topics 1-6, 13, 15, 16, 21
`
` Neither Google nor Motorola will be producing a witness to testify “broadly concerning financial topics.” Rather, as stated during our October 16th meet
`and confer, Motorola’s witness for these topics will be prepared to testify regarding the produced financial document as well as any questions that
`relate to the produced financial document, which includes information regarding the units sold, revenues, costs and profits, from 2006 until 2018, for
`each of the devices listed in Arendi’s 4(a) disclosures.
` With respect to Topic 21, it is correct that Mr. Christensen will be produced to testify to the portions of the topic concerning marketing strategies.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 194-1 Filed 12/13/19 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 6061
`
`
`Topic 7-11, 12, 18, 20
`
` With regard to these topics, Motorola will be producing a witness to speak about general licensing practices, procedures, policies and
`preferences. Beyond that, the Motorola witness will be prepared to testify regarding the produced patent agreements and licenses.
`
`Topic 13
`
` As stated in Motorola’s October 11, 2019 email and October 16, 2019 meet and confer, Mr. Christensen will be prepared to address the marketing
`aspect of this topic.
`
`
`
`Topics 14, 17, 19, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30
`
` Motorola is willing to produce a witness on these topics; however, as stated during the October 16th meet and confer, because the information
`covered in these topics is outside of the scope of knowledge of Motorola, the designee will have virtually no useful information to offer.
`
`
`Topics 22, 25
`
` Topic No. 22: Mr. Christensen will be prepared generally to testify regarding Motorola’s market research as it relates to the Accused Products.
` Topic No. 25: Mr. Christensen will be prepared generally to testify regarding Motorola’s knowledge of consumer use of the Accused Products
`
`
`Topic 31
`
` Motorola will produce a witness who is prepared to offer general testimony regarding the Accused Products.
`
`
`
`Topics 32, 35
`
` Motorola will produce a technical witness who is prepared to offer general testimony regarding the produced source code. As stated during the
`October 16th meet and confer, if Arendi has particular questions about certain aspects of the code, to the extent those portions of the code can be
`identified ahead of the deposition, that would assist in guiding witness preparations.
`
`
`
`Topic 34
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 194-1 Filed 12/13/19 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 6062
` Motorola’s original objection and response was correct. Motorola will be providing a witness who will be prepared to testify regarding the general
`operation of the Accused Products. To the extent there are any particular documents you would like the witness to speak about, we would ask that
`you identify them before the deposition to assist with witness preparation.
`
`
`
`Topics 37, 38
`
` Confirmed that Motorola will not be producing a corporate witness to testify with regards to these topics, as these topics require a corporate witness
`to possess a legal understanding of the infringement contentions, which still contain many open-ended, unresolved questions. Furthermore, this topic
`is one that is reserved for expert witness testimony.
`
`
`Topic 39
`
` As stated in our objections and responses, and during the October 16th meet and confer, Motorola will offer a witness who is prepared to testify with
`regards to when Motorola first became aware of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,917,843 and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,306,993.
`
`
`Topics 40-41
`
` Confirmed that Motorola will not be offering a witness to testify with regard to these topics for the reasons stated in our objections.
`
`
`Topic 42
`
` Confirmed that Motorola will be producing a witness to provide general testimony regarding any training Motorola provides its customers with
`regards to the Accused Applications (even if that is essentially none).
`
`
`Topic 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49
`
` Motorola will not produce a witness to provide testimony with regard to these topics, as it is Motorola’s position that questions related to document
`collection and production are privileged, and any discussion regarding these topics should be directed to the attorneys representing Motorola.
`
`
`
`Topic 50-51
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 194-1 Filed 12/13/19 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 6063
` Confirmed that Motorola will not produce a witness to testify with regard to these topics based on our stated objections.
`
` 
` 
`From: Max Straus <MStraus@susmangodfrey.com>  
`Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 8:12 AM 
`To: bpalapura@potteranderson.com; dmoore@potteranderson.com; Marek, Michelle <michellemarek@paulhastings.com>; rhorwitz@potteranderson.com; Unikel, 
`Robert <robertunikel@paulhastings.com>; sobyrne@potteranderson.com 
`Cc: bas@skjlaw.com; eormerod@skjlaw.com; John Lahad <jlahad@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Kristi Davis <KDavis@susmangodfrey.com>; Max Straus 
`<MStraus@susmangodfrey.com>; nbelgam@skjlaw.com; Richard A. Wojtczak <rwojtczak@susmangodfrey.com>; Seth Ard <sard@susmangodfrey.com>; Steve Susman 
`<SSusman@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>; Kemper Diehl <KDiehl@susmangodfrey.com>; Charla Clements 
`<CClements@susmangodfrey.com> 
`Subject: [EXT] Arendi/Motorola ‐ Meet & Confer Follow‐up 
` 
`Michelle,  
`  
`I write to follow up on our meet‐and‐confer on Wednesday morning. With depositions rapidly approaching, I would appreciate and expect your response to the issues 
`that we discussed and which I raise again here by the end of the day on Monday. If we do not hear back, Arendi will assume that Motorola is standing on its written and 
`voiced objections. 
