throbber
PUBLIC VERSION
`
`From: Weidenfeller,Scott
`
`
`
`
`To:NicholasT,Matich; Park,Han;Sharma,Anupam; boreene@duanemorris.com; waliddell@duanemorris.com;
`
`GREENTHREAD@lockelord.com;Paul,Rajesh
`
`Subject:
`RE: Cirrus Logic Inc.et al. v. Greenthread LLC, IPR2024-00001, IPR2024-00016, IPR2024-00017
`Date:
`Tuesday, October 24, 2023 4:11:12 PM
`Attachments:
`
`
`
`Nick,
`
`Cirrus Logic, GlobalFoundries, OmniVision, and ams OSRAM (collectively, "Petitioners") object to
`Patent Owner's requests. Petitioners have identified all real parties in interest and have
`demonstratedthat the petitions are not time barred. Patent Owner has not shownanyjustification
`for the extremely broad discovery it seeks, other than thatij Intel,i (collectively,
`"Prior Petitioners") may have beenPetitioners’ customers and that Petitioners are members of a
`joint defense group. Neither establishes that any unnamedparty is a real party in interest.
`
`Moreover,virtually all modern electronic products contain transistors, and your requests "relating to
`transistor products" would seemingly cover all communications and agreementsPetitioners ever
`had with Prior Petitioners about any electronic products. We note that none of Petitioners had any
`discussions with Prior Petitioners regarding the priorlitigations before Patent Ownerfiled complaints
`against Cirrus Logic, OmniVision, and ams OSRAM.
`
`Finally, Petitioners have no knowledge as to what products madeorsold by Prior Petitioners are
`covered by Patent Owner's licenses and whetherthe products contain any products madeorsold by
`Petitioners. In fact, Patent Ownerhas taken the position in the EDTX litigations that there are no
`products made underthe licenses: “Greenthread does not allege that Greenthreaditself, or any
`companyholding a license to the Patents-in-Suit, made, used, offered forsale, or sold any product
`that embodiesor uses any alleged invention covered by the Patents-in-Suit.”
`
`Please let us know whether Patent Ownerwill reconsiderits position.
`
`Regards,
`Scott
`
`Scott Weidenfeller
`
`Covington & Burling LLP
`One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4956
`T +1 202 662 5923 | sweidenfeller@cov.com
`Www.cov.com
`
`COVINGTON
`
`This messageis from a law firm and maycontain information thatis confidential or legally privileged. Ifyou are not the
`intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently
`transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
`
`Greenthread Ex 2016, p.1 of 3
`Cirrus Logic, et. al. v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`From: Nicholas T. Matich <nmatich@McKoolSmith.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 9:03 AM
`To: Weidenfeller, Scott <SWeidenfeller@cov.com>; Park, Han <HPark@cov.com>; Sharma, Anupam
`<asharma@cov.com>; bgreene@duanemorris.com; waliddell@duanemorris.com;
`dnguyen@lockelord.com; emma.bennett@lockelord.com; david.bluestone@bfkn.com
`Cc: Greenthread-Omnivision-MS <Greenthread-Omnivision-MS@mckoolsmith.com>; Greenthread-
`Cirrus-MS <Greenthread-Cirrus-MS@mckoolsmith.com>; Greenthread-ams-OSRAM-MS
`<Greenthread-ams-OSRAM-MS@mckoolsmith.com>
`Subject: RE: Cirrus Logic Inc. et al. v. Greenthread LLC, IPR2024-00001, IPR2024-00016, IPR2024-
`00017
`
`[EXTERNAL]
`Counsel,
`
`Please let us know when we can expect a response to the below.
`
`Sincerely,
`Nick Matich
`
`NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail is SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT and
`ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE and is CONFIDENTIAL. It is intended only for the individual or entity designated above. You are
`hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, use or reliance upon the information contained in and transmitted with this
`e-mail by or to anyone other than the addressee designated above by the sender is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have
`received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply immediately. Any e-mail erroneously transmitted to you should be
`immediately destroyed.
`
`From: Nicholas T. Matich <nmatich@McKoolSmith.com>
`Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 12:24 PM
`To: Sweidenfeller@cov.com; Hpark@cov.com; Asharma@cov.com; bgreene@duanemorris.com;
`waliddell@duanemorris.com; dnguyen@lockelord.com; emma.bennett@lockelord.com;
`david.bluestone@bfkn.com
`Cc: Greenthread-Omnivision-MS <Greenthread-Omnivision-MS@mckoolsmith.com>; Greenthread-
`Cirrus-MS <Greenthread-Cirrus-MS@mckoolsmith.com>; Greenthread-ams-OSRAM-MS
`<Greenthread-ams-OSRAM-MS@mckoolsmith.com>
`Subject: Cirrus Logic Inc. et al. v. Greenthread LLC, IPR2024-00001, IPR2024-00016, IPR2024-00017
`
`Counsel,
`
`Petitioners in the above captioned matters have the burden of identifying all real parties in interest
`
`Greenthread Ex 2016, p.2 of 3
`Cirrus Logic, et. al. v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`(RPIs) in the petition and demonstrating that the petitions are not time barred. Samsung Electronics
`Co. Ltd. v. Netlist Inc., IPR2022-00615, Paper 40 (Director Vidal Feb. 3, 2023) (quoting Worlds Inc. v.
`Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237, 1242 Fed. Cir. 2018); 35 U.S.C. § 322(a). The petitions should be
`withdrawn because they do not to meet these requirements.
`
` were served with complaints
`More than one year before the filing of these petitions, Intel and
` was an RPI of
`alleging infringement of Greenthread’s patents at issue.
`
` was
`served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ‘195 patent more than one year ago. As the
`attached documents indicate, at least one petitioner and/or Global Foundries is a supplier to each of
`Intel, Dell, Samsung, and Sony. Therefore, petitioners and Global Foundries may be operating, in
` Accordingly, at least one
`part, under Greenthread’s licenses to Intel,
` and/or
`petitioner and/or its RPI is in privity with Intel,
` (or they are RPIs) and the
`petitions are time barred.
`
`If petitioners do not withdraw its petitions, then each petitioner and Global Foundries should
`produce:
`
`
`1. All agreements with Intel,
`made for them or the prior litigations.
`2. All communications with these Intel,
`prior litigations.
`
` relating to transistor products sold to or
`
` relating to such products or the
`
`
`Further, each petitioner and Global Foundries should provide a sworn declaration stating whether it
`believes any of its activities are covered by Greenthread’s licenses.
`
`Second, we understand that there is a joint defense agreement among defendants in district court
`actions involving these patents. Therefore, petitioners should (1) withdraw their petitions, (2)
`amend the petitions to include the other defendants as RPIs, or (3) produce any joint defense
`agreement and any communications with other members of the joint defense group relating to the
`patents at issue (including under a privilege log if necessary) so that we can evaluate any claim by
`petitioners that other defendants were not involved in these IPRs. Mitek Sys., Inc. v. United Servs.
`Auto. Ass'n, No. IPR2020-00882, 2020 WL 4375112, at *7 (P.T.A.B. July 30, 2020) (“granting USAA's
`request for any joint defense or common interest agreements”).
`
`Sincerely,
`Nick Matich
`Counsel for Patent Owner Greenthread LLC
`
`McKool Smith | Nicholas T. Matich
`Principal | Washington | Tel: (202) 370-8301 | Mobile: (703) 863-7922
`
`
`Greenthread Ex 2016, p.3 of 3
`Cirrus Logic, et. al. v. Greenthread
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket