`
`Exhibit E
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-6, PageID.7972 Filed 11/04/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Gabrielle.LaHatte@lw.com
`Thursday, October 20, 2022 10:55 AM
`Chris Stewart; Bailey Blaies; neowireless@caldwellcc.com; quadrozzi@youngpc.com
`MercedesNeoWireless@hoganlovells.com; FCA-Neo@Venable.com; SERVICETeslaNeo@fr.com;
`SERVICEGMNeo@fr.com; fordneowireless.lwteam@lw.com; VW-Neo@sternekessler.com; DL_Nissan-
`Neo@jenner.com; dla-toyota-neowireless@us.dlapiper.com; Service-Honda/Neo@fr.com
`RE: Neo MDL - Limit Number of Asserted Claims
`
`Chris,
`
`The record speaks for itself. Neo chose to increase the number of asserted claims by 10x after the scheduling
`conference. It is a waste of the court’s and the parties’ resources to construe terms and develop defenses for claims that
`will be dropped. To streamline this case and to allow the court to prepare these cases for the trial courts, Neo must
`narrow its case before claim construction.
`
`Since we are at an impasse, we will seek appropriate relief from the Court.
`
`Best,
`
`Gabrielle LaHatte
`
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street | Suite 2000 | San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
`D: +1.415.395.8108 | M: +1.213.361.8102
`
`
`From: Chris Stewart <cstewart@caldwellcc.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 3:47 PM
`To: LaHatte, Gabrielle (Bay Area) <Gabrielle.LaHatte@lw.com>; Bailey Blaies <bblaies@caldwellcc.com>;
`neowireless@caldwellcc.com; quadrozzi@youngpc.com
`Cc: Neo_JDG_All_Defs@fr.com
`Subject: RE: Neo MDL ‐ Limit Number of Asserted Claims
`
`Gaby,
`
`At the hearing the universe of potential claims in the asserted patents was over 150. We narrowed the case significantly
`by only asserting 65, especially considering the various different technologies at issue in the 6 patents. That is no basis to
`re‐urge the request, much less to make it even more aggressive and unworkable. Are Defendants planning to assert 5 or
`fewer prior art references per patent when they serve their invalidity contentions next month? Are Defendants going to
`facilitate the production of source code and other technical information demonstrating the operation of the accused
`functionalities by next month? Are there specific non‐overlapping claim terms in the asserted claims within a given
`patent that you have identified as needing construction (such that the number of construed terms would even actually
`be reduced if we made per‐patent reductions)? What is your basis for proposing limitations that are significantly out of
`step with the model orders I’ve seen in various districts?
`
`If y’all are intent on filing a motion on 48 hours notice for a unilateral narrowing by Neo to 3 claims per patent before
`we’ve even identified claim terms for construction or received a single detailed technical document, then yes, we
`oppose (both the motion and the rush).
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-6, PageID.7973 Filed 11/04/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`If you’re actually interested in conferring about a reciprocal plan for narrowing the scope of the case over time, and
`want to make a proposal for reciprocal narrowing and provide some authority for the timing and limits you’re seeking,
`we’ll consider it and can confer over the coming days.
`
`Thanks,
`Chris
`
`Chris Stewart | Caldwell Cassady Curry PC
`214.888.4846
`
`From: Gabrielle.LaHatte@lw.com <Gabrielle.LaHatte@lw.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 1:26 PM
`To: Chris Stewart <cstewart@caldwellcc.com>; Bailey Blaies <bblaies@caldwellcc.com>; neowireless@caldwellcc.com;
`quadrozzi@youngpc.com
`Cc: Neo JDG All Defs@fr.com
`Subject: RE: Neo MDL ‐ Limit Number of Asserted Claims
`
`Chris,
`
`The Court did not implement Defendants’ request into the scheduling order at the Rule 26f conference, but said that
`Defendants could raise the issue of claim reduction if it became an issue. It has. Since then, Neo increased the number
`of asserted claims from 6 claims to 65 claims across 6 patents against all nine Defendants. Given the number of claims
`Neo asserts, Neo must make its claim selection now before the parties discuss what claims must be construed during
`claim construction to ensure the parties and the Court do not waste resources briefing/construing claim terms that will
`never be tried. Because Neo has refused to limit the number of asserted claim terms during our Rule 26f meet and
`confers, and in view of your email below, we understand that Neo will not agree to Defendants’ request now. If we
`misunderstand your position, we are available today or tomorrow to discuss.
`
`Gaby
`
`Gabrielle LaHatte
`
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street | Suite 2000 | San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
`D: +1.415.395.8108 | M: +1.213.361.8102
`
`
`From: Chris Stewart <cstewart@caldwellcc.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 10:28 AM
`To: LaHatte, Gabrielle (Bay Area) <Gabrielle.LaHatte@lw.com>; Bailey Blaies <bblaies@caldwellcc.com>;
`neowireless@caldwellcc.com; quadrozzi@youngpc.com
`Cc: Neo JDG All Defs@fr.com
`Subject: RE: Neo MDL ‐ Limit Number of Asserted Claims
`
`Gaby,
`
`I’m confused. Didn’t the Court already reject this exact request at the Scheduling Conference (when Defendants had
`proposed it occur even later—at final identification of terms)? And now you want to re‐raise the same rejected request,
`but bumped up two months earlier, only one week after Defendants serve invalidity contentions?
`
`Chris
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 97-6, PageID.7974 Filed 11/04/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`Chris Stewart | Caldwell Cassady Curry PC
`214.888.4846
`
`From: Gabrielle.LaHatte@lw.com <Gabrielle.LaHatte@lw.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 11:43 AM
`To: Chris Stewart <cstewart@caldwellcc.com>; Bailey Blaies <bblaies@caldwellcc.com>; neowireless@caldwellcc.com;
`quadrozzi@youngpc.com
`Cc: Neo JDG All Defs@fr.com
`Subject: Neo MDL ‐ Limit Number of Asserted Claims
`
`Counsel,
`
`
`As we discussed during multiple meet and confers when preparing the Rule 26(f) submission, to ensure a meaningful
`claim construction process, Defendants intend to request the Court require Neo to limit its asserted claims to no more
`than three per patent by November 23 (approximately one week prior to the exchange of disputed claim terms). We
`understand from those meet and confers that Neo opposes this request. To the extent you contend additional meet
`and confer would be productive, we are available today or tomorrow.
`
`
`Regards,
`
`Gabrielle LaHatte
`
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street
`Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
`Direct Dial: +1.415.395.8108
`Mobile: +1.213.361.8102
`Email: gabrielle.lahatte@lw.com
`https://www.lw.com
`
`
`_________________________________
`
`This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the
`intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission
`is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies including any
`attachments.
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP or any of its affiliates may monitor electronic communications sent or received by our networks
`in order to protect our business and verify compliance with our policies and relevant legal requirements. Any personal
`information contained or referred to within this electronic communication will be processed in accordance with the
`firm's privacy notices and Global Privacy Standards available at www.lw.com.
`
`3
`
`