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)49
`
` 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
`
`