Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 270-1 Filed 05/21/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 16919
`Case 1:14-cv-01432—LPS Document 270-1 Filed 05/21/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 16919
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 270-1 Filed 05/21/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 16920
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Davis, Hal (Shld-SFO-IP-Tech)
`Wednesday, April 29, 2020 2:55 PM
`Nosson Knobloch; Matthew Ford; Kat Hacker; Mailing List - Leedy;
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com; Michael J. Farnan
`#ELM3DS-MICRON-OMM; ElmMicron-RLF@rlf.com; apoff@ycst.com;
`pkraman@ycst.com; ServicePH Samsung-ELM 3DS; Narayen, Vishesh (OfCnl-TPA-IP-
`Tech); Schladweiler, Benjamin (Shld-DEL-IP-Tech); anandpatel@paulhastings.com
`Elm Litigation - Expedited Indefiniteness Schedule Proposal per Meet and Confer
`
`Nosson:
`
`Thank you for talking with us on Monday about Defendants’ proposal to expedite the issue of
`indefiniteness of the low stress terms.
`
`Here is a more concrete proposal for you and your client to consider:
`
`
`Deadline
`July 17, 2020
`August 7, 2020
`August 28, 2020
`September 18, 2020
`October 2, 2020
`October 16, 2020
`October 23, 2020
`TBD (November 6, 2020)
`
`Joint Proposed Expedited Schedule for Indefiniteness of “Low Stress” terms
`
`Event
`Deadline for fact discovery on “low stress” indefiniteness
`Opening expert reports on “low stress” indefiniteness
`Responsive expert reports on “low stress” indefiniteness
`Deadline for Expert discovery on “low stress” indefiniteness
`Case dispositive motion on indefiniteness on “low stress” terms
`Response to motion
`Reply in support of motion
`Hearing, subject to Court availability
`
`I can appreciate your initial hesitancy, but as I mentioned, we believe this proposal benefits all
`sides in getting a resolution on these issues at least 7-8 months earlier than anticipated under the
`current schedule.
`
`For one, it would mean that we would only have to do our expert reports / discovery only
`once. As it stands now, all the experts will have to take various, alternative positions on the
`terms and guess as to what the Court’s construction may be should the Court decide that the
`terms are not indefinite. Dkt. 258 at pp. 16-17 (ruling that the low stress term “is not ‘plain and
`ordinary’ meaning”). Although we do not have a trial date yet, this would likely occur fairly
`close to trial and cause a lot of unnecessary expense and scrambling by the parties to issue
`supplemental reports and complete depositions on the supplemental reports. It may even
`necessitate moving the trial back further to accommodate a Court construction.
`
`Second, clarification on this issue is likely to increase the chances that this case reaches an out-
`of-court resolution sooner. I don’t believe any party is going to seriously entertain settlement at
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 270-1 Filed 05/21/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 16921
`
`this stage of the case absent a court ruling on the indefiniteness issues. We believe the above
`schedule saves the parties resources and makes a quicker settlement more likely should we
`receive a decision by the court.
`
`Could you please let us know this week your position on this proposal?
`
`
`Harold Davis
`Shareholder
`
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`4 Embarcadero Ctr, Ste. 3000 | San Francisco, CA 94111-5983
`T +1 415.590.5100 Mobile +1.415.906.9922
`davish@gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`