Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 4838
`Case 1:17-cv-00868—CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 4838
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 4839
`Case 1:17-cv-00868—CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 4839
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 4840
`Case 1:17-cv-00868—CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 4840
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 4841
`Case 1:17-cv-00868—CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 4841
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: 4842
`Case 1:17-cv-00868—CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: 4842
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 4843
`Case 1:17-cv-00868—CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 4843
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 4844
`Case 1:17-cv-00868—CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 4844
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 4845
`Case 1:17-cv-00868—CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 4845
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 4846
`Case 1:17-cv-00868—CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 4846
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 10 of 25 PageID #:
` 4847
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 11 of 25 PageID #:
` 4848
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 12 of 25 PageID #:
` 4849
`
`From:
`To:
`
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Date:
`
`Tamar Lusztig
`Polatoglu, Serli; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC; Dittmann, Eric W.; Frederick Cottrell; Ashkenazi, Isaac S.; Jason
`Rawnsley; Jeffrey Moyer; Palys, Joseph E.; Katharine Mowery; Modi, Naveen; Tymoczko, Nicholas; Katherine F.
`Murray; Dennis S. Ellis
`Bill Carmody; Justin A. Nelson; Beatrice Franklin; Rodney Polanco; Keeley Lombardo
`RE: UMass v. L"Oreal: Stipulation
`Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:04:00 PM
`
`Serli,
`
`As I mentioned previously, we disagree with many of your characterizations of our call. I have
`responded below in red only where necessary to move these disputes forward. On that front, we
`would be happy to meet and confer tomorrow if your team thinks that would be helpful.
`
`-Tamar
`
`From: Tamar Lusztig
`Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 5:28 PM
`To: Polatoglu, Serli <serlipolatoglu@paulhastings.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-
`LOreal-USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W. <ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Frederick
`Cottrell <cottrell@rlf.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S. <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>; Jason Rawnsley
`<rawnsley@rlf.com>; Jeffrey Moyer <moyer@rlf.com>; Palys, Joseph E.
`<josephpalys@paulhastings.com>; Katharine Mowery <mowery@rlf.com>; Modi, Naveen
`<naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>; Tymoczko, Nicholas <nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>;
`Katherine F. Murray <kmurray@bgrfirm.com>; Dennis S. Ellis <dellis@bgrfirm.com>
`Cc: Bill Carmody <bcarmody@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Justin A. Nelson
`<jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>; Rodney
`Polanco <RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>; Keeley Lombardo <klombardo@susmangodfrey.com>
`Subject: RE: UMass v. L'Oreal: Stipulation
`
`Serli, we disagree with several of these characterizations, and will respond in more detail shortly.
`
`From: Polatoglu, Serli <serlipolatoglu@paulhastings.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 5:24 PM
`To: Tamar Lusztig <TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-LOreal-
`USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W. <ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Frederick Cottrell
`<cottrell@rlf.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S. <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>; Jason Rawnsley
`<rawnsley@rlf.com>; Jeffrey Moyer <moyer@rlf.com>; Palys, Joseph E.
`<josephpalys@paulhastings.com>; Katharine Mowery <mowery@rlf.com>; Modi, Naveen
`<naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>; Tymoczko, Nicholas <nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>;
`Katherine F. Murray <kmurray@bgrfirm.com>; Dennis S. Ellis <dellis@bgrfirm.com>
`Cc: Bill Carmody <bcarmody@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Justin A. Nelson
`<jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>; Rodney
`Polanco <RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>; Keeley Lombardo <KLombardo@susmangodfrey.com>
`Subject: RE: UMass v. L'Oreal: Stipulation
`
`Counsel,
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 13 of 25 PageID #:
` 4850
`
`
`Thanks for your time yesterday. During yesterday’s meet and confer, L’Oréal USA represented that
`it is working to identify any “launch books” that exist but have not yet been collected and produced
`for the products Plaintiffs have identified. L’Oréal USA further indicated that it would produce any
`such launch books that it is able to locate for those products. Plaintiffs asserted that “marketing
`documents” include “product development” documents that explain the rationale for using
`adenosine in the Accused Products. L’Oréal USA explained that Plaintiffs continue to disregard the
`parties’ agreement with respect to “marketing documents” and burden L’Oréal USA with new
`requests as we attempt to close fact discovery. We explained that we have repeatedly asked for
`business strategy documents related to the accused products, which we have not received, whether
`you want to call them “marketing” documents or “product development” documents. We continue
`to dispute your characterization of the parties’ prior agreement with respect to our RFP 31.
