From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Steve,
`
`Sooter, Mindy <Mindy.Sooter@wilmerhale.com>
`Wednesday, April 29, 2020 6:42 PM
`Steven J. Pollinger; Selwyn, Mark; WH Apple Optis Service
`~Smith, Melissa; PanOptis_Apple2; PPM Apple (ppm_apple@grayreed.com);
`#Hilco/PanOptis v Apple [Int]; Sewall, Michaela P.
`RE: PoA2 | 4/8/2020 M&C Items (proposals on reducing asserted claims and prior art)
`
`Regarding case narrowing, below are Apple’s 20 references according to our agreement below.
`
`‘774: 5 total
`1. Anticipation by Hottinen
`2. Obviousness in view of Hottinen
`3. Obviousness in view of Hottinen + Murakami
`4. Obviousness in view of Murakami
`5. Obviousness in view of IEEE 802.16-2004, IEEE C802.16e-04/552r7 (CL-MIMO Contribution), + IEEE
`C802.16e-04/103r2 (Uplink Channel Reuse Contribution)
`
`‘154: 2 total
`1. Obviousness in view of C30-20060731-040R4 (3GPP2 Joint Proposal) + C30-20061204-060 (3GPP2 Nortel
`MIMO Operations Proposal)
`2. Obviousness in view of IEEE 802.16-2004 and IEEE 802.16e-2005
`
`557: 4 total
`1. Obviousness in view of US 8,009,637 (“Harris”)
`2. Obviousness in view of Harris + US 2007/0165567 (“Tan”)
`3. Obviousness in view of US 2006/0018336 (“Sutivong”) + Tan
`4. Obviousness in view of Sutivong + Tan + R1-060046
`
`332: 2 total
`1. Obviousness in view of Ericsson + Knuth
`2. Anticipation by Chung
`
`284: 4 total
`1. Obviousness in view of 3GPP TS 36.212 + 3GPP TS 36.321 + R1-02-0051
`2. Obviousness in view of 3GPP TS 36.212 + 3GPP TS 36.321 + R1-02-0051 + 3GPP TS 25.214
`3. Obviousness in view of 3GPP TS 36.212 + 3GPP TS 36.321 + R1-02-0051 + R1-074873
`4. Obviousness in view of 3GPP TS 36.212 + 3GPP TS 36.321 + Kim + 3GPP TS 25.214
`
`833: 3 total
`
`1. Obviousness in view of R1-075037 + US2006/0262871 + R1-073269 + R1-073094
`2. Obviousness in view of R1-075037 + R1-073926 + US2006/0262871 + R1-073094
`3. Obviousness in view of R1-075037 + US8,467,367 + US8,374,161 + R1-073094
`
`Also, regarding contentions, we accept your proposal that both sides’ supplemental contentions are the operative
`contentions in this case.
`
`1
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2007-p. 1
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`For avoidance of doubt, this represents a global resolution regarding the contentions the parties have served, and
`plaintiffs will not dispute the manner in which we have counted our 20 references or their disclosure within the
`invalidity contentions.
`
`From: Steven J. Pollinger <spollinger@McKoolSmith.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 3:54 PM
`To: Selwyn, Mark <Mark.Selwyn@wilmerhale.com>; WH Apple Optis Service <WHAppleOptisService@wilmerhale.com>
`Cc: melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com; PanOptis_Apple2 <PanOptis_Apple2@McKoolSmith.com>; PPM Apple
`(ppm_apple@grayreed.com) <ppm_apple@grayreed.com>; #Hilco/PanOptis v Apple [Int]
`<#Hilco/PanOptisvApple@irell.com>; Sewall, Michaela P. <Michaela.Sewall@wilmerhale.com>
`Subject: RE: PoA2 | 4/8/2020 M&C Items (proposals on reducing asserted claims and prior art)
`
`EXTERNAL SENDER
`
`We await Apple’s 20 “references” today as specified per the agreement below.
`
`From: Steven J. Pollinger
`Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 2:49 PM
`To: Selwyn, Mark
`Cc: WH Apple Optis Service; melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com; PanOptis_Apple2; PPM Apple (ppm_apple@grayreed.com);
`#Hilco/PanOptis v Apple [Int]; Sewall, Michaela P.
`Subject: RE: PoA2 | 4/8/2020 M&C Items (proposals on reducing asserted claims and prior art)
`
`Mark, yes, agreed. Here are Plaintiffs’ 16 claims (no more than five per patent).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,005,154 – Claims 33, 37 = 2
`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,332 – Claims 1, 6, 7, 10 = 4
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,284 – Claims 1, 14, 27 = 3
`U.S. Patent No. 8,411,557 – Claims 1, 5, 10 = 3
`U.S. Patent No. 9,001,774 – Claims 6, 10 = 2
`U.S. Patent No. 8,102,833 – Claims 1, 8 = 2
`
`-Steve
`
`From: Selwyn, Mark [mailto:Mark.Selwyn@wilmerhale.com]
`Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 11:29 AM
`To: Steven J. Pollinger
`Cc: WH Apple Optis Service; melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com; PanOptis_Apple2; PPM Apple (ppm_apple@grayreed.com);
`#Hilco/PanOptis v Apple [Int]; Sewall, Michaela P.
`Subject: RE: PoA2 | 4/8/2020 M&C Items (proposals on reducing asserted claims and prior art)
`
`Steve:
`
`I understand from our call last evening that plaintiffs agree with the Apple’s interpretation of how a reference is counted
`under the Model Order as set forth in Michaela’s 9:42am e-mail of Thursday.
`
`If plaintiffs will agree to identify today their 16 claims (no more than five per patent), then Apple will identify by next
`Wednesday its 20 references (no more than six per patent).
`
`2
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2007-p. 2
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`