From: Hannah Santasawatkul Hannah_Santasawatkul@txwd.uscourts.gov
`Subject: Future Link cases (6:20-cv-1176; 6:21-cv-263 through 265; 6:21-cv-363)
`Date: July 13, 2021 at 8:17 PM
`To: Steve Ravel steve.ravel@kellyhart.com, TXWDml_LawClerks_WA_JudgeAlbright
`TXWDml_LawClerks_WA_JudgeAlbright@txwd.uscourts.gov
`Cc: rak_futurelink@raklaw.com, Lauren Degnan LAD@fr.com, Benjamin C. Elacqua Elacqua@fr.com, Noah Graubart
`graubart@fr.com, John Brinkmann Brinkmann@fr.com, Tony Nguyen nguyen@fr.com, asaul@kilpatricktownsend.com,
`tmayle@kilpatricktownsend.com, kreed@kilpatricktownsend.com, pamstutz@scottdoug.com, rkorn@kilpatricktownsend.com,
`smoore@kilpatricktownsend.com, davenelson@quinnemanuel.com, ddacus@dacusfirm.com, jj@orrick.com,
`mark@waltfairpllc.com, blake@themannfirm.com, mark@themannfirm.com, bcook@omm.com, crowland@omm.com,
`nwhilt@omm.com, vzhou@omm.com, dadams@sgbfirm.com, ryagura@omm.com, tflores@sgbfirm.com, Robert Earle
`Robert_Earle@txwd.uscourts.gov
`
`Good afternoon Counsel,
` apologize for my delayed response, the Court was out of town last week. I have cc’ed all counsel for the
`above cases in hopes of keeping everyone on the same page. The Court would like to make clear that
`while it did not receive email correspondence from Plaintiff or all of the Defendants, the Court has
`reviewed the CRSRs for all of the cases and was not influenced by any information presented by email.
`The Court also reviewed the Patents to determine whether there was any perceived overlap in
`technology. The Court made all of the below decisions in accordance with what it perceived would be
`most efficient for the Court and all parties.
`
`The Court has reviewed the issues and will rule as follows:
`
`Schedules: The Court will have two briefing schedules for the cases. The briefs for the AMD case will
`remain unchanged and all of the other cases will follow one briefing schedule.
`
`
` I
`
`Defendants
`Apple
`Qualcomm
`
`’680
`patent
`X
`X
`
`’804
`patent
`X
`X
`
`’108
`patent
`X
`
`
`’505
`patent
`X
`
`
`’754 patent
`
`X
`
`’466 patent
`
`
`
`’888
`patent
`
`
`
`Broadcom
`Realtek
`AMD
`
`X
`X
`
`
`X
`
`
`
`
`
`X
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`X
`
`
`
`X
`
`
`
`AMD patents – ‘108, ‘466, ‘888 (overlapping Apple)
`The Court notes that the AMD case was filed much earlier than the other cases and currently has a
`Markman date schedule for 10/13/21. The Court will not delay this date to attempt to consolidate it with
`the other cases, as it was Plaintiff’s own decision to wait to file the other cases and the case involves two
`patents unasserted against any other party. However, the Court will allow Apple the option to either join
`AMD’s briefing schedule and Markman for the ‘108 patent or have its own separate Markman for the ‘108
`patent. Please read the below carefully.
`
`If Apple chooses to join the AMD Markman: The briefs for the AMD patents will be dictated by the 3
`patent term and page limitations. The Court notes that the 3 patent term/page limitation category
`delineated in the Court’s OGP is for groupings of 3-5 patents, so the page/term limitations should be
`adequate to address all of the terms at issue should Apple decide to join in the AMD Markman. However,
`if an issue arises regarding number of terms or page limitations, the Parties are welcome to let the Court
`know and we will make sure that it the issue is quickly resolved. I understand that the deadline for
`exchanging claim terms was today, July 13, 2021.
`
`If Apple chooses to have a separate Markman (shaded in light red): The briefing schedule will follow the
`second briefing schedule with the other cases but will be a separate Markman and separate set of briefs
`dictated by the 1 patent term and page limitations. If any terms the Court construes for the ‘108 patent
`during the first AMD Markman are raised for the Apple Markman, the Court will merely adopt its
`construction from the AMD case for those particular terms. The Court believes that this situation is the
`most fair because it is giving Apple the option to either join AMD’s briefing schedule and Markman for the
`
`IPR2021-01487
`Exhibit 2003
`Page 1 of 4
`
`

