EXHIBIT 2011
`
`EXHIBIT 201 1EXHIBIT 201 1
`
`

`
`\X/ILMERHALE
`
`Dominic F. Massa
`
`+1 617 526 6386(t)
`+1 617 526 50000‘)
`dominic.massa@wi|merha|e com
`
`November 25, 2013
`
`By E—mail
`
`Peter J. Ayers
`Lee & Hayes, PLLC
`13809 Research Blvd., Suite 405
`
`Austin, TX 78750
`
`Re: Broadcom v. Ericsson, IPR2013-00601; IPR20l3—00602; IPR2-13-00636
`
`Dear Counsel:
`
`1 write concerning your November 15, 2013 letter regarding the above—referenced petitions for
`inter partes review (the “IPRs”), and in particular, Ericsson’s requests for voluntary production
`of certain documents and for waiver of certain terms of the Protective Order entered in Ericsson
`
`v. D—Lz'nk, et al., Civil Action No. 10-473 (the “Texas Litigation”).
`
`As you indicate in your letter, Lee & Hayes is counsel for Ericsson in connection with the IPRs.
`Lee & Hayes is not counsel for Ericsson in the Texas Litigation, nor is it, to my knowledge,
`counsel for Ericsson in any licensing negotiations between Ericsson and Broadcom.
`
`
`
`As you know, Broadcom is not a party to the Texas Litigation and, despite Eriesson’s assertion
`to the contrary, is not in privity with any of the parties to that litigation. Broadcom will therefore
`not agree to produce the documents requested in your November 15, 2013 letter.
`
`Beijing
`
`Berlin
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`Boston
`Brussels
`Frankfurt
`London
`Los Angeles
`New York
`Oxford
`Palo Alto Waltham Washington
`
`

`
`November 25, 2013
`
`Page 2
`
`WILMERHALE
`
`Broadcom also will not “instruct the defense counsel in the EDTX [sic] to waive the terms of the
`Protective Order” to permit Ericsson to use documents produced in that litigation in the IPRs, nor
`will Broadcom allow Ericsson’s trial counsel to participate directly or indirectly in the IPRS.
`Broadcom was not involved in the negotiation of Paragraphs 8 (Prosecution Bar) and 12
`(Limitations on the Use of Designated Materials) of the Protective Order in the Texas Litigation.
`Broadcom’s only involvement with the Protective Order was as a third party in connection with
`Docket No. 292, the Supplemental Protective Order for Production of Broadcom Source Code.
`Because Broadcom is not a party to the Texas Litigation and was not involved in the negotiation
`of Paragraphs 8 and 12 of the Protective Order, Broadcom has no ability to “instruct” the
`defendants in that litigation to do anything regarding Paragraphs 8 and 12, let alone to “waive”
`provisions entered by the Court after negotiation among the parties to that litigation.
`
`Ericsson, of course, directly participated in the negotiation of the Protective Order, and agreed to
`be bound by its terms, including the restriction that confidential documents produced to trial
`counsel “may only be used for purposes of litigation between the parties” (Order at 13, 11 12) and
`the prohibition that trial counsel cannot “participate, directly or indirectly, in the drafting,
`preparation, or amending of any patent claim on behalf of any named party.” (Id. at 10, 11 8). As
`your letter admits, these provisions extend to the above—referenced IPRs and preclude Ericsson’s
`trial counsel from participating in those proceedings, including consulting with Lee & Hayes or
`other Ericsson counsel regarding confidential materials produced in the Texas Litigation.
`
`Broadcom disagrees with Ericsson’s argument that the mere fact that Broadcom is an author or
`recipient of a document produced in the Texas Litigation allows for its use in the IPRS contrary
`to Paragraphs 8 and 12 of the Protective Order. As you know, discovery in the context of an IPR
`is limited, and compelled testimony and production are prohibited absent an order by the PTAB.
`See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.52—53. Ericsson’s proposed use of information compelled under the broad
`scope of discovery allowed in District Court litigation, in circumvention of the limited scope of
`discovery available in the IPRs, is highly prejudicial to Broadcom. Broadcom further disagrees
`with Ericsson’s argument that somehow Broadcom’s confidential “business type” information is
`entitled to any less protection than Broadcom’s confidential “technical” information.
`
`Broadcom believes that Ericsson takes its obligations seriously and will refrain from any conduct
`that would violate the letter or spirit of the Protective Order. Broadcom further believes that
`Ericsson’s trial counsel will continue to maintain appropriate confidentiality of materials
`produced in the Texas Litigation and will not share such documents or the information contained
`
`
`
`therein with counsel for Ericsson in the IPRS.
`
`Act1veUS ll8089260v.3
`
`

`
`November 25, 2013
`
`Page 3
`
`WILMERHALE
`
`Ericsson immediately cease its attempt to use discovery in the Texas Litigation for the prohibited
`purpose of seeking confidential information for use in the lPRs.
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`2%;
`
`Dominic E. Massa
`
`Enclosures
`
`ActiveUS1l8089260v.3