Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 161-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2023 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 161-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2023 Page 2 of 8
`
`From: Christopher Clayton
`Mail received time: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 19:20:16
`Sent: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 23:20:06
`To: Chajon, Michael (WDC)
`Cc: Paul Richter Adam Woodward Alexander F. Rojas Jose I. Rojas Moffa, Matthew (NYC) Patariu, Kevin (SDO) Joseph
`W. Bain Jodi-Ann Tillman Jason Xu andrew.fuller@nelsonmullins.com Gass, Christopher J. Airan, David Kopinski, Nicole
`Subject: RE: BNR v. HMD et al., No. 1:22-cv-22706 - Discovery hearing and upcoming negotiations
`Importance: Normal
`Sensitivity: None
`
`EXTERNAL: This email originated from outside of the SHUTTS email system. Do not respond, click any links or open any
`attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
`
`Mike,
`
`\~
`
`Thank you for your time and your colleague’s time.\~
`
`\~
`
`Regarding P.R. 3-1(c) (claim charts), BNR proposes supplementation by serving a separate claim chart for each Accused
`Instrumentality for each asserted patent consistent with our discussion today, namely: (a) the “at least” language and the list of
`products that follows will be removed from the claim chart; (b) the Accused Instrumentalities definition for a given chart will only
`refer to one product; and (c) BNR will update its P.R. 3-1(b) disclosures to only reflect products that have been charted under
`P.R. 3-1(c).\~ Please confirm that Defendants agree to this proposal and that the issue is resolved, or please let us know what
`changes Defendants would like to see in order for this issue to be resolved.\~ We did not reach agreement on the call with
`respect to what would constitute a sufficient allegation of representativeness.\~
`
`\~
`
`Also with respect to P.R. 3-1(c) (means-plus-function), we understand that this issue is isolated to the ‘941 patent, claims 10,
`12, and 15 and that BNR will supplement these limitations to reflect structure disclosed in the patent.\~ Please confirm that this
`proposed supplementation resolves the issue. \~\~\~\~\~
`
`\~
`
`Regarding P.R. 3-1(b) (method claims),\~ BNR will supplement its P.R. 3-1(b) disclosures by specifically identifying the
`method claims, identifying the product applicable to that claim, and for each product, identifying the use of the product by the
`defendant that allegedly results in the practice of the claimed method.\~ Please confirm that this proposed supplementation
`resolves the issue. \~
`
`\~
`
`Regarding P.R. 3-1(d) (indirect infringement), BNR will supplement the claim charts to include indirect infringement allegations
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 161-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2023 Page 3 of 8
`on a limitation-by-limitation basis and incorporate this supplementation by reference in the P.R. 3-1(d) disclosure section.\~
`These allegations, if they are supplemented in a given limitation, will identify the specific defendant and the acts of the defendant
`that induce infringement.\~ Please confirm that this proposed supplementation resolves the issue. \~\~\~\~
`
`\~
`
`Regarding P.R. 3-1(e) (doctrine of equivalents), BNR will supplement its claim charts to identify each “function, way, and
`result that is equivalent [and] why any differences are not substantial” for each pertinent claim limitation and will remove the DOE
`references that are currently in the cover of the charts but are not expressly contained in a limitation.\~ Please confirm that this
`proposed supplementation resolves the issue.
`
`\~
`
`If Defendants confirm on the issue above, we are amendable to calling off the currently scheduled call at 11 AM ET tomorrow.
`
`\~
`
`Best,
`
`\~
`
`Chris
`
`\~
`
`\~
`
`\~
`
`From: Chajon, Michael (WDC) <MChajon@perkinscoie.com>
`Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 10:07 PM
`To: Christopher Clayton <cclayton@devlinlawfirm.com>
`Cc: Paul Richter <prichter@devlinlawfirm.com>; Adam Woodward <awoodward@devlinlawfirm.com>; Alexander F. Rojas
`<arojas@rojaslawfirm.com>; Jose I. Rojas <jrojas@rojaslawfirm.com>; Moffa, Matthew (NYC)
`<MMoffa@perkinscoie.com>; Patariu, Kevin (SDO) <KPatariu@perkinscoie.com>; Joseph W. Bain <JBain@shutts.com>;
`jtillman@shutts.com; Jason Xu <jason.xu@rimonlaw.com>; andrew.fuller@nelsonmullins.com; Gass, Christopher J.
