throbber
Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS Document 23-44 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 3
`Case 1:16—cv—O4586—LTS Document 23-44 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 3
`
`EXHIBIT Q
`EXHIBIT Q
`
`

`

`λæ ݱ²º»®»²½» ó Í¿²¼®¿ Þ»¿«½¸»­²»
`¸¬¬°­æññ±«¬´±±µò±ºº·½»ò½±³ñ±©¿ñ᪷»©³±¼»´ãλ¿¼Ó»­­¿¹»òòò
`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS Document 23-44 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 3
`
`Re: Conference
`
`Mats Hylin <mats.hylin@cissus.se>
`
`Sun 2016-07-17 3:51 PM
`
`To:Sandra Beauchesne <sandra@ipdeltaplus.com>;
`
`Dear Sandra,
`
`Thanks for your message which, admittedly, surprised me. I regret your reaction over the draft agreement. It was
`drafted in alignment with what we understood was Broadsign's expectations. And certainly we do understand that
`any agreement we reach will include coverage for BroadSign's customers, such as Context Media, as well freedom to
`use T-Rex's patented technology in Canada.
`
`Our priority continues to be a prompt resolution beneficial to both parties, and we will of course be happy to discuss
`a "business agreement." If that is to be meaningful, however, we will have to ask you to be clearer on what
`expectations Broadsign has on the content of such agreement—in particular, what does Broadsign have to offer to
`T-Rex in return, in addition to a reasonable license fee, to make this a business agreement rather than simply a
`license? The only thing we have seen from you so far is a Japanese patent application that we consider weak and
`irrelevant to our discussions.
`
`Again, if we misunderstood any part of Broadsign's expectations, we regret that and sincerely apologize. Unless you
`prefer to conclude the discussions, we are looking forward to hearing from you prompty and continue the
`constructive dialogue.
`
`Sincerely,
`Mats
`
`> 16juli 2016 kl. 15:50 skrev Sandra Beauchesne <sandra@ipdeltaplus.com>:
`
`Mats,
`
`We are disapointed with the curent course of action.
`
`> >
`
`> >
`
`> >
`
`First, the document you provided is not aligned with our discussions. It is a regular manufacturer licensing
`agreement, and not a mutual business agreement.
`
`> >
`
`Secondly, the Jury Trial Demand filed on July 11 in the ContextMedia case targets directly Broadsign's product.
`ContextMedia has reached out for indemnification.
`
`> >
`
`That Jury Trial Demand was filed AFTER we had started our discussions, and also AFTER we provided to your
`attorney the required document.
`
`> >
`
`This course of action raises serious doubts as to T-Rex's interest and/or authority at reaching a business agreement
`with Broadsign.
`
`ï ±º î
`
`îðïéóðïóîéô çæíð ßÓ
`
`

`

`λæ ݱ²º»®»²½» ó Í¿²¼®¿ Þ»¿«½¸»­²»
`¸¬¬°­æññ±«¬´±±µò±ºº·½»ò½±³ñ±©¿ñ᪷»©³±¼»´ãλ¿¼Ó»­­¿¹»òòò
`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS Document 23-44 Filed 02/01/17 Page 3 of 3
`
`> In view of last week's actions, Broadsign sees very little interest on pursuing its business discussion with T-Rex or
`delaying further its other courses of action.
`
`> >
`
`Please explain what would be the purpose and agenda for a follow-up conference call.
`In absence of a reply by
`Monday, July 18, 17:00 (Sweden time), Broadsign will conclude that the business discussions are over.
`
`Sandra
`
`Envoye de mon iPhone
`
`> >
`
`> >
`
`> >
`
`> Le 15juil. 2016 a 14:31, MATS HYLIN <mats.hylin@me.com> a ecrit :
`> >
`>> Sandra,
`> >
`> > How about a conference call( Skype) om Monday 10am your time?
`> >
`>> /Mats
`> >
`> > Sent from my phone
`
`î ±º î
`
`îðïéóðïóîéô çæíð ßÓ
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket