From: Abramic, John
`Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 2:35 PM
`To: Matthew Smith
`Cc: Filarski, Thomas; Jennifer Seraphine; Hails, Robert L.; Zhuanjia Gu
`Subject: RE: IPR2015-01201 - Protective Order
`
`Thanks Matt. We will review. For your first comment (Non-ITAR related), are you contemplating specific
`individuals? If not, can you propose language to cover the people you intend to cover? If you are suggesting
`that it include “members of Sony’s Intellectual Property Department”, can you give us an idea of the people that
`would include?
`
`John
`
`From: Matthew Smith [mailto:smith@turnerboyd.com]
`Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 2:01 PM
`To: Abramic, John
`Cc: Filarski, Thomas; Jennifer Seraphine; Hails, Robert L.; Zhuanjia Gu
`Subject: RE: IPR2015-01201 - Protective Order
`
`John, 
`
` few thoughts on the draft protective order: 
`
` A
`
` 
`Non‐ITAR‐related comments: 
`(1) In paragraph 3, we would like to expressly include members of Sony’s Intellectual Property Department 
`under the definition of “in house counsel”.  These people are usually Japanese patent attorneys, but not 
`U.S.‐licensed attorneys. 
`
` 
`ITAR‐related comments: 
`(1) The exclusion of classes of people eligible to view ITAR materials in paragraph 4 should not include 
`those in‐house counsel who are U.S. persons.  The ITAR information may need to be briefed, and we 
`would like U.S. persons at least at Sony Corporation of America to be able to see the briefing. 
`(2) The requirement in paragraph 7 that “Any party aware of actual or suspected ITAR infractions will 
`immediately inform Raytheon Company and await further instructions from Raytheon Company or its 
`Counsel” needs to be removed.  As remote as the possibility of an infraction is, it is inappropriate to 
`have parties in an adversarial proceeding reporting to one another’s counsel and “awaiting 
`instructions”.  The requirement also seems inconsistent with the requirement in paragraph 6 that “Any 
`disclosure of Raytheon‐produced export‐controlled technical data, or furnishing of technical assistance 
`where an authorization is needed but not secured, constitutes an export violation, which should be 
`disclosed to the Department of State.” 
`(3) There is a portion of paragraph 5 that reads “These restrictions also apply to United States citizens and 
`permanent residents employed by a company or organization that falls within the definition of “foreign 
`person.” See ITAR § 120.16.”  This requirement does not follow from the cited rule.  Where does it come 
`from?  We should make clear that it will not exclude law firms hired by foreign clients.  We have non‐
`U.S. clients, and I would guess Steptoe does as well. 
`(4)   Paragraph 10 is incomplete. 
`(5)   Have you given any thought to how we can limit or eliminate the impact of ITAR / EAR materials on the 
`proceeding? 
`
` 
`Matt 
`
`1
`
`000001
`
`Raytheon 2006
`
`

`
`  
`
`From: Matthew Smith  
`Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 10:13 PM 
`To: 'Abramic, John' 
`Cc: Filarski, Thomas; Jennifer Seraphine; Hails, Robert L.; Zhuanjia Gu 
`Subject: RE: IPR2015‐01201 ‐ Protective Order 
`
`John, 
`
` I
`
` am available Tuesday afternoon Eastern time.  Depending on when the call is scheduled, I may be able to send you a 
`list of specific concerns with the draft order before the call. 
` 
`Matt 
` 
`From: Abramic, John [mailto:jabramic@Steptoe.com]  
`Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 6:26 PM 
`To: Matthew Smith 
`Cc: Filarski, Thomas; Jennifer Seraphine; Hails, Robert L.; Zhuanjia Gu 
`Subject: Re: IPR2015‐01201 ‐ Protective Order 
`
`Matt,
`
`At 11:00am central tomorrow, we intend to request a Board call for Friday or Tuesday (Monday is a holiday).
`
`Regards,
`
`John
`
`Sent from my iPhone
`
`On Feb 9, 2016, at 7:11 PM, Abramic, John <jabramic@Steptoe.com> wrote:
`
`Matt,
`
`We will put it off a day in response to your request. Since we would likely not get a Thursday call with the Board on short
`notice, can you give me times when you are available for a Board call next Monday and Tuesday?
`
`John
`
`Sent from my iPhone
`
`On Feb 9, 2016, at 6:22 PM, Matthew Smith <smith@turnerboyd.com> wrote:
`
`John,
`
`Thanks for letting me know that the documents you intend to submit were produced in the litigation and their
`relevance. You might want to give me a day to talk to Sony's litigation counsel about the nature of the protective order
`there. I think there are a number of issues created by your proposal for the IPR, but perhaps we clear some of them up
`before you request a call.
`
`Matt
`
`
`On Feb 9, 2016, at 12:58 PM, Abramic, John <jabramic@Steptoe.com> wrote:
`
`Matt,
`
`
`Thanks. We will request a call with the Board in an email first thing tomorrow morning.
`
`
`2
`
`000002
`
`

`
`Just to be clear, Sony’s counsel is in possession of ITAR regulated documents that Raytheon intends to
`submit, including documents evidencing conception and reduction to practice (see, e.g., section 3-2(b) of
`Raytheon’s Disclosures under P.R. 3-1 and 3.2 in the underlying litigation) and documents related to
`commercial success. Also, there is a protective order entered in the underlying litigation that contains ITAR
`restrictions. It was our understanding that Sony was aware of this information, but in the event this causes
`Sony to reconsider its intent to oppose entry of a protective order with ITAR restrictions, please let us know
`before tomorrow morning.
`
`
`Regards,
`
`
`John
`
`
`From: Matthew Smith [mailto:smith@turnerboyd.com]
`Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 1:39 PM
`To: Abramic, John
`Cc: Filarski, Thomas; Jennifer Seraphine; Hails, Robert L.; Zhuanjia Gu
`Subject: RE: IPR2015-01201 - Protective Order
`
`John,
`
` 
`Thank you for your email.  A call on Thursday or Friday would be fine with me.  I am available after noon Eastern on 
`Thursday and after 3 PM Eastern on Friday.
`
` 
`Raytheon has not presented any reason to submit ITAR / EAR documents, and the handling of ITAR / EAR information 
`would be a burden on both parties and the Board.   So Sony is opposed to the motion.
`
` 
`Sony would not oppose entry of the Board’s default protective order in this case.
`
` 
`Thanks and regards,
`
` 
`Matt
` 
`
` 
`From: Abramic, John [mailto:jabramic@Steptoe.com]  
`Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 2:23 PM 
`To: Matthew Smith 
`Cc: Filarski, Thomas; Jennifer Seraphine; Hails, Robert L.; Zhuanjia Gu 
`Subject: RE: IPR2015‐01201 ‐ Protective Order
`
`
`Matt,
`
`
`Thank you for your email. Some of the documents that we intend to submit in connection with the
`Patent Owner response were previously confirmed by Raytheon’s compliance team to be ITAR
`protected. As such, Raytheon is obligated to follow ITAR law and regulations with respect to those
`documents.
`
`
`Raytheon must follow the ITAR regulations and intends to seek leave from the Board to have a
`protective order entered. We trust that you will join this proposal.
`
`
`By the close of business tomorrow, we intend to request a conference call with the Board for
`Thursday or Friday of this week. Please let us know your availability for such a call and whether you
`agree to the protective order.
`
`
`As to the question in your follow-up email, some of the documents would only be “confidential” and
`not ITAR/EAR, such that there would be two categories of restricted documents.
`
`
`3
`
`000003
`
`

`
`Regards,
`
`
`John
`
`
`From: Matthew Smith [mailto:smith@turnerboyd.com]
`Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 1:44 PM
`To: Abramic, John
`Cc: Filarski, Thomas; Jennifer Seraphine; Hails, Robert L.; Zhuanjia Gu
`Subject: RE: IPR2015-01201 - Protective Order
`
`John,
`
` 
`Thanks for your letter.  Would you explain why there is a need to submit ITAR and/or EAR documents in the proceeding 
`at all?  The application leading to the patent‐at‐issue was filed more than 20 years ago, and the technological subject 
`matter would seem to have been made public through publication of the patent.
`
` 
`Regards,
`
` 
`Matt
`
` 
`From: Abramic, John [mailto:jabramic@Steptoe.com]  
`Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 1:20 PM 
`To: Matthew Smith 
`Cc: Filarski, Thomas 
`Subject: IPR2015‐01201 ‐ Protective Order
`
`
`Matt,
`
`In connection with Patent Owner’s response in IPR2015-01201, Patent Owner anticipates submitting
`confidential documents to the PTAB. Accordingly, Patent Owner intends to approach the Board to request
`entry of a Protective Order in the proceeding.
`
`
`Also, as your client may be aware based on the protective order in the underlying litigation, certain documents
`and information relevant to the proceeding are subject to The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”)
`found in Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 120 to 130. Please see the attached letter
`regarding ITAR. Patent Owner will need to ensure that the protective order contains appropriate ITAR
`provisions.
`
`
`Attached is a draft proposed protective order based on the standing protective order found in Appendix B to the
`PTAB Trial Practice Guide. Proposed modifications are made in redline. Please let us know whether
`Petitioner would oppose entry of the attached protective order. If you have any proposed modifications to the
`draft, please let us know and we can consider them. Also, please let us know your availability for a call with
`the Board next week as we would like to request authorization to move to have a protective order entered.
`
`
`Regards,
`
`John L. Abramic | Steptoe
`Partner
`312 577 1264 | direct
`630 341 9128 | mobile
`312 577 1370 | fax
`jabramic@steptoe.com
`
`Steptoe & Johnson LLP
`115 South LaSalle Street  Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60603
`www.steptoe.com
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`000004