`
`L’Oréal USA confirmed that it has been looking into Plaintiffs’ request for further documents related
`to the Abella publication that the parties discussed on the April 14 meet and confer. L’Oréal USA
`indicated that it had determined that M.L. Abella is a former employee of L’Oréal S.A. in France, who
`left the company a decade ago in 2010, and that it will continue to investigate whether or not any
`relevant documents related to that Abella publication are available, beyond those that L’Oréal USA
`has already produced. Plaintiffs then indicated for the first time that they are broadening the scope
`of this request to include documents related to a second Abella publication. L’Oréal USA indicated
`that Plaintiffs have not raised this article before, either in the correspondence on this issue or on the
`April 14 meet and confer. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ own correspondence on this issue indicates that their
`request pertained only to the single Abella study that is allegedly cited on L’Oréal USA’s website.
`(See, e.g., 3/31 Email from T. Lusztig to Counsel (“the Abella testing described on your website”); 4/9
`Email from T. Lusztig to S. Polatoglu (“the Abella testing cited on the L’Oréal Paris USA website”);
`4/17 Email from T. Lusztig to S. Polatoglu (“documents referencing Abella’s study”).) We did not
`“broaden” our request. On the contrary, we explained that we served two RFPs in July 2019 (Nos. 33
`and 34), which request documents related to two separate articles authored by Abella. In its written
`objections and responses, L’Oreal stated it would search for and produce documents responsive to
`both of these requests.
`
`The parties were unable to resolve the outstanding issues regarding the draft Teresian Carmelites
`stipulation. Plaintiffs confirmed that, having dropped their lost profits damages theory, they are at
`present only contemplating “damages consisting of a reasonable royalty, enhanced damages due to
`Defendant’s willful infringement, and interest, costs, and attorneys fees,” and could not articulate
`any other form of damages they are seeking.
`
`Plaintiffs skipped the case schedule as an agenda item, and when L’Oréal USA asked why Plaintiffs
`had skipped over that agenda item, Plaintiffs represented that they believe the parties are at an
`impasse on that issue. We did not “skip” the case schedule as an agenda item—it was never set as
`an agenda item when we requested the call to discuss the outstanding issues that Defendant has not
`yet provided us its position on. When Defendant brought it up, we asked if there was anything about
`the case schedule you wanted to discuss, and you did not identify anything.
`
`Plaintiffs requested that L’Oréal USA provide amended initial disclosures, which L’Oréal USA agreed
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 14 of 25 PageID #:
` 4851
`
`to provide. Further, Plaintiffs insisted that they needed organizational charts for all of L’Oréal USA
`for the entire six-year damages period, or at least for “Research & Innovation,” “marketing,” and
`“finance.” L’Oréal USA indicated that such charts are unlikely to reflect the lower level employees
`who would have the kind of product-specific information that Plaintiffs have been requesting, and
`that it does not know whether organizational charts are grouped into the three verticals identified
`by Plaintiffs. L’Oréal USA indicated that it would look into Plaintiffs’ request, which was not raised
`on the parties’ April 14 meet and confer. That is not quite accurate. We said we needed
`organizational charts because Defendant has never identified a single L’Oreal witness in its initial
`disclosures. If Defendant now identifies a number of new witnesses it has never previously disclosed,
`that it plans to bring to trial, that would be highly prejudicial to Plaintiffs. We can limit our request to
`current org charts, including L’Oreal USA corporate org charts, without prejudice to our asking for
`additional org charts if a specific need arises. We obviously disagree on whether we discussed org
`charts last week, but in any event, we have now met and conferred about them.
`
`Thank you for confirming that Plaintiffs continue to anticipate being able to comply with their
`previous representation to supplement Plaintiffs’ response to L’Oréal USA’s Interrogatory No. 14
`regarding invalidity. We recognize that Plaintiffs are now seeking until May 1 to provide that
`necessary supplementation. You also raised our request that you supplement your interrogatory
`response regarding non-infringement, but then refused to discuss the issue substantively.
`
`Best,
`-Serli
`
`
`From: Tamar Lusztig <TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>
`Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 12:40 PM
`To: Polatoglu, Serli <serlipolatoglu@paulhastings.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-
`LOreal-USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W. <ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Frederick
`Cottrell <cottrell@rlf.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S. <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>; Jason Rawnsley
`<rawnsley@rlf.com>; Jeffrey Moyer <moyer@rlf.com>; Palys, Joseph E.
`<josephpalys@paulhastings.com>; Katharine Mowery <mowery@rlf.com>; Murray, Katherine F.
`<katherinemurray@paulhastings.com>; Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>;
`Tymoczko, Nicholas <nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>
`Cc: Bill Carmody <bcarmody@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Justin A. Nelson
`<jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>; Rodney
`Polanco <RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>; Keeley Lombardo <KLombardo@susmangodfrey.com>
`Subject: [EXT] RE: UMass v. L'Oreal: Stipulation
`
`Serli, we would prefer to meet and confer before 6 PM ET, but if that is the only time you are
`offering, we can do 6 PM ET.
`
`From: Polatoglu, Serli <serlipolatoglu@paulhastings.com>
`Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 3:01 PM
`To: Tamar Lusztig <TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-LOreal-
`USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W. <ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Frederick Cottrell
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 15 of 25 PageID #:
` 4852
`
`<cottrell@rlf.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S. <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>; Jason Rawnsley
`<rawnsley@rlf.com>; Jeffrey Moyer <moyer@rlf.com>; Palys, Joseph E.
`<josephpalys@paulhastings.com>; Katharine Mowery <mowery@rlf.com>; Murray, Katherine F.
`<katherinemurray@paulhastings.com>; Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>;
`Tymoczko, Nicholas <nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>
`Cc: Bill Carmody <bcarmody@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Justin A. Nelson
`<jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>; Rodney
`Polanco <RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>; Keeley Lombardo <KLombardo@susmangodfrey.com>
`Subject: RE: UMass v. L'Oreal: Stipulation
`
`Counsel,
`
`We are available to meet and confer today at 3 p.m. PST. If that works for you, please circulate a
`dial-in.
`
`Best,
`-Serli
`
`From: Tamar Lusztig <TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>
`Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 11:23 AM
`To: Polatoglu, Serli <serlipolatoglu@paulhastings.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-
`LOreal-USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W. <ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Frederick
`Cottrell <cottrell@rlf.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S. <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>; Jason Rawnsley
`<rawnsley@rlf.com>; Jeffrey Moyer <moyer@rlf.com>; Palys, Joseph E.
`<josephpalys@paulhastings.com>; Katharine Mowery <mowery@rlf.com>; Murray, Katherine F.
`<katherinemurray@paulhastings.com>; Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>;
`Tymoczko, Nicholas <nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>
`Cc: Bill Carmody <bcarmody@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Justin A. Nelson
`<jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>; Rodney
`Polanco <RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>; Keeley Lombardo <KLombardo@susmangodfrey.com>
`Subject: [EXT] RE: UMass v. L'Oreal: Stipulation
`
`Counsel, we have never gotten a response from you with respect to our request to meet and confer
`this week to narrow any further issues for the Court.
`
`From: Tamar Lusztig
`Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 5:02 PM
`To: Polatoglu, Serli <serlipolatoglu@paulhastings.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-
`LOreal-USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W. <ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Frederick
`Cottrell <cottrell@rlf.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S. <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>; Jason Rawnsley
`<rawnsley@rlf.com>; Jeffrey Moyer <moyer@rlf.com>; Palys, Joseph E.
`<josephpalys@paulhastings.com>; Katharine Mowery <mowery@rlf.com>; Murray, Katherine F.
`<katherinemurray@paulhastings.com>; Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>;
`Tymoczko, Nicholas <nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>
`Cc: Bill Carmody <bcarmody@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Justin A. Nelson
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 16 of 25 PageID #:
` 4853
`
`<jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>; Rodney
`Polanco <RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>; Keeley Lombardo <klombardo@susmangodfrey.com>
`Subject: RE: UMass v. L'Oreal: Stipulation
`
`Serli,
`
`Please find some further redlines attached, which we needed to run by our client before we could
`send to you.
`
`With respect to your summary of our call, you have omitted my explanation of “why” Carmel Labs
`was founded—i.e., that it was founded to provide funds to the Teresian Carmelites. With respect to
`the “communications between the Teresian Carmelites and L’Oreal USA and/or L’Oreal S.A.,” I
`clarified both on the call and in my email below that I was referring to communications between
`Carmel Labs and L’Oreal, which reference the Teresian Carmelites, and which both sides have
`produced in this case.
`
`With respect to your statement about paragraphs 1(c) and 5 of the stipulation, we agree, but would
`like to further clarify that we do not agree it would be proper to, for example, redact the name
`“Teresian Carmelites” from any such document either.
`
`We propose scheduling three short meet and confers before next Friday's telephonic hearing, to
`hopefully narrow the issues for the Court. Let’s try to speak on Monday before the letter briefs due
`that day, on Wednesday before the final responsive briefs are due, and briefly on Thursday after the
`30(b)(6) deposition concludes. Ideally we will be able to remove many issues from the Court’s
`consideration this way, and not have to address certain issues in our letters. On those calls we are
`happy to discuss this stipulation again if necessary, as well as discussing again our request for
`organizational charts.
`
`-Tamar
`
`From: Polatoglu, Serli <serlipolatoglu@paulhastings.com>
`Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 2:33 PM
`To: Tamar Lusztig <TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-LOreal-
`USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W. <ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Frederick Cottrell
`<cottrell@rlf.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S. <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>; Jason Rawnsley
`<rawnsley@rlf.com>; Jeffrey Moyer <moyer@rlf.com>; Palys, Joseph E.
`<josephpalys@paulhastings.com>; Katharine Mowery <mowery@rlf.com>; Murray, Katherine F.
`<katherinemurray@paulhastings.com>; Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>;
`Tymoczko, Nicholas <nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>
`Cc: Bill Carmody <bcarmody@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Justin A. Nelson
`<jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>; Rodney
`Polanco <RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>; Keeley Lombardo <KLombardo@susmangodfrey.com>
`Subject: RE: UMass v. L'Oreal: Stipulation
`
`Counsel,
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 17 of 25 PageID #:
` 4854
`
`
`You represented that you expected to have this issue resolved before our call with the Court.
`However, we sent you edits to the stipulation on Wednesday and have still not heard back. Please
`confirm you will be sending edits to the stipulation shortly.
`
`Best,
`-Serli
`
`From: Polatoglu, Serli
`Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:43 AM
`To: 'Tamar Lusztig' <TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-LOreal-
`USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W. <ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Frederick Cottrell
`<cottrell@rlf.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S. <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>; Jason Rawnsley
`<rawnsley@rlf.com>; Jeffrey Moyer <moyer@rlf.com>; Palys, Joseph E.
`<josephpalys@paulhastings.com>; Katharine Mowery <mowery@rlf.com>; Murray, Katherine F.
`<katherinemurray@paulhastings.com>; Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>;
`Tymoczko, Nicholas <nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>
`Cc: Bill Carmody <bcarmody@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Justin A. Nelson
`<jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>; Rodney
`Polanco <RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>; Keeley Lombardo <KLombardo@susmangodfrey.com>
`Subject: RE: UMass v. L'Oreal: Stipulation
`
`Counsel,
`
`Attached, please find a further edited version of the stipulation. I accepted the edits that we
`proposed in the previous version, and then made additional edits on top of that in redline, in
`accordance with our discussion yesterday.
`
`Thank you for clarifying during our call that “the founding of Plaintiff Carmel Labs, including why it
`was founded and that it is a subsidiary of the Teresian Carmelites,” in Paragraph 1(a) of the attached,
`refers only to the fact that Carmel Labs is a for-profit subsidiary of the Teresian Carmelites. Thank
`you for further clarifying that “any communications between the Teresian Carmelites and L’Oréal
`USA and/or L’Oréal S.A.” in Paragraph 1(b) of the attached refers to the written correspondence
`between these entities that the parties have produced in this litigation to date.
`
`We further appreciate your representation on our call yesterday that Plaintiffs do not plan on
`introducing lengthy evidence regarding Mr. Wyrzykowski’s monastic life during trial, but only plan to
`introduce evidence establishing that the Teresian Carmelites is a monastery of which Mr.
`Wyrzykowski used to be a member.
`
`Further, we agreed during our phone call that the parties read both Paragraphs 1(c) and Paragraph 5
`of the attached as standing for the proposition that otherwise relevant, admissible documents do
`not become inadmissible per the stipulation simply because they refer to the Teresian Carmelites.
`
`We look forward to receiving your edits to the two paragraphs regarding damages shortly, so we can
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 18 of 25 PageID #:
` 4855
`
`get this on file.
