throbber
From:
`To:
`
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Date:
`
`Coulson, Chris
`"Day, Evan S. (Perkins Coie)"; Bright, Meghan (Perkins Coie); Ng, Chun (Perkins Coie); Bernstein, Matthew C.
`(Perkins Coie); Sathe, Vinay (Perkins Coie); McKeever, Patrick J. (Perkins Coie);
`PerkinsServiceBradiumIPR@perkinscoie.com
`Zachary, Michael; Ulrich, Clifford
`Microsoft Corp. v. Bradium Tech. // IPR2016-00448, -00449 –Deposition of Mr. Lavi
`Wednesday, February 15, 2017 9:34:48 PM
`
`Matt, Evan,
`
` I
`
` write to memorialize our meet-and-confer held at 5 p.m. Eastern today
`regarding the deposition of Mr. Lavi in IPR2016-00448, -00449.
`
`You explained that Microsoft has requested that Mr. Lavi travel to the U.S. for
`deposition and Microsoft is awaiting a response from Mr. Lavi.
`
` I
`
` explained that, to avoid prejudice to Bradium, Bradium requests that
`Microsoft agree to move DUE DATE 4, if necessary, such that Mr. Lavi’s
`deposition take place “more than a week” (37 C.F.R. 53(d)(2)) before DUE DATE
`4, while DUE DATE 5 remain the same. I requested a response by tomorrow,
`given that Microsoft has not provided any dates that would work under the
`current schedule. You responded that you would check with Microsoft.
`
`Regarding deposition location, I explained that Bradium is not agreeable to a
`deposition outside the United States, but instead requests that Mr. Lavi
`physically travel to the U.S. for deposition. Your response was that Microsoft’s
`position would depend on the witness’s response. Please let us know as soon
`as possible if Microsoft becomes aware that Mr. Lavi will not timely be made
`available in the U.S. so that Bradium can raise this issue with the Board.
`
`Regarding length of deposition, I explained that Bradium’s request is that Mr.
`Lavi remain available for a second day. That is, Mr. Lavi should not plan to
`leave the U.S. the day after deposition, but should remain in the U.S. so that
`there is an opportunity for additional deposition time on a second day, should
`that be necessary. Your response was that Microsoft’s position would depend
`on the witness’s response.
`
` asked that Microsoft confirm that Mr. Lavi will testify in English without an
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:26)(cid:28)(cid:3)
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)
`(cid:48)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:83)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:27)
`
` I
`
`1
`
`

`

`interpreter. As I explained, Mr. Lavi’s declaration is in English, so Bradium
`expects that cross-examination and other deposition testimony of Mr. Lavi will
`be conducted in English without the use of an interpreter. Your response was
`that Microsoft’s position would depend on the witness’s response and that an
`interpreter is not ruled out. In light of 37 C.F.R. 42.53(e), please confirm as
`soon as possible if Microsoft intends to seek the use of an interpreter so that
`the issue can be raised with the Board.
`
`
`
`Best regards,
`
`Chris Coulson
`ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP
`Tel: 212.908.6409
`
`2
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket