`Case 2:12—cv—O2769—JPM—tmp Document 71-3 Filed 11/27/13 Page 1 of 2 Page|D 505
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 71-3 Filed 11/27/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID 506
`
`DANIEL WEINBERG
`(650) 730-5501
`DWEINBERG@FTKLAW.COM
`
`
`
`
`
`October 24, 2013
`
`
`
`(Via E-mail psauer@cooley.com)
`
`Peter Sauer
`Cooley LLP
`380 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 900
`Broomfield, CO 80021-8023
`
`Re:
`
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc.
`Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp
`
`Dear Peter:
`
`I write in response to your email of October 23 regarding B.E.’s doctrine of equivalents
`contentions and the parties’ discussions regarding a stay of the litigation.
`
`Consistent with our prior discussions, B.E. hereby withdraws its contention that
`Facebook infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314 under the doctrine of equivalents and such
`contention may be deemed withdrawn from B.E.’s January 7, 2013 initial infringement
`contentions. Should further discovery or events reveal a basis to contend infringement
`under the doctrine of equivalents, B.E. will take all necessary steps to amend its
`infringement contentions accordingly.
`
`If the other B.E. defendants join Facebook’s request to stay litigation concerning the
`patents subject to the IPR petitions, B.E. consents to the stay. You wrote that “the stay
`cannot subject defendants who did not file an IPR to IPR estoppel.” The estoppel
`provisions apply to any requesting party and its privies. B.E. does not waive its rights
`under the statute. We think certain non-requesting parties are in privity with the
`requesting parties, including the two Samsung entities, the three Sony entities, and
`Google and Motorola. To be clear, however, B.E. does not contend that consent to the
`stay establishes privity.
`
`If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`/s/ Daniel Weinberg
`
`Daniel Weinberg
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
