Case 2:16-cv-00693-JRG-RSP Document 71-3 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1789
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`Alacritech, Ex. 2015 Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00693-JRG-RSP Document 71-3 Filed 10/31/16 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 1790
`
`From: Stephens, Garland
`Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 6:23 PM
`To: 'Claude M. Stern'
`Cc: claudestern@quinnemanuel.com; Joe Paunovich; Gil Gillam (gil@GillamSmithLaw.com); Constant, Justin
`(justin.constant@weil.com); McClellan, Doug
`Subject: RE: Alacritech v. Dell
` 
`Claude, Joe‐ 
` 
`As I said in my email yesterday, Intel is prepared to abide by the existing schedule, if  Alacritech does not enlarge 
`the case through counterclaims, provides Intel with immediate access to Alactritech’s infringement contentions 
`relating to Intel products, and consents to Intel’s intervention.  I understand from your email that Alacritech is 
`refusing. 
` 
`Contrary to your “understanding” Intel has had no involvement in the existing orders and motions in the case.  Intel 
`has not been a party, and has been prevented from assessing the case because of Alacritech’s ongoing improper 
`refusal to allow Intel to see the infringement contentions relating to Intel products.  Any delay is due to Alacritech.
` 
`Intel cannot agree to Alacritech’s conditions, and they seem calculated to delay Intel’s intervention.  I urge you to 
`change your mind and am available to discuss it today and Monday morning.  Unless Alacritech will agree to Intel’s 
`intervention without these unacceptable conditions, we will file an opposed motion. 
` 
`‐Garland 
` 
`From: Claude M. Stern [mailto:claudestern@quinnemanuel.com]
`Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 1:31 AM
`To: Stephens, Garland
`Cc: claudestern@quinnemanuel.com; Joe Paunovich
`Subject: RE: Alacritech v. Dell
` 
`Garland,
`
`Alacritech did not ask Intel to intervene in the case against Dell and Intel is not in a position to dictate
`terms for its intervention. The case was filed in late June 2016; Intel has known about it for nearly 4
`months but waited until last week to request intervention. Putting aside this unexplained delay, we have
`made a reasonable proposal for Intel’s intervention to try to limit prejudice to Alacritech. Intel’s request is
`either (a) timely because it will not change the case schedule/deadlines or require the Court and
`Alacritech to revisit and rebrief issues already before the Court or (b) untimely and will unfairly prejudice
`Alacritech.
`
`
`1
`
`Alacritech, Ex. 2015 Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00693-JRG-RSP Document 71-3 Filed 10/31/16 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 1791
`
`We understand that Intel has been in discussions with Dell and the other defendants behind the scenes
`for some time, discussing issues that have already been decided and/or briefed to the Court, including
`among other things the Docket Control Order, Discovery Order, and the disputes regarding Alacritech’s
`designation of its infringement contentions as “Confidential” and Source Code printing under the
`Protective Order. Aside from adding Intel as a Party to the Discovery Order, if Intel wanted to weigh in on
`any of the issues that have occurred to date in the case it could have sought intervention
`earlier. Alacritech is unwilling to be side-tracked in prosecuting its case against Defendants simply
`because Intel wants to join the case.
`
`Regarding Alacritech’s Confidential Infringement Contentions against Dell, Intel is not a party to the case
`and until such time that it is Alacritech will not disclose them to Intel. As explained in the email yesterday,
`if the Court allows Intel to intervene in the Dell matter, and Intel agrees to be bound by the terms of the
`Protective Order (which agreement has no effect on Intel until such time that it is a party), we will provide
`Intel a copy of our contentions against Dell at that time and also will consider whether it is necessary and
`appropriate to provide a copy of our contentions against the CenturyLink and Wistron defendant
`groups. This will be resolved quickly if done by Unopposed Motion, but in any event, there are no
`deadlines in the case that would require Intel to have immediate access to Alacritech’s Confidential
`Infringement Contentions against Dell. Dell (and the other Defendants) is represented by competent
`counsel that is more than capable of preparing their P.R. 3-3 & 3-4 Disclosures (Invalidity Contentions)
`and complying with their respective discovery obligations without the need for special input from Intel. In
`short, Intel can wait until it is a party to the case to see our contentions against Dell.
`
` will be out of the office tomorrow, but please let Joe know if Intel is willing to proceed with our
`Unopposed Motion without re-litigating the issues raised in your email below.
