Kramer, Seth A.
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Schwartz, Jeff E.
`Wednesday, September 17, 2014 7:34 PM
`Stuart Nelson
`Kramer, Seth A.; Michael A. Amon
`RE: IPR2013-00506; IPR2013-00507; and IPR2013-00508 - Loic Josse Documents
`
`Stuart
`
`As to the Loic Josse documents, so the record is clear, you expressed your position during our call, as identified by
`Michael in his email original request, that routine discovery entitles you to “any exhibit” upon which we rely.
`
` I
`
` pointed out to you that we produced all of our exhibits to you, including the Loic Josse declaration and attached
`appendices, hence we have already provided “any exhibit cited in a paper” to you.
`
`Beyond that, we understand it is your position that you are entitled to additional information that is not an actual
`exhibit, but rather exists in an unredacted form as documents that were not otherwise included in an exhibit. We of
`course disagree that routine discovery entitles you to more than the production of the actual exhibits, which we
`provided. Further I explained that the information you requested is not relevant and pertains to confidential
`information such as financial information or detailed design information that is not otherwise publicly available.
`
`
`
`Jeff Schwartz
`
`Partner
`Fox Rothschild LLP
`
`1030 15th Street, N.W.
`Suite 380 East
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 696-1470 - direct
`(202) 461-3102- fax
`JESchwartz@foxrothschild.com
`www.foxrothschild.com
`
`
`
`From: Schwartz, Jeff E.
`Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 4:59 PM
`To: 'Stuart Nelson'; Michael A. Amon
`Cc: Kramer, Seth A.
`Subject: RE: IPR2013-00506; IPR2013-00507; and IPR2013-00508 - Deposition of Loic Josse
`Importance: High
`
`Stuart
`
`We did not request a deposition to occur telephonically in London on September 23rd. We did offer to make Loic Josse
`available in London on September 23rd, that offer coming early morning [Pacific Time] on 10 September and subject to
`you responding back to us by the evening of September 11th. For whatever reason you failed or refused to respond and
`quite honestly have never made clear what you were proposing in the alternative. We proposed, instead of making Mr.
`Josse travel, that you take his deposition by phone or video. So it is still not clear if you expect him to travel just so that
`you can depose him telephonically or otherwise.
`
`1
`
`MSD 1185
`IPR2013-00506
`
`

`
`
`If you are now asking that the deposition occur in London on September 23rd even though you plan to conduct it
`telephonically, please actually say so and explain why it matters where he is located if it is being conducted
`telephonically.
`
`Additionally, if we are going to ask Mr. Josse to travel to London we need to know where you want him to be, he needs
`to know what airport to fly into, if he should just dial the phone from that airport, if you have a space provided for him,
`etc. etc. As you should be aware, there are several airports in London and they are fairly spaced apart, and travel in
`London is not simple and may be unnecessary if for example you intend to make a space available in the airport for
`him. Further, if he is going to travel to London for that deposition he needs to know precisely when it will occur so he
`can arrange his travel to arrive and depart and still be available at whatever location you are proposing at whatever time
`you are proposing, leaving him sufficient time to catch a flight home. Since you have not proposed an actual location it
`is unclear exactly where it is you expect him to show up, or when.
`
`My email to you requested these details, and requested them by this morning Pacific Time so that we could actually
`communicate with the witness and have him arrange for this travel. Right now he has no idea where you want him to
`be and when and you have still not provided any information on this with your email below.
`
`As to the documents you requested in unredacted form, I remind you that no one has ever responded to my email that
`responded to your request That email is attached for your reference. As stated in that email, dated September 9th, to
`which you have never responded on this issue:
`
`
`
`“As to the unredacted documents requested, we disagree that they are routine discovery. We see no basis for
`suggesting that they fit within routine discovery but are willing to listen to any explanation you can provide on
`that subject. The provisions of routine discovery you cite to only require us to serve on you the exhibit we relied
`upon, which we have done. Can you please elaborate further on why you believe you are entitled to
`information that is not part of the exhibit and upon which we do not rely and how the regulation you point to
`supports your position or has been interpreted in a manner to support your position?”
`
`Since you never responded to our email of September 9th on this issue we presume that you agree with our
`conclusions. Please explain, on what basis, you believe you are entitled to exclude documents which we have actually
`provided to you. If you refuse to explain, as repeatedly requested, we will continue to presume you have no actual basis
`grounded in any legal reasoning or precedent and that you do not actually intend to move to exclude or plan to do so on
`an entirely meritless basis in a frivolous motion that will invite sanctions from the PTAB which we will of course request
`based on your continuing refusal and baseless threat.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`2
`
`
`
`Jeff Schwartz
`
`Partner
`Fox Rothschild LLP
`
`1030 15th Street, N.W.
`Suite 380 East
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 696-1470 - direct
`(202) 461-3102- fax
`JESchwartz@foxrothschild.com
`www.foxrothschild.com
`
`
`

`
`
`
`From: Stuart Nelson [mailto:snelson@fr.com]
`Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 4:39 PM
`To: Schwartz, Jeff E.; Michael A. Amon
`Cc: Kramer, Seth A.
`Subject: RE: IPR2013-00506; IPR2013-00507; and IPR2013-00508 - Deposition of Loic Josse
`
`Jeff:
`
` I
`
` just left you a voicemail. We wanted to depose Loic Josse in the United States as required by 37 CFR
`42.53(b)(2). Conducting the deposition telephonically, on September 23, and in London were all your requests. We
`agreed to these requests to be accommodating, and we are trying to make them work. But if you are telling me that this
`is a problem, then either make your witness available for deposition in the United States or withdraw his declaration. If
`you plan to reserve any objection to this telephonic deposition, then either make your witness available for deposition in
`the United States or withdraw his declaration. We want to take his deposition. Are you available this afternoon to
`discuss? I can also be available this evening or at 9:00 central tomorrow morning.
`
`Also, I want to remind you that you have so far refused our request to produce the attachments to Mr. Josse’s
`declaration in unredacted form. If you have not done so well before the deposition, we will move to have the exhibit
`excluded.
`
`Regarding Dr. Hynes’ deposition, as a courtesy we told you that we do not intend to use the entire allotted time for his
`deposition. We do not want to limit ourselves to a smaller number.
`
`Regarding the surreply, let’s discuss that this afternoon as well. Otherwise, we will take your emails as a refusal to agree
`to a surreply.
`
`
`
`Stuart Nelson :: Associate
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`+1-612-337-2538 direct :: snelson@fr.com
`fr.com
`
`3