`

`most fair because it is giving Apple the option to either join AMD’s briefing schedule and Markman for the
`‘108 patent on short notice or have its own separate Markman for the ‘108 patent knowing that it will be
`essentially bound by any of the Court’s prior construction from the AMD Markman.
`
`Apple must inform the Court, Plaintiff, and AMD of whether it intends to join the AMD’s Markman
`by this Friday, July 16, 2021. If it chooses to join the AMD Markman the Court will provide extensions for
`all deadlines prior to the “deadline to meet and confer to narrow terms in dispute and exchange revised
`list of terms/constructions” which is August 10, 2021.
`
`Qualcomm patent – ‘754
`The briefing schedule will follow the second briefing schedule with the other cases but will be a separate
`Markman and separate set of briefs dictated by the 1 patent term and page limitations.
`
`Apple, Qualcomm, Broadcomm, Realtek patents – ‘680, ‘804, ‘505
`The briefing schedule will follow the second briefing schedule with one Markman and the briefs will be
`dictated by the 3 patent term and page limitations. Again, the Court notes that the 3 patent term/page
`limitation category delineated in the Court’s OGP is for groupings of 3-5 patents, so the page/term
`limitations should be adequate to address all of the terms at issue despite the fact that the ‘505 patent is
`only asserted against Apple. However, if an issue arises regarding number of terms or page limitations,
`the Parties are welcome to let the Court know and we will make sure that it the issue is quickly resolved.
`
`
`While the Court understands Plaintiff’s concerns regarding duplicative briefings etc. the Court recalls that
`it was, again, Plaintiff’s own decision to choose when it filed these cases, what patents it chooses to
`assert, and against whom it asserts them. As such, Plaintiff should not be concerned by the possibility of
`having to produce four sets of briefs. Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s efforts will not be wholly
`duplicative as the Court’s constructions in the AMD Markman will apply to any duplicative terms in the
`Apple Markman. The Court’s decision to apply the same constructions is not merely due to efficiency but
`also due to the fact that if the Court has already conducted its independent analysis at the AMD
`Markman, it is highly unlikely that the Court will be persuaded away from its prior ruling.
`
`Please let me know if any of the above was unclear or if you have any other questions. Additionally, if you
`feel that the Court’s rulings have not addressed your particular concerns, please meet-and-confer and if
`you are unable to resolve the issue please let me know ASAP and I will make sure to make it a priority to
`address the issue. Have a great rest of your week!
`
`Best,
`Hannah
`
`
`Hannah Santasawatkul
`Law Clerk to the Honorable Alan D Albright
`United States District Court, Western District of Texas​
`Direct: 254-750-1520
`Hannah_Santasawatkul@txwd.uscourts.gov
`
`
`
`From: Steve Ravel <steve.ravel@kellyhart.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 9:33 PM
`To: TXWDml_LawClerks_WA_JudgeAlbright
`<TXWDml_LawClerks_WA_JudgeAlbright@txwd.uscourts.gov>
`Cc: rak_futurelink@raklaw.com; Lauren Degnan <LAD@fr.com>; Benjamin C. Elacqua
`<Elacqua@fr.com>; Noah Graubart <graubart@fr.com>; John Brinkmann <Brinkmann@fr.com>; Tony
`Nguyen <nguyen@fr.com>
`Subject: Re: 6:21-cv-00263-ADA--Future Link v. Apple
`
`CAUTION - EXTERNAL:
`
`Judge Albright
`Evan/ Hanna/ Jun/ Robby,
`
`IPR2021-01487
`Exhibit 2003
`Page 2 of 4
`
`