`<cgass@leydig.com>; Airan, David <dairan@leydig.com>; Kopinski, Nicole <nkopinski@leydig.com>
`Subject: RE: BNR v. HMD et al., No. 1:22-cv-22706 - Discovery hearing and upcoming negotiations
`
`\~
`
`Chris,
`
`\~
`
`Thank you for sending this proposal. To have a meaningful meet and confer tomorrow, we are sending our initial reactions to
`your proposal.
`
`\~
`
`P.R. 3-1(c) (claim charts). For the proposed supplementation under P.R. 3-1(c) (claim charts), we agree that a representative
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 161-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2023 Page 4 of 8
`basis will obviate the need for additional charts if it establishes that each limitation of each asserted patent claim is present in each
`Accused Instrumentality. As you know, to prove infringement, “the patentee must show that [an] accused device contains each
`and every limitation of the asserted claims.” Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`The representative basis you provide needs to meet this standard.
`
`\~
`
`The proposed language you us sent merely asserts that “each Accused Instrumentality is compliant with the 802.11n” and “the
`same infringing features exist within the 802.11n standard in the same way.” But you gave no basis for this assertion. We are
`therefore unable to test the truth of your sweeping statement. At minimum, you must provide for each Accused Instrumentality
`the basis for BNR’s assertion that the device is 802.11n compliant and why compliance is enough to establish that each limitation
`of each asserted patent claim is supposedly satisfied in the same way—i.e., that each accused device implements the cited
`portions of the standard in the same way you allege for the representative device (e.g., the Nokia G50). BNR knows that these
`devices are manufactured by different ODMs with chipsets from different suppliers, and the ODMs and chipset suppliers, not
`HMD, know how a given device implements a standard. See Silicon Labs., Inc. v. Cresta Tech. Corp., No. 14-CV-03227,
`2015 WL 846679, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2015) (A patentee must “look to the information available to it to explain how the
`non-charted products work in the same material fashion as those charted.”).
`
`\~
`
`BNR cannot merely allege that a product is representative without providing the basis for its assertion. See Silicon Labs., 2015
`WL 846679, at *2 (“[I]n order to rely on a claim that one accused product represents another for purposes of Rule 3-1(c), a
`patentee must do more than state as much. A patentee must state how.”); Geovector Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 16-
`CV-02463, 2017 WL 76950, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2017) (“GeoVector does not offer any analysis why these products,
`many of which are not even the same general type of product, can be charted representatively except to conclusorily state that
`‘the infringing devices contain’ the various claim limitations.”).
`
`\~
`
`Also, you gave us the representative basis only for the ’629 patent. To have a meaningful discussion, we need to see the
`proposed language for each asserted patent. Without the proposed supplementation for each patent, we cannot tell if you will
`provide the information required by the Patent Rules and case law. For some patents, BNR relies on compliance with other
`standards (e.g., the ’914 patent/ 802.11ac, the ’072 patent/ETSI TS 144 018 V.10.4.0). For other patents, you do not rely on
`standards at all but instead rely on software or hardware features (e.g., device components, chip packages, sensors,
`microprocessors, Find My Device software, etc.).
`
`\~
`
`P.R. 3-1(d) (indirect infringement). For the proposed supplementation under P.R. 3-1(d) (indirect infringement), you propose
`identifying “Defendant’s customers and end-users that would be the direct infringers,” and “the ‘acts’ of indirect infringement”
`“based on public information, such as website links showing how customers and end-users should use the accused products.” To
`have a meaningful discussion, we need to see your proposed supplementation to understand what specific acts of direct
`infringement you allege are the predicates for indirect infringement, who you allege does them, and what acts you allege each
`Defendant does to induce that infringement. The Defendants operate at different levels of the supply chain and their involvement
`varies.
