-l'yt
`
`ir',ir.i:¡,: L. itri¡i:ì
`r : :r
`.1. Lìr,l 1,, i:ì iÌt i..ri i a Êi:r i:ìì r c,i:i, i:ì t. I i,.] l.:i_r,.1
`i:laslirfl. i\,'ì¿ìa:,¿rI il u5itiìit iilr i i,.l
`
`i:rl ill¡l i.,l:i¡i.l:¡,ir,
`
`ffi [3Fägrìüü] L*{}il:i#t*
`
`November 7,2013
`
`By Email and Regular Mail
`
`Kirk T. Bradley
`Alston & Bird LLP
`Bank of America Plaza
`101 South Tryon St., Suite 4000
`Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
`
`Re: Martin Klein
`
`Dear Mr. Bradley:
`
`This office represents Martin Klein. We are writing in response to your letter to him
`dated October 31,2013 in which you allege that Mr. Klein's work for Raymarine, lnc.
`("Raymarine") in connection with /nfer Parles Review Nos, 2013-00355, 2013-00496,
`and 20'13-00497" (the "Raymarine Engagement") is in violation of a Consulting
`Agreement between Mr. Klein and Alston & Bird dated August 16,2010 (the
`"Agreement").
`
`Mr. Klein denies, for many reasons, that he has violated the Agreement.
`
`First, Mr. Klein does not have any Navico confidential information and has not had any
`since February 2012 (at the latest). As you know, the Agreement relates to work that
`Mr. Klein provide to Navico and Alston & Bird from approximately August 2010 to
`December 2011 (the "Engagement"). The Engagement primarily related to assisting
`with a dispute between Navico and Johnson Outdoors. When Navico and Johnson
`settled the dispute in approximately December 2011, David Alban of Alston & Bird
`informed Mr. Klein that the assignment was over.t Among other things, Mr. Alban
`complimented Mr. Klein for his work and instructed Mr. Klein to discard all materials he
`received related to the Engagement. Mr. Klein then destroyed or deleted the files. ln
`February 2012, Mr. Klein received a letterfromAlston & Bird'sTravis lams, asking Mr.
`Klein to certify that he had destroyed Confidential Material related to the Engagement.
`Mr. Klein provided the requested certification. To his knowledge, he has destroyed all
`materials - including copies - of all materials that he received in connection with the
`Engagement.
`
`I Your letter cla¡ms that Mr.
`February 2012, at the latest
`
`Klein "recently switched sides in order to be adverse to Navico...." This is not correct
`he was not on any side.
`
`RAY-1011 Page 1
`
`

`

`Kirk T. Bradley
`November 7 ,2013
`Page 2
`
`Second, Mr. Klein has never disclosed whatever Navico information he once had.
`During and after his work with Alston & Bird, Mr. Klein was careful to keep all materials
`related to the project confidential at all times. He never even disclosed the fact of his
`Engagement (and certainly, he did not disclose the substance of the work) to other
`clients, although it did become public when Navico filed material related to the Johnson
`case.
`
`Third, during the Engagement, Mr. Klein did not come into possession of Navico
`information relevant to his current work for Raymarine. Your letter states that "[Mr.
`Klein'sl consultation for Navico included many instances which we have documented,
`where [Mr. Klein] learned confidential information related to Navico's research,
`development and institution of its downscan sonar technologies, including confidential
`matters related to the then-pending application leading to the '840 patent." Although it is
`true that Alston & Bird discussed with Mr. Klein Navico's so-called "downscan"
`technologies, to Mr. Klein's knowledge, Alston & Bird never showed him or discussed
`with him the '840 patent, never asked for his opinion about the "downscan" product as
`an innovation, nor did Alston & Bird tell him that Navico had filed a patent application.
`While Mr. Klein is not at libedy to explain the full scope of his engagement with
`Raymarine, that project does not require him to use any information about Navico that
`he obtained during the Engagement.
`
`Foutlh, the Agreement discusses confidentiality "during the pendency of this
`agreement" and states "[t]his engagement shall be effectiveforone (1) yearfrom the
`completion of any work performed under this agreement, and can be extended at any
`time by mutual agreement." Thus, although Mr. Klein did not disclose any Navico
`confidential information, it is worth noting that any non-dlsclosure obligation he had
`under the Agreement terminated no later than February 2013. His work with Raymarine
`related to Navico commenced after that date.
`
`Mr. Klein is, of course at a disadvantage on all of this because he was obligated to
`destroy all the materials of the case. lf you think that you have evidence that constitutes
`a breach of the Agreement, please provide it so Mr. Klein can respond to your concerns.
`This is the first letter of its kind that he has ever received challenging a hard-earned
`reputation for integrity, fairness and discretion in business and private dealings. lf you
`do not have evidence to supporl your accusations, we will expect you to retract your
`letter. This should be done on or before November 12,2013.
`
`Very truly yours,
`¡
`ii
`ii
`I i.,-,,'¡"
`l;i {,,;i-"î Lr"
`Dåniel P TighÇ
`cc: Mr. Martin Klein
`
`l8lól2t.t
`
`RAY-1011 Page 2
`
`