` 
` 
`First, I await your response with respect to Motorola’s stated objections to the accused products (and what Motorola terms “accused applications”) at issue in this suit. 
`Those products include all devices listed on Arendi’s Rule 4(a) disclosure. Your client’s objections to the sufficiency of Arendi’s charts was the subject of extensive 
`discussions in the spring. Although Arendi has always maintained that the original charts complied with all applicable law, that dispute was fully resolved through a 
`compromise agreement that was reached with both of your clients and that resulted in the production of several additional accused application charts for your Google. 
`No additional device charts were required for either client. I am personally troubled that the deal to which we both agreed is now not being honored—especially as you 
`have given every indication of honoring that deal until now. Please confirm by the end of the day on Monday that Motorola will honor its agreement. Otherwise, we will 
`seek relief from the Court. 
` 
` 
`Second, we discussed Motorola’s refusal to engage in discovery with respect to non‐Android devices listed on Arendi’s Rule 4(a) disclosure. As I have repeatedly stated, 
`Arendi is willing to resolve this dispute through a sworn declaration from your client and the production of financial information showing when the last of these pre‐
`Android devices were made, imported, and sold. On the call, however, I offered the Brute i686 as but one example of why we do not believe this occurred before the 
`‘843 Patent issued—which Motorola has itself imposed as the date when it thinks damages in this case began to accrue. Again, please confirm by the end of the day on 
`Monday that Motorola will either comply with its discovery obligations with respect to pre‐Android devices or agrees to produce the required declaration and financials 
`by the end of the week.  
` 
` 
`Third, I remain concerned by the gross deficiency of Motorola’s non‐custodial document production. Motorola has produced well under 1,000 non‐custodial documents 
`for a multitude of accused devices. More than half of the documents are simple user manuals and user guides. Over 100 more documents are plain photographs of 
`phones, phone cases, and a workroom that appear to be taken in a Brazilian consumer research facility. Approximately 250 documents fall broadly into a category that 
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 194-1 Filed 12/13/19 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 6064
`might be broadly and generously described as consumer research, and two documents are movie files that are damages and cannot be opened. Hardly any of the 
`documents produced even reference the technology at issue. Motorola has produced a single document containing financial data. The financial document does not 
`appear to be one kept in the usual course of business, and as a summary document it does not fully answer Arendi’s financial document requests. This cannot represent 
`a complete production—or even a near‐complete—production of Motorola’s responsive documents, even if entire categories of responsive material, including 
`documents speaking to licensing, were not missing. Please confirm by the end of the day on Monday that Motorola will be supplementing all aspects of its document 
`production and a timeline for doing so.  
` 
` 
`You stated that custodial email production will be produced at the end of the week (i.e., today). That has not occurred. Please confirm when Motorola’s non‐custodial 
`document production will take place, and when Motorola will supplement its deficient non‐custodial production.  
` 
` 
`Finally, I would like to follow‐up on several specific points we touched on regarding Motorola’s responses and objections to the 30(b)(6) notice.   
` 
` 
`Topics 1‐6, 13, 15, 16, 21: As Rob Unikel stated for Google, you assured me that Motorola would not be limiting its testimony to “produced financial documents” but 
`would instead be produced to testify broadly concerning financial topics. Because you offered analogous assurances for all other topics for which Motorola stated it 
`would designate a representative to testify about certain produced documents, I will not repeat them below with respect to each topic. You also confirmed that, with 
`respect to Topic 21, Mr. Christensen will be produced to testify to the portions of the topic concerning marketing strategies, and his testimony will not be limited to 
`financials.  
`Topic 7‐11, 18: You assured me that testimony would not be limited to produced documents. Motorola’s witness will be available to speak to licensing practices and 
`procedures at Motorola. You stated that the witness would be able to speak about the licensing of software for Motorola phones, including the licensing of Google‐
`branded software. You said you would work with your client to identify license agreements responsive to Arendi’s document requests, given that no such agreements 
`have been produced. For topic 10, Motorola’s witness will also be able to speak about “proprietary technology.” For topic 11, the witness will also be able to speak to 
`issues of valuation more broadly. For topic 18, the witness will also be able to address royalty rates.  
`Topic 12: You confirmed that the deponent would be designated to address general licensing practices, preferred terms, etc. 
`Topic 13: Motorola will also designate Mr. Christensen to address the marketing half of this topic. 
`Topic 14: Motorola will not produce a witness. 
`Topic 17: You stated that Motorola would not produce a witness primarily because you claimed the importance of the relevant functionality was entirely beyond 
`Motorola’s knowledge. You stated that Motorola has no information about whether that functionality is or is not significant in the pricing, sales, or marketing of 
`competing products but that Motorola would not produce a deponent to confirm that lack of knowledge. 
`Topic 19: You stated that Motorola would not produce a witness and that the costs and benefits of including the relevant functionality in Motorola’s own products was 
`information beyond the corporate knowledge of Motorola. You stated, however, that you would follow‐up with your client. If your client has altered its position, please 
`provide us that information by the end of the day on Monday. 
`Topic 20: You confirmed that Motorola’s designee will testify to patent‐clearing policies and procedures. 
`Topics 22‐25: You confirmed that market research will be covered by Motorola’s designee for Topic 22. You confirmed that the designee for Topic 25 would be 
`knowledgeable and able to testify to matters of consumer use.  
`Topic 24: You stated that Motorola would not designate a representative deponent because it had no knowledge of how consumer’s use the Accused Products. I noted 
`that Motorola and produced a number of consumer research files that suggested Motorola might have such knowledge. If your client will be changing its position and 
`producing a representative to testify, we expect you will notify us by the end of the day on Monday.  
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 194-1 Filed 12/13/19 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 6065
`Topic 27, 29: You stated that Motorola will not designate a corporate representative to testify because Motorola surprisingly does not know how its products work or 
`what their capabilities are. You stated that you would go back to your client to see if it would reconsider. If Motorola has changed its position, we expect you will notify 
`us by the end of the day on Monday.      
`Topic 28: I stated that our primary interest is in securing a representative to testify as to part (b). You again stated that Motorola would not designate a corporate 
`representative to testify because Motorola does not know how its products function. You stated that you would go back to your client to see if it would reconsider as to 
`part (b). If Motorola has changed its position, we expect you will notify us by the end of the day on Monday.      
`Topic 30: I explained that at a minimum Motorola’s own promotion of the relevant functionality was within its corporate knowledge. You did not agree on the call, but 
`you stated that you would consult with your client to see if it would reconsider its refusal to designate a witness. If Motorola has changed its position, we expect you will 
`notify us by the end of the day on Monday.      
`Topic 31: You stated that Motorola would not designate a witness. 
`Topic 32: You stated that Arendi had no basis to ask a corporate representative about the identity of the (highly limited and selective) source code that had been 
`produced, what devices it was loaded on, when that code was released, replaced and supplanted, etc. You agreed, however, to inform your client of Arendi’s strong 
`disagreement. If Motorola has changed its position, we expect you will notify us by the end of the day on Monday.      
`Topic 34: You acknowledged an apparent typo in the Motorola’s written objections and said you would consult with your client about its intended response. Please 
`provide us with an updated response by the end of the day on Monday.  
`Topic 35: You stated that you would try to find someone knowledgeable about these topics to testify. I would remind you that if such an individual does not already 
`exist, Motorola has an affirmative obligation to educate a corporate representative to testify on these topics to the extent such information is available to Motorola. 
`Please inform us whether a representative will be designated by the end of the day on Monday.   
`Topics 37 and 38: You stated that Motorola would not designate a representative because this topic called for legal expertise in identifying the “functionality accused in 
`[Arendi’s infringement] contentions.” I noted that Motorola was trying to have it both ways and has repeatedly objected to any discovery that goes beyond any 
`“functionality accused in Arendi’s infringement contentions,” frequently using that phrase to limit the scope of Motorola’s responses.  
`Topic 39: You stated that Arendi was not entitled to discovery with respect to patents belonging to the same family as the patents‐in‐suit because such information was 
`not relevant to this suit. I noted that Motorola has repeatedly taken a contrary position and demanded documents and testimony concerning related patents and patent 
`applications. 
`Topics 40‐41: You stated that you would not designate a corporate representative on the basis that all of Motorola’s knowledge of these topics was necessarily 
`privileged. I explained that proper way to assert privilege was in response to specific questions at the deposition, and not as a blanket response to an entire topic that 
`very likely encompasses non‐privileged information.  
`Topic 42: You confirmed that Motorola’s representative will be educated to testify to this topic broadly. 
`Topic 43‐44: You stated that Motorola would not produce a representative, but you also offered to follow‐up with your client. If Motorola has changed its position, we 
`expect you will notify us by the end of the day on Monday.      
`Topic 45, 47, 48, 49: You stated that Motorola would not designate anyone to respond to custodian‐of‐records type requests and that such requests were per 
`se objectionable—regardless of the grossly deficient state of Motorola’s document production. 
`Topic 50‐51: You stated that Motorola would not designate a representative for these topics. You took the position that all communications by Motorola and its 
`employees with any third parties concerning this lawsuit or related lawsuits were automatically privileged—including any conversations between Motorola’s executives 
`and the executives of defendants in the other lawsuits independent of lawyers. You also stated that Motorola would have no knowledge of—and not be required to 
`testify to—statements made by its employees to third‐parties regarding this litigation. You refused, however, to agree that a similar (unsupportable) legal principle 
`would shield the communications of Arendi and its employees.  
`  
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 194-1 Filed 12/13/19 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 6066
`Thank you again for taking the time to speak with me earlier in the week. I look forward to receiving your response, and I do hope that Motorola will have reconsidered 
`some of its objections in light of our call.   
` 
` 
`Sincerely,  
`Max 
` 
`Max Straus | Susman Godfrey LLP 
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor | NY, NY 10019 
`(212) 729‐2048 (office) | (610) 213‐6194 (mobile)  
`
`8
`
`