`
`Regards,
`
` Claude
` 
`From: Stephens, Garland [mailto:Garland.Stephens@weil.com]  
`Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 3:14 PM 
`To: Joe Paunovich <joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com>; McClellan, Doug <Doug.McClellan@weil.com>; Constant, 
`Justin <Justin.Constant@weil.com>; gil@gillamsmithlaw.com 
`Cc: Claude M. Stern <claudestern@quinnemanuel.com>; jw@wsfirm.com; Claire Henry <claire@wsfirm.com>; 
`Andrea Fair <andrea@wsfirm.com> 
`Subject: RE: Alacritech v. Dell 
` 
`Joe‐ 
`
` I
`
`We have carefully reviewed your proposal.  Unfortunately it is unworkable as proposed.  However, I am 
`hopeful we can quickly work out an approach that will permit Intel to intervene without further delay. 
`
`If Alacritech agrees not to change the scope of the case through counterclaims against Intel, and 
`immediately shares with Intel all of its infringement contentions that refer to Intel components, there is 
`no reason to change the existing schedule.  We can prepare an unopposed motion to intervene reciting 
`Intel’s and Alacritech’s agreement on these two points immediately. 
`
`We are also prepared to treat the infringement contentions as “confidential” under the protective order 
`until the Court resolves the dispute on whether that designation is improper.  However, Intel will not 
`waive its right to inform the Court of its views on whether the designation is improper. 
`
`We do not presently see any issues with the E‐Discovery order.   
`
`2
`
`Alacritech, Ex. 2015 Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00693-JRG-RSP Document 71-3 Filed 10/31/16 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 1792
`
`The discovery order looks reasonable, but needs modifications to refer to Intel as a party to the case and 
`incorporate limitations for Intel comparable to those in the existing order. 
`
`The protective order is missing some important protections necessary for Intel source code.  We do not 
`see a need to change it as far as it applies to other parties’ code.  We expect we can negotiate reasonable 
`Intel‐specific provisions source code once the motion to intervene is filed.   
`
`None of these issues raises any substantive obstacle to Intel’s immediate intervention.  We can negotiate 
`the modifications needed to the discovery and protective orders promptly after filing the unopposed 
`motion to intervene. 
`
`Please let me know today if Alacritech will agree to this proposal, and we will provide a draft motion. 
`
`‐Garland 
` 
`From: Joe Paunovich [mailto:joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com]
`Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 6:59 PM
`To: Stephens, Garland; McClellan, Doug; Constant, Justin; gil@gillamsmithlaw.com
`Cc: claudestern@quinnemanuel.com; jw@wsfirm.com; Claire Henry; Andrea Fair
`Subject: Alacritech v. Dell
` 
`Garland, 
`
`  
`As discussed yesterday, we cannot agree to Intel’s disputed Motion to Intervene but will agree to the attached 
`Unopposed Motion to Intervene and File a Complaint in Intervention in the lawsuit filed by Alacritech, Inc. against 
`Dell, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:16‐cv‐00695‐JRG.  The Complaint in Intervention that is referenced as Exhibit A in the 
`Unopposed Motion is the draft you provided to us for review.  Please confirm Intel’s agreement to file these 
`documents as‐is and when it plans to do so.  We will send you a copy of a proposed order granting the intervention 
`that would accompany the Unopposed Motion. 
`
`  
`Regarding Intel’s request for a copy of Alacritech’s contentions, our contentions against the Defendants’ in this 
`matter are designated Confidential and as such, we will not agree to disclose them to Intel until it is an actual Party 
`to the consolidated action and agrees to be bound by the Protective Order.  If the Court allows Intel to intervene in 
`the Dell matter, and Intel agrees to be bound by the terms of the Protective Order, we will provide Intel a copy of 
`our contentions against Dell at that time and also will consider whether it is necessary and appropriate to provide a 
`copy of our contentions against the CenturyLink and Wistron defendant groups.  We expect this will be resolved 
`fairly quickly after Intel files the attached Unopposed Motion.    
`
`  
`Regards, 
`Joe 
` 
`Joseph M. Paunovich | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP | Office: +1.213.443.3257 
` 
`From: Stephens, Garland [mailto:Garland.Stephens@weil.com]  
`Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 8:49 AM 
`To: Joe Paunovich <joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com>; Claude M. Stern <claudestern@quinnemanuel.com> 
`Cc: McClellan, Doug <Doug.McClellan@weil.com>; Constant, Justin <Justin.Constant@weil.com>; 
`gil@gillamsmithlaw.com 
`Subject: RE: Alacritech v. Dell 
` 
`Joe‐ 
` 
`
`3
`
`Alacritech, Ex. 2015 Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00693-JRG-RSP Document 71-3 Filed 10/31/16 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 1793
`
`We have already provided you with a draft motion and complaint.  We now need Alacritech’s prompt decision on 
`whether it will oppose.  I look forward to Alacritech’s response early this afternoon. 