`
`\~
`
`P.R. 3-1(e) (doctrine of equivalents): We agree to your proposed supplementation, namely, that BNR will revise its claim
`charts to identify each “function, way, and result that is equivalent [and] why any differences are not substantial” for each
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 161-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2023 Page 5 of 8
`pertinent claim limitation. If BNR does this, we believe this dispute will be resolved.
`
`\~
`
`P.R. 3-1(b) (method claims): We understand that you will identify the specific defendant for each asserted method claim, and
`will add an allegation that the claimed method is supposedly performed by the identified defendant when it uses an accused
`product that you will also specifically identify. If BNR does this, we believe this dispute will be resolved.
`
`\~
`
`P.R. 3-1(c) (means-plus-function limitations): We agree to your proposed supplementation, namely, that BNR will revise the
`pertinent claim chart to reflect structure disclosed in the asserted patent. If BNR does this, we believe this dispute will be
`resolved.
`
`\~
`
`Please let us know if you will provide the information we request either before our meet-and-confer or during the conference.
`We are amenable to rescheduling the conference if you need more time.
`
`\~
`
`Thanks,
`
`Mike
`
`\~
`
`Mike Chajon | Perkins Coie LLP
`
`COUNSEL
`
`D. +1.202.654.3316
`
`E. MChajon@perkinscoie.com
`
`\~
`
`From: Christopher Clayton <cclayton@devlinlawfirm.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9:23 PM
`To: Chajon, Michael (WDC) <MChajon@perkinscoie.com>
`Cc: Paul Richter <prichter@devlinlawfirm.com>; Adam Woodward <awoodward@devlinlawfirm.com>; Alexander F. Rojas
`<arojas@rojaslawfirm.com>; Jose I. Rojas <jrojas@rojaslawfirm.com>; Moffa, Matthew (NYC)
`<MMoffa@perkinscoie.com>; Patariu, Kevin (SDO) <KPatariu@perkinscoie.com>; Joseph W. Bain <JBain@shutts.com>;
`jtillman@shutts.com; Jason Xu <jason.xu@rimonlaw.com>; andrew.fuller@nelsonmullins.com; Gass, Christopher J.
`<cgass@leydig.com>; Airan, David <dairan@leydig.com>; Kopinski, Nicole <nkopinski@leydig.com>
`Subject: RE: BNR v. HMD et al., No. 1:22-cv-22706 - Discovery hearing and upcoming negotiations
`
`\~
`
`Counsel,
`
`\~
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 161-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2023 Page 6 of 8
`Please see the attached letter proposal in PDF and Word.\~ We are available to videoconference during the times below:
`
`\~
`
`\~
`
`Friday (3/24), from 10 AM to 2 PM ET;
`Monday (3/27), from 11 AM to 2 PM ET;
`Tuesday (3/29), from 10 AM to 2 PM ET.
`
`If none of these times work, please propose alternate times.
`
`\~
`
`Best,
`
`\~
`
`Chris
`
`\~
`
`From: Chajon, Michael (WDC) <MChajon@perkinscoie.com>
`Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 12:26 PM
`To: Christopher Clayton <cclayton@devlinlawfirm.com>
`Cc: Paul Richter <prichter@devlinlawfirm.com>; Adam Woodward <awoodward@devlinlawfirm.com>; Alexander F. Rojas
`<arojas@rojaslawfirm.com>; Jose I. Rojas <jrojas@rojaslawfirm.com>; Moffa, Matthew (NYC)
`<MMoffa@perkinscoie.com>; Patariu, Kevin (SDO) <KPatariu@perkinscoie.com>; Joseph W. Bain <JBain@shutts.com>;
`jtillman@shutts.com; Jason Xu <jason.xu@rimonlaw.com>; andrew.fuller@nelsonmullins.com; Gass, Christopher J.