`
`Best,
`-Serli
`
`From: Tamar Lusztig <TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>
`Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 3:24 PM
`To: Polatoglu, Serli <serlipolatoglu@paulhastings.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-
`LOreal-USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W. <ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Frederick
`Cottrell <cottrell@rlf.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S. <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>; Jason Rawnsley
`<rawnsley@rlf.com>; Jeffrey Moyer <moyer@rlf.com>; Palys, Joseph E.
`<josephpalys@paulhastings.com>; Katharine Mowery <mowery@rlf.com>; Murray, Katherine F.
`<katherinemurray@paulhastings.com>; Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>;
`Tymoczko, Nicholas <nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>
`Cc: Bill Carmody <bcarmody@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Justin A. Nelson
`<jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>; Rodney
`Polanco <RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>; Keeley Lombardo <KLombardo@susmangodfrey.com>
`Subject: [EXT] RE: UMass v. L'Oreal: Stipulation
`
`Serli,
`
`We do not agree with these edits. The Court directed us to represent what is “in or out” with respect
`to the Teresian Carmelites. We have now represented which, if any, issues related to the Teresian
`Carmelites are relevant to this case, and that we have produced any non-privileged documents
`relevant to those narrow issues. With respect to your question about the letters exchanged between
`L’Oreal and the Teresian Carmelites, we were referring to the communications between Carmel Labs
`and L’Oreal, which reference the Teresian Carmelites, and which both sides have produced.
`
`We are happy to discuss this issue further.
`
`-Tamar
`
`From: Polatoglu, Serli <serlipolatoglu@paulhastings.com>
`Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 4:35 PM
`To: Tamar Lusztig <TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-LOreal-
`USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W. <ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Frederick Cottrell
`<cottrell@rlf.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S. <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>; Jason Rawnsley
`<rawnsley@rlf.com>; Jeffrey Moyer <moyer@rlf.com>; Palys, Joseph E.
`<josephpalys@paulhastings.com>; Katharine Mowery <mowery@rlf.com>; Murray, Katherine F.
`<katherinemurray@paulhastings.com>; Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>;
`Tymoczko, Nicholas <nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>
`Cc: Bill Carmody <bcarmody@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Justin A. Nelson
`<jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>; Rodney
`Polanco <RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>; Keeley Lombardo <KLombardo@susmangodfrey.com>
`Subject: RE: UMass v. L'Oreal: Stipulation
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 19 of 25 PageID #:
` 4856
`
`
`Counsel,
`
`We have accepted your changes to the stipulation and made additional edits in track changes (see
`attached). Please let us know when you are available to discuss this week.
`
`Best,
`-Serli
`
`From: Tamar Lusztig <TLusztig@susmangodfrey.com>
`Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 2:25 PM
`To: Ellis, Dennis S. <DennisEllis@paulhastings.com>; PH-UMASS v. L’Oreal USDC <PH-UMass-LOreal-
`USDC@paulhastings.com>; Dittmann, Eric W. <ericdittmann@paulhastings.com>; Frederick Cottrell
`<cottrell@rlf.com>; Ashkenazi, Isaac S. <isaacashkenazi@paulhastings.com>; Jason Rawnsley
`<rawnsley@rlf.com>; Jeffrey Moyer <moyer@rlf.com>; Palys, Joseph E.
`<josephpalys@paulhastings.com>; Katharine Mowery <mowery@rlf.com>; Murray, Katherine F.
`<katherinemurray@paulhastings.com>; Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>;
`Tymoczko, Nicholas <nicholastymoczko@paulhastings.com>; Polatoglu, Serli
`<serlipolatoglu@paulhastings.com>
`Cc: Bill Carmody <bcarmody@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Justin A. Nelson
`<jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com>; Beatrice Franklin <BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com>; Rodney
`Polanco <RPolanco@susmangodfrey.com>; Keeley Lombardo <KLombardo@susmangodfrey.com>
`Subject: [EXT] UMass v. L'Oreal: Stipulation
`
`Counsel,
`
`Attached are our redlines to the stipulation you previously circulated. Please let us know if you’d like
`to discuss.
`
`Thanks,
`
`-Tamar
`
`
`Tamar Lusztig | Susman Godfrey LLP
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor | New York, NY 10019
`212-729-2007 (direct) | 617-967-8748 (cell)
`
`
`******************************************************************************************
`This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name
`and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings’ information collection, privacy
`and security principles please click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact Privacy@paulhastings.com.
`
`******************************************************************************************
`This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 20 of 25 PageID #:
` 4857
`
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name
`and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings’ information collection, privacy
`and security principles please click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact Privacy@paulhastings.com.
`
`******************************************************************************************
`This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name
`and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings’ information collection, privacy
`and security principles please click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact Privacy@paulhastings.com.
`
`******************************************************************************************
`This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name
`and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings’ information collection, privacy
`and security principles please click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact Privacy@paulhastings.com.
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 21 of 25 PageID #:
` 4858
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 22 of 25 PageID #:
` 4859
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS and
`CARMEL LABORATORIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`L’ORÉAL USA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
` Case No. 17-cv-868-CFC-SRF
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`DEFENDANT’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, Plaintiffs University of
`
`
`
`Massachusetts (“UMass”) and Carmel Laboratories, LLC (“Carmel Labs” and, together,
`
`“Plaintiffs”) submit their objections and responses to the First Set of Interrogatories
`
`(“Interrogatories”) of Defendant L’Oréal USA, Inc., based on their current knowledge,
`
`understanding, and belief as to the facts and information available to Plaintiffs as of the date of these
`
`Responses.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`These Responses are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each Response is
`
`1.
`
`subject to all objections, as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, and admissibility,
`
`and to any and all other objections on any grounds that would require the exclusion of any
`
`statements contained herein if such Interrogatory were asked of, or statements contained herein
`
`were made by a witness present and testifying in Court, all of which objections and grounds are
`
`expressly reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Responses are based upon information presently available to and
`
`7216274v1/015369
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 23 of 25 PageID #:
` 4860
`
`LOUSA0001829, LOUSA0001830, LOUSA0001831, LOUSA0001833, LOUSA0001838,
`
`LOUSA0001840, LOUSA0001844, LOUSA0001846, LOUSA0001848, LOUSA0001851,
`
`LOUSA0001853, LOUSA0001856.
`
`Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this Response as discovery continues.
`
`
`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 14
`
`Describe in detail all Your reasons for asserting that the asserted claims of the Patents-in- Suit
`
`are not invalid, including Your response to L’Oréal USA’s Initial Invalidity Contentions, and the
`
`facts and circumstances that support those reasons, and identify all evidence, Documents, and
`
`Things that demonstrate those facts and circumstances, as well as any Persons with information
`
`Concerning those facts and circumstances (by name and relevant reason(s), fact(s), and/or
`
`circumstance(s)).
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected from
`
`disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the joint defense
`
`or common-interest privilege, or any other privilege or immunity. Plaintiffs further object to this
`
`Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad and unduly burdensome, including to the extent it
`
`seeks Plaintiffs’ contentions on invalidity theories that Defendant has not properly disclosed..
`
`Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory insofar as it calls for information that is not within
`
`Plaintiffs’ custody or control, including information that is public and/or within Defendant’s
`
`control, but has improperly withheld from Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further object on the basis that this
`
`Interrogatory is compound and as improperly having multiple discrete subparts, each of which
`
`should be considered a separate Interrogatory. Plaintiffs further object to the extent this
`
`7216274v1/015369
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 136-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 24 of 25 PageID #:
` 4861
`
`Interrogatory calls for a legal conclusion or expert opinion. Plaintiffs further object to this
`
`Interrogatory as premature. Plaintiffs will disclose any expert testimony in accordance with the
`
`schedule ordered by the Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs respond as follows:
`
`The Patents-in-Suit were issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and
`
`are presumptively valid and enforceable. See Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs, Inc.,
`
`944 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“A patent is presumed valid, and overcoming that
`
`presumption at the district court requires clear and convincing evidence.”); 35 U.S.C. § 282(a)
`
`(“A patent shall be presumed valid. Each claim of a patent . . . shall be presumed valid
`
`independently of the validity of other claims; dependent or multiple dependent claims shall be
`
`presumed valid even though dependent upon an invalid claim. The burden of establishing
`
`invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.”). This
`
`includes the presumption that the Patents-in-Suit possess written-description support, are
`
`enabled, and are not indefinite, absent “clear and convincing” evidence from to the contrary. See
`
`Sprint Commc’ns Co. L.P. v. Cox Commc’ns Inc., 302 F. Supp. 3d 597, 606 (D. Del. 2017)
`
`(“Accused infringers must ultimately prove that the written description fails these standards by
`
`clear and convincing evidence.”) (citing Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052,
`
`1072–73 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); see also Pharmaceutical Res., Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc., 253 F.
`
`App’x 26, 28 (Fed. Cir. 2007