` 
`‐Garland 
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`Garland Stephens
` 
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`700 Louisiana, Suite 1700
`Houston, TX 77002-2755
`garland.stephens@weil.com
`+1 713 546 5011 Direct
`+1 713 224 9511 Fax 
` 
`From: Joe Paunovich [mailto:joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com]
`Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 9:13 PM
`To: Stephens, Garland; claudestern@quinnemanuel.com
`Cc: McClellan, Doug; Constant, Justin
`Subject: RE: Alacritech v. Dell
` 
`Garland, 
` 
`Thank you for sending a copy of the motion and complaint.  Since we did not have the benefit of this until later in 
`the day, we need to discuss with our client tomorrow morning and will have a response for you hopefully by early 
`afternoon.  Are you able to share a draft of the unopposed motion (or stipulation) that you would propose filing if 
`our client will agree? 
` 
`Joe    
` 
`Joseph M. Paunovich | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP | Office: +1.213.443.3257 
` 
`From: Stephens, Garland [mailto:Garland.Stephens@weil.com]  
`Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 3:52 PM 
`To: Claude M. Stern <claudestern@quinnemanuel.com> 
`Cc: McClellan, Doug <Doug.McClellan@weil.com>; Joe Paunovich <joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com>; Constant, 
`Justin <Justin.Constant@weil.com> 
`Subject: RE: Alacritech v. Dell 
` 
`Claude‐ 
` 
`As you requested, I have attached a draft motion to intervene and complaint in intervention.  We are providing this 
`at your request for purposes of meeting and conferring only ‐ Intel reserves the right to make changes before filing. 
`Please let me know promptly whether Alacritech opposes the motion. 
` 
`‐Garland 
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`Garland Stephens
` 
`
`4
`
`Alacritech, Ex. 2015 Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00693-JRG-RSP Document 71-3 Filed 10/31/16 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 1794
`
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`700 Louisiana, Suite 1700
`Houston, TX 77002-2755
`garland.stephens@weil.com
`+1 713 546 5011 Direct
`+1 713 224 9511 Fax 
` 
`From: Claude M. Stern [mailto:claudestern@quinnemanuel.com]
`Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 9:45 PM
`To: Stephens, Garland
`Cc: claudestern@quinnemanuel.com; Joe Paunovich; McClellan, Doug; Constant, Justin
`Subject: RE: Alacritech v. Dell
` 
`Garland,
`
` I
`
` I
`
` have just had a chance to review your email from after our Thursday call in detail. In addition to
`what Joe points out in his email reply, I want to be clear that one of the first things we asked you
`during our Thursday call was to provide us a copy of Intel's planned motion to intervene (and
`associated complaint in intervention) so that we could make a good faith determination whether
`there was merit to our accepting Intel’s request, but you inexplicably refused. It is difficult for us
`to evaluate your request without more than the generalities that you told us as the basis for
`intervention. You cited a case to us during the call, US Ethernet v. Acer, as support for the
`motion. We have looked at it but it appears to be distinguishable from the present case since
`Intel’s products, by themselves, were accused of infringement in that case whereas we have
`accused Defendants’ server systems which Intel does not manufacture, assemble or sell, and
`methods for using these server systems in data centers and other computing environments.
`
` again request that you provide a copy of your planned motion to intervene and complaint in
`intervention so that we can assess Intel's request. I cannot see any prejudice to your client from
`our reviewing the draft motion and complaint in intervention. If we can spare the court and the
`parties the need to address the motion formally, that would seem to be in everyone’s best
`interest.
`
`In addition, your characterization of our questions during the call is inaccurate. Because you
`refused to provide us a copy of Intel's planned motion to intervene during our call, we asked
`whether the parties could simplify the court's motion docket in connection with Intel's request to
`intervene by agreeing that the defendants would withdraw their pending motion to transfer. We
`were wondering whether Intel’s intention was to intervene in the case and forego any subsequent
`effort to transfer the case. Of course, we were forced to guess at your client’s intentions since,
`again, we were being told we could not see the draft motion (and associated complaint in
`intervention draft). Initially you said you did not know the answer to this question and then near
`the end of our call you changed course and said your client would decline to consider this
`option.
