Bird, Joe
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Andrew Maslow [andy@andymaslow.com]
`Wednesday, June 11, 2014 5:12 PM
`Bird, Joseph S.; pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com
`John Krisik
`Re: Extension
`
`Joe,
`As you know I have been trying to find a way for the all parties to settle the
`pending litigations. I have concluded from my conversations with you that,
`at the present time, the parties are so far apart from their evaluations of
`the actions that settlement discussions would be futile.
`The main impediment is that Chums and Croakies firmly believe that a
`reasonable patent examiner, who considered the Visser expert report,
`would not have allowed any of the claims of the patent in suit. You have
`stated that you believe that a patent examiner would allow the current
`claims after considering the Visser report, including the Sosin website.
`As a result, it is imperative that the PTO be given an opportunity to
`consider the Visser report and make a determination as to what claims, if
`any, would be allowable in view of the extensive prior art contained in it.
`Once such a determination is made, in all likelihood both the Chums and
`Croakies cases can be settled.
`Under the America Invents Act there is a new proceeding called Inter
`Parties Review (‘IPR”). It is nothing like an Interference. It is becoming
`very common for parties in litigation to use an IPR to resolve questions of
`validity, exactly like the issue I discussed above. For more information
`about IPR proceedings see:
`http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/faqs_inter_partes_review.jsp
`In order to reduce needless litigation expenses in both cases, and
`especially the Chums action, I propose the following:
`1) within one week Chums will file a
`petition for an IPR; and
`2) All parties agree to move the
`Alabama courts to stay both
`actions while the question is
`sought before the Patent and
`Trademark Appeals Board (in
`the IPR) as to which claims, if
`any, would be allowable
`considering the prior art in the
`Visser expert report.
`There are distinct advantages to Cablz under this proposal. First, the
`PTAB is required to make a decision no later than one year after the
`petition for an IPR is granted. Second, in the instant actions all discovery,
`the need for expert reports, filing and briefing motions (which may be
`extensive), etc will be stayed pending the decision from the PTAB. This
`1
`
`Page 1
`
`CABLZ EX 2006
`
`

`
`will be a huge saving for both Chums and Cablz. Second, the decision by
`the PTAB would be binding on Chums and Croakies. Hence, in all
`likelihood once a decision is made by the PTAB the parties are very likely
`to reach a resolution without having to resort to the huge expense of
`discovery, motions and a trial.
`I have spoken to the attorneys for Chums and they are agreeable to my
`proposal above.
`Please give this proposal serious consideration and discuss with your
`client to see if we can agree to proceed in this manner.
`Best regards,
`
`Andy
`
`
`Andy
`
`
`---------------------------------------------------
`Law Office of Andrew D. Maslow
`Intellectual Property Law and Licensing
`P.O. Box 2354
`Montauk, NY 11954
`
`P.O. Box 802
`Teton Village, WY 83025
`________________
`307 699-7287
`email: andy@andymaslow.com
`
`
`From: "Bird, Joseph S." <jbird@babc.com>
`To: ' Andymaslow. com' <andy@andymaslow.com>; "pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com" <pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 1:35 PM
`Subject: Extension
`
`Dear Andy/Pat,
`
`
`With all the discovery going in the Chums case, and your introduction of the Sherman Act counterclaim, we
`were hoping to get 12 extra days to respond to the counterclaim. This would make our reply to the counterclaim
`due on July 2. Is that okay?
`
`
`Many thanks,
`
`
`
`Joe Bird
`
`
`Bradley Arant
`Direct: 205-521-8473
`Cell: 205-218-5033
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2
`
`CABLZ EX 2006
`
`

`
`
`Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have received this message in
`error, please notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and then delete it from your computer.
`
`Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have received this message in
`error, please notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and then delete it from your computer.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3
`
`CABLZ EX 2006