`<cgass@leydig.com>; Airan, David <dairan@leydig.com>; Kopinski, Nicole <nkopinski@leydig.com>
`Subject: RE: BNR v. HMD et al., No. 1:22-cv-22706 - Discovery hearing and upcoming negotiations
`
`\~
`
`Hi Chris,
`
`\~
`
`Thank you for agreeing to the extension. To avoid any doubt, we explicitly preserve our objections including for attorney-client
`privilege, work product doctrine, or any other privilege or immunity.
`
`\~
`
`Best,
`
`Mike
`
`\~
`
`Mike Chajon | Perkins Coie LLP
`
`COUNSEL
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 161-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2023 Page 7 of 8
`D. +1.202.654.3316
`
`E. MChajon@perkinscoie.com
`
`\~
`
`From: Christopher Clayton <cclayton@devlinlawfirm.com>
`Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 12:23 PM
`To: Chajon, Michael (WDC) <MChajon@perkinscoie.com>
`Cc: Paul Richter <prichter@devlinlawfirm.com>; Adam Woodward <awoodward@devlinlawfirm.com>; Alexander F. Rojas
`<arojas@rojaslawfirm.com>; Jose I. Rojas <jrojas@rojaslawfirm.com>; Moffa, Matthew (NYC)
`<MMoffa@perkinscoie.com>; Patariu, Kevin (SDO) <KPatariu@perkinscoie.com>; Joseph W. Bain <JBain@shutts.com>;
`jtillman@shutts.com; Jason Xu <jason.xu@rimonlaw.com>; andrew.fuller@nelsonmullins.com; Gass, Christopher J.
`<cgass@leydig.com>; Airan, David <dairan@leydig.com>; Kopinski, Nicole <nkopinski@leydig.com>
`Subject: RE: BNR v. HMD et al., No. 1:22-cv-22706 - Discovery hearing and upcoming negotiations
`
`\~
`
`Mike,
`
`\~
`
`BNR does not oppose an extension of Defendants’ written discovery deadline to April 10.
`
`\~
`
`Best,
`
`\~
`
`Chris
`
`\~
`
`From: Chajon, Michael (WDC) <MChajon@perkinscoie.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 4:55 PM
`To: Christopher Clayton <cclayton@devlinlawfirm.com>
`Cc: Paul Richter <prichter@devlinlawfirm.com>; Adam Woodward <awoodward@devlinlawfirm.com>; Alexander F. Rojas
`<arojas@rojaslawfirm.com>; Jose I. Rojas <jrojas@rojaslawfirm.com>; Moffa, Matthew (NYC)
`<MMoffa@perkinscoie.com>; Patariu, Kevin (SDO) <KPatariu@perkinscoie.com>; Joseph W. Bain <JBain@shutts.com>;
`jtillman@shutts.com; Jason Xu <jason.xu@rimonlaw.com>; andrew.fuller@nelsonmullins.com; Gass, Christopher J.
`<cgass@leydig.com>; Airan, David <dairan@leydig.com>; Kopinski, Nicole <nkopinski@leydig.com>
`Subject: BNR v. HMD et al., No. 1:22-cv-22706 - Discovery hearing and upcoming negotiations
`
`\~
`
`Hi Chris,
`
`\~
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 161-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2023 Page 8 of 8
`In light of the hearing today and the 2-week period to negotiate BNR’s supplementation and our motion to strike, please let us
`know if BNR would oppose an extension of Defendants’ March 20 written discovery deadline for 3 weeks, to April 10? The
`scope of our responses and objections will be affected by the scope of accused instrumentalities in the case. If any agreement we
`reach impacts the scope of your accusations, it may avoid some issues surrounding the written discovery and response.
`
`\~
`
`We look forward to hearing from you.
`
`\~
`
`Best,
`
`Mike
`
`\~
`
`Mike Chajon | Perkins Coie LLP
`
`COUNSEL
`
`D. +1.202.654.3316
`
`E. MChajon@perkinscoie.com
`
`\~
`
`\~
`
`NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the
`message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
`
`\~
`
`NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the
`message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
`
`\~
`
`NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the
`message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
`
`