`
`You also initially asked during the call if we would disclose to Intel our confidential contentions
`against only Dell if Intel intervened, but then you later in the call changed that request and asked
`for all of our confidential contentions even though Intel is not seeking to intervene, and indeed
`admitted that Intel has no plan to intervene, in the CenturyLink and Wistron actions since it is not
`indemnifying those defendants. As Joe stated in his email, you are also incorrectly state our
`position on the confidentiality of our contentions; our position is set forth in the protective order
`briefing to the Court.
`
`
`5
`
`Alacritech, Ex. 2015 Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00693-JRG-RSP Document 71-3 Filed 10/31/16 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 1795
`
`We look forward to your response to our requests and will get back with you on your requests
`shortly. I suggest again that all parties would be best served if we could review Intel’s draft
`motion and complaint in intervention, so that we can more thoroughly assess Intel’s position and
`arguments, and potentially avoid needless motion practice.
`
`Regards,
`Claude
` 
` 
`From: Joe Paunovich  
`Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 6:26 PM 
`To: Stephens, Garland <Garland.Stephens@weil.com> 
`Cc: Claude M. Stern <claudestern@quinnemanuel.com>; McClellan, Doug <Doug.McClellan@weil.com>; Constant, 
`Justin <Justin.Constant@weil.com> 
`Subject: Re: Alacritech v. Dell 
` 
`Garland, 
` 
`You are misstating our conversation, we did not and have never said we marked our contentions AEO to avoid a 
`claim that they give rise to declaratory judgment jurisdiction for nonparties whose products are identified in the 
`contentions.  You are welcome to read the pending motion on the docket which accurately states our position on 
`the confidentiality of our contentions.  Nevertheless we understand you are asking now if we will disclose our 
`contentions to Intel since it plans to intervene in the Dell action.  As stated, we are considering the request and will 
`get back with you shortly.   
` 
`
`In addition, we asked on the call for Intel to provide us its intended motion to intervene so that we could assess its 
`position.  We understand Intel refuses to provide us with a copy of the motion.  In the same vein, we did not ask 
`during the call but request that Intel provide us a copy of its intended complaint in intervention for the same 
`reasons.  Please let us know if Intel will agree.   
` 
`Regards, 
`Joe 
` 
`On Oct 13, 2016, at 5:11 PM, Stephens, Garland <Garland.Stephens@weil.com> wrote: 
`
`Claude, Joe‐ 
`
`  
`Thank you for speaking with us today.  As we discussed,  Intel asks 1) whether Alacritech will oppose Intel’s motion 
`to intervene in the Dell case, and 2) whether Alacritech will provide its infringement contentions for all three 
`defendants to Intel on a confidential basis.  You agreed to respond to both requests by Monday, October 17. 
`
`  
`You also inquired whether Intel and the Defendants would agree not to seek transfer if Alacritech agreed not to 
`oppose intervention (assuming you determined that Alacritech had a good faith basis to oppose).  As I said on the 
`call, Intel cannot speak for the defendants, and in any event Intel will not agree to the proposal.   
`
`  
`Regarding Alacritech’s infringement contentions, you said that Alacritech marked them Attorneys’ Eyes Only to 
`avoid a claim that they give rise to declaratory judgment jurisdiction for nonparties whose products are identified 
`in the contentions.  You asked if Intel would agree not to file a declaratory judgment action based on the 
`contentions.  As I said on the call, Intel will not agree to that condition.   
`  
`
`6
`
`Alacritech, Ex. 2015 Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00693-JRG-RSP Document 71-3 Filed 10/31/16 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 1796
`
`Sincerely, 
`Garland 
`  
`
`  
`
`
`
`The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If
`the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the
`intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
`strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by email,
`postmaster@weil.com, and destroy the original message. Thank you.
`
`
`
`The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If
`the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the
`intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
`strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by email,
`postmaster@weil.com, and destroy the original message. Thank you.
`
`
`
`The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If
`the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the
`intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
`strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by email,
`postmaster@weil.com, and destroy the original message. Thank you.
`
`
`
`The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If
`the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the
`intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
`strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by email,
`postmaster@weil.com, and destroy the original message. Thank you.
`
`7
`
`Alacritech, Ex. 2015 Page 8
`
`