`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Justin Nemunaitis
`Monday, September 19, 2016 6:31 PM
`Leslie V. Payne; Chris First; Douglas Wilson
`rapid@caldwellcc.com
`RE: RC WFD Motion for Stay
`
`Les,
`
` I
`
` understand from our call today that Weatherford will not be responding to the requests in my email below nor
`agreeing to move up the deadline for the RFAs I served on Friday so that we have responses before our response to the
`motion to stay is due. Please let me know if I have that wrong.
`
`Regards,
`Justin
`
`From: Justin Nemunaitis
`Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 4:56 PM
`To: Leslie V. Payne <lpayne@hpcllp.com>; Chris First <cfirst@hpcllp.com>; Douglas Wilson <dwilson@hpcllp.com>
`Cc: rapid@caldwellcc.com
`Subject: RE: RC WFD Motion for Stay
`
`Please see the attached formalization of the RFAs in my email below.
`
`From: Justin Nemunaitis
`Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 11:01 AM
`To: Leslie V. Payne <lpayne@hpcllp.com>; 'Chris First' <cfirst@hpcllp.com>; Douglas Wilson <dwilson@hpcllp.com>
`Cc: rapid@caldwellcc.com
`Subject: RC WFD Motion for Stay
`
`Les and Chris,
`
`In addressing whether a stay would prejudice Rapid Completions, Weatherford’s motion contains the following factual
`assertion:
`
`
`Since the very beginning of this case, Defendants have operated independently with regard to IPRs.
`Weatherford decided to file its IPRs when it did on a completely independent basis, with no consultation or
`agreement – explicit or implicit – with Baker Hughes or Peak.
`
`
`There is no support cited for this assertion, but we would like some information to test what you mean. Because of the
`short turn around on our response brief, please let me know if you admit or deny the following statements by COB on
`Monday (our response is due on Tuesday I believe). The terms “Weatherford” and “Baker Hughes” include employees,
`in‐house counsel, and outside counsel for those Defendant entities. The term “discussed” includes in‐person and over
`the phone discussions, as well as written correspondence such as through email.
`
`
`1. Before Weatherford filed its IPRs against the patents‐in‐suit, Weatherford discussed with Baker Hughes that it
`might file its own IPRs against one or more of the patents‐in‐suit.
`
`1
`
`1 of 2
`
`Exhibit 2037
`IPR2016-01517
`
`
`
`2. Before Weatherford filed its IPRs against the patents‐in‐suit, Weatherford and Baker Hughes discussed which
`references would be included in Weatherford's IPRs.
`3. Before Weatherford filed its IPRs against the patents‐in‐suit, Baker Hughes suggested to Weatherford that it
`should include one or more of the invalidity theories contained Weatherford's IPRs.
`4. With regard to at least one IPR filed by Baker Hughes against a patent‐in‐suit, Weatherford and Baker Hughes
`discussed which references would be included in that IPR.
`5. With regard to at least one IPR filed by Baker Hughes against a patent‐in‐suit, Weatherford suggested to Baker
`Hughes that it should include one or more of the invalidity theories contained in that IPR.
`6. Weatherford did not decide to file its own IPRs against the patents‐in‐suit until after it discussed that idea with
`Baker Hughes.
`
`These are fairly high level statements, but let me know if you believe your responses would be privileged. Also, as a
`procedural matter, we can treat these as RFAs, but as I said, we will need an agreement from you to provide responses
`by Monday COB.
`
`Regards,
`Justin
`
`
`Justin Nemunaitis ||| Caldwell Cassady & Curry
`2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 1000, Dallas, TX 75201
`Direct Line: 214.888.4853
`Main Line Telephone:214.888.4848
`Fax Line: 214.888.4849
`
`
`NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
`The information contained in this e-mail may be subject to the ATTORNEY-CLIENT and ATTORNEY WORK
`PRODUCT PRIVILEGE and be CONFIDENTIAL. It is intended only for the recipient(s) designated
`above. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may
`be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Caldwell Cassady & Curry P.C. immediately.
`
`
`2
`
`2 of 2
`
`Exhibit 2037
`IPR2016-01517
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