`

`Evan/ Hanna/ Jun/ Robby,
` represent defendant Apple Inc. in Future Link Systems, LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-00263. We
`are writing to inform the Court of the parties’ positions regarding the pre-Markman issues identified in the
`Case Readiness Status Report (“CRSR”) (Dkt. 23) in need of resolution, so the Court can consider
`whether to hold a telephonic hearing to resolve these issues. Specifically, the parties were unable to
`reach an agreement regarding a proposed procedure for concurrent Markman briefing and
`separate Markman hearings based on groups of patents asserted against different groupings of
`defendants. The parties respectfully request the Court schedule a Case Management Conference to
`permit the parties to address this dispute. These disputed pre-Markman issues are discussed in detail in
`part B of the “Meet and Confer Status” section of the CRSR, and summarized below:
`
`Apple’s Position:
`
`Apple requests, and Future Link opposes, separate Markman briefing and hearings for U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,317,804 (the “’804 patent”); 6,622,108 (the “’108 patent”); 6,807,505 (the “’505 patent”); and 7,917,680
`(the “’680 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”), based on the parties against whom those patents
`are asserted. Specifically, Apple proposes one set of briefing and hearing involving Apple, Qualcomm Inc.
`and Qualcomm Technologies Inc. (“Qualcomm”), Broadcom, Inc. and Broadcom Corp. (“Broadcom”), and
`Realtek Semiconductor Corp. (“Realtek”) for the ’680 patent asserted against only these parties; a
`second set of briefing and hearing, involving Apple, Qualcomm, and Broadcom, for the ’804 patent
`asserted against only these parties; and a third set of briefing and hearing involving only Apple on the
`’108 patent and ’505 patent, which Future Link asserts against only Apple. The ’108 patent is also
`asserted against AMD in a non-related case. Apple would not oppose AMD’s participation in this set of
`briefing and the hearing on the ’108 patent. Apple proposes all of the briefing to occur simultaneously—
`i.e., each round of briefing for all patents would be filed the same day—with the hearings in close
`proximity to one another, including on the same day, to the extent the Court’s schedule permits. The table
`below illustrates the patents asserted against each defendant.
`
`
`Asserted Future Link Patents
`Defendants
`’888
`’466
`’754
`’505
`’680
`’804
`’108
`patent
`patent
`patent
`patent
`patent
`patent
`patent
`
`
`
`X
`Apple
`X
`X
`X
`
`
`X
`
`X
`X
`
`Qualcomm
`
`
`
`
`Broadcom
`X
`X
`
`
`
`
`
`Realtek
`X
`
`
`X
`X
`
`
`AMD
`
`
`X
`
`Dividing the issues in this way is necessary, in Apple’s view, to allow the parties and the Court sufficient
`briefing space and hearing time to address the large number of asserted claims fully and efficiently. As
`explained in more detail in the CRSR, not every patent is asserted against each defendant in the related
`cases and the Asserted Patents, only two of which are genealogically related, pertain to different
`technologies—optimizing packet-based communication in a PCI Express system, bus arbitration in a
`serial interconnect inside of a chip, and test circuits for automatically testing a chip’s input/output signals.
`If the ’754 patent, asserted against only Qualcomm, were to be included in a Markman briefing and/or
`hearing along with any one of the Asserted Patents, a completely different technology would be
`introduced into Apple’s claim construction proceedings, resulting in less briefing space and hearing time
`for the Asserted Patents. Thus, Apple believes that Apple should not be a party to any briefing or hearing
`involving the ’754 patent and the proposed divided briefing would be appropriate.
`
`Future Link’s Position
`
`Future Link believes that the proposal Apple advances will result in unnecessarily excessive briefing and
`hearing time for both the Court and the parties. Future Link understands the Court’s Standing Orders
`regarding related cases to seek to avoid precisely such duplication of efforts. Future Link anticipates that
`there will be significant overlap in the claim construction issues relevant to the various parties, and that
`the Court will benefit from consolidated briefing rather than piecemeal claim construction as Apple
`requests. Apple proposes that the Court consider four entirely separate sets of briefing to address five
`total patents across the related cases. Future Link respectfully submits that this proposed process would
`unnecessarily multiply proceedings and increase the costs and burdens of this case for the Court and the
`parties. Future Link is confident that the sophisticated counsel representing Apple and the other
`
` I
`
`IPR2021-01487
`Exhibit 2003
`Page 3 of 4
`
`

`

`parties. Future Link is confident that the sophisticated counsel representing Apple and the other
`defendants in these related cases can successfully submit coordinated claim construction briefing in this
`matter, just as parties have done previously in many other related cases before this Court.
`
`Thank you.
`
`
`
`J. Stephen Ravel
`Partner, Austin Office
`
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 2000
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512) 495-6429 (phone)
`(512) 495-6401 (fax)
`steve.ravel@kellyhart.com www.kellyhart.com
`
`CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: This electronic transmission and any documents or other writings sent with it constitute
`confidential information which is intended only for the named recipient and which may be legally privileged. If you have
`received this communication in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender at Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP that you have
`received the message in error. Then delete it. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning
`the contents of this communication or any attachment(s) by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited.
`
`
`CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated outside the Judiciary. Exercise caution when opening
`attachments or clicking on links.
`
`IPR2021-01487
`Exhibit 2003
`Page 4 of 4
`
`