i)¡iiti-it i ,-,i:ll i;i: , ,:
`i ili,l ¡,-,¡ r ¡ t 1.:r t:.¡itt lrl ¡ r,'¡ r'1, Si; i:1"j]..11..]:;
`irì ¡ii'.;r l, i,,1iì:,ì:,i.riì i r l.i:r,,:il:, i;! I i ¡1
`i:1. I 'tlri: 8í-li.:i-ì r¡t:¡:¡r ôi i 4i:ir iii{-:i.l :.:
`irrl'i i-ri.ti.l l..,it iifl. i:ili' ì
`
`ffi ñ-ru å r*lü:** L*-t)il*#l*
`
`November 26 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:
`
`I am writing in response to your letter dated November 18,2013 in which you discuss Mr.
`Klein's August 16,2010 Consulting Agreement (the "Agreement"), which expresses Mr. Klein's
`agreement "not to use any of the confidential information [he] receive[d], or work product based
`thereon, for any other purpose." (Emphasis added). Although it is clear from your letters that
`you have reviewed work submitted by Mr. Klein on behalf of Raymarine, it is notable that you do
`not identify a single instance of any alleged 'use' or disclosure of Navico information. Thus, it
`appears that your conclusory assertions of a "serious breach" lack any evidentiary basis.
`
`Mr. Klein's engagement with Raymarine involves his knowledge of prior art and the written
`claims and specifications of publicly available patents, as read from the perspective of one
`skilled in the art. Whatever information Mr" Klein might have once had about Navico products
`as a result of the Agreement has no bearing on Mr. Klein's knowledge of prior art, the written
`words on a publicly available patent, or the way in which he, as one skilled in the art, would
`understand the specifications of a patent. lndeed, just as your Agreement with Mr. Klein
`provided that he not disclose proprietary information to Alston & Bird or Navico, his engagement
`with Raymarine requires that he not disclose to Raymarine any confidential information
`belonging to a third party (not that he ever considered doing so). You have identified no reason
`" why the protections you thought sufficient in your engagement of Mr. Klein are not equally
`appropriate now.
`
`We disagree with that part of your letter which purports to interpret the Agreement as imposing
`a perpetual nondisclosure obligation. ln any event, however, it is clear that the Agreement does
`not impose a perpetual obligation never to consult for any party adverse to Navico. That
`obligation is expressly limited, at most, to one year from the completion of work performed
`under the Agreement. This provision clearly reflects Navico's understanding and anticipation
`that Mr. Klein could properly consult for an adverse party in the future, which is now the case.
`
`1826103.r
`
`RAY-1012 Page 1
`
`

`

`Accordingly, Mr. Klein is happy to confirm that he has not used or disclosed any confidential
`information he received from Navico, and he will not do so.
`
`Your letter also requests that Mr. Klein "refrain from ... activities ... that involve or pertain to
`confidential information of Navico." Mr. Klein's engagement for Raymarine does not "involve or
`pertain to confidential information of Navico." Thus, there is no basis for Navico to expect that
`Mr. Klein will refrain from working with Raymarine, even if that engagement is adverse to
`Navico.
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`ilJþr
`
`Daniel P. Tiühe
`,/
`
`617-456-8024 dÌrect
`dti g h e @p ri n ce I o b e I - co m
`
`cc: Mr. Martin Klein
`
`1826103.r
`
`RAY-1012 Page 2
`
`