`
`Exhibit 1
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 57-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID 628
`Case 2:12—cv—O2825—JPM—tmp Document 57-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 4 Page|D 628
`
`
`
`° SIMSPLG
`
`The Tower at Peabody Place
`100 Peabody Piece, Suite 900
`Memphis, TN 38183-3672
`(901) 543-5900
`
`January 18, 2013
`
`Jonathan E. Nelson
`PHONE1
`(991)543-5935
`FAX:
`(877) 521-281?
`E-MAIL:
`gene-isori@bassberry.com
`
`Craig R. Kaufman
`Freitas Tseng & Kaufman LLP
`100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`
`Re:
`
`B.E. Tech, LLC v. Samsung, Civ Nos. 12-cv-2824, 12-cv-2825
`
`Dear Craig:
`
`We have reviewed B.E. Technology’s Initial Infringement Contentions dated January 7,
`2013. For the reasons discussed below, the contentions fail to satisfy the requirements of Local
`Patent Rule 3.1.
`
`Rule 3.} requires that B.E. Technology’s Initial Infringement Contentions contain a chart
`identifying “specifically where each limitation of each asserted ciaim is found within each
`Accused Instrumentality.” However, for several of the elements of the asserted claims, B.E.
`Technology failed to do that for each and every Accused Instrumentality. Specifically, for
`virtually every limitation, B.E. Technology included a series of “screen shots” without any
`further explanation as to_ where each limitation is found. For example, and without limitation, the
`chart comparing claim 2 of the ’290 to the Samsung Acclaim smartphones is deficient for at least
`the following reasons:
`
`0
`
`0
`
`For element (a) of claim 2, the chart merely states in conclusory fashion that “[t]he
`Samsung Acclaim smartphone includes a non~v0latile data storage device,” followed by a
`series of screen shots of a Samsung phone. The screen shots fail to identify what it is
`about the phone that constitutes a non-volatile data storage device.
`
`For element (c) of claim 2, while the chart identifies several alleged programs followed
`once again by a series of screen shots, it fails to identify, without limitation, “a number of
`user~selectable items displayed in [the graphical user interface],” “a link to an
`information resource accessible via the network,” and how each program “is operable
`upon execution and in response to selection by a user of one of said items to access the
`associated information resource over the network.”
`
`0 For element (cl), the chart fails to identify, without limitation, the programs being
`operable “to display a user—selectable item for user links contained within the user
`profile” and “in response to selection by a user of one of the user links to access the file
`
`bassberry.com
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 57-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID 629
`Case 2:12—cv—O2825—JPM—tmp Document 57-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 3 of 4 Page|D 629
`
`Craig R. Kaufman
`Janauary I8, 2013
`' Page 2
`
`associated with the selected user link from the user library associated with the received
`user profile.” The series of screen shots included in the chart are wholly insufficient.
`
`In addition, we object to BB. Technology’sassertions relating to the doctrine of
`equivalents. For virtually every claim element, B.E. Technology included an alternative
`boilerplate argument that the element is met under the doctrine of equivalents. B.E.
`’i‘ecimology’s assertions of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents are improper for at
`least two reasons. First, it is improper to assert the doctrine of equivalents as an alternative
`position since an element can only appear in an accused device either literally or under the
`doctrine of equivalents. It is clear that B.E. Technology is attempting to preserve a doctrine of
`equivalents argument in the event it fails to establish literal infringement. However, such an
`argument cannot be preserved simply by cutting and pasting a boilerplate statement into a claim
`chart. Second, B.E. Technology did not provide any explanation as to what feature(s) of each
`Accused lnstrumentality constitutes an equivalent for any claim element, thereby violating Local
`Patent Rule 3.1 for the same reasons as discussed above.
`
`Moreover, the contentions served by BB. Technology identify as accused products
`mobile phones (and possibly other product categories) that are not sold in the United States and
`that cannot form the basis of a claim of infringement of a US. patent. These include, without
`limitation, the Galaxy Ace, Galaxy Fit, Galaxy Gio, Galaxy Mini, Galaxy Pocket Duos, Galaxy
`Pocket and Galaxy S Advance. It is possible that other products were also misidentified, but it is
`difficult for us to make that determination since the contentions identify product names without
`providing any model numbers and Samsung sells products in the U.S. that share the names as
`their overseas counterparts but have different model numbers. The contentions must therefore be
`amended to both delete products not sold in the U.S. and identify model numbers of accused
`products.
`
`For at least these reasons, B.E. Technology has failed to comply with Local Patent Rule
`3.1. Such failure will make it difficult to impossible for Samsung to prepare its Initial Non-
`infringement Contentions and produce the accompanying documents as required by Local Patent
`Rules 3.3 and 3.4. Therefore, we request that B.E. Technology confirm by Januagy 23, 2013 that
`(a) it will be supplementing its contentions to address the issues mentioned above and otherwise
`comply with Rule 3.1 and (b) it has no objection to an extension of time for Samsung to comply
`with the requirements of Rules 3.3 and 3.4 up to and including the deadline for Samsung to serve
`its invalidity and Unenforceability Contentions.
`
`Please call us if you have any questions.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`H
`
`Jonathan E. Nelson
`
`.lEN:mv
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 57-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID 630
`Case 2:12—cv—O2825—JPM—tmp Document 57-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 4 of 4 Page|D 630
`
`Craig R. Kaufman
`Janauary 18,2013 M
`Page 3
`
`cc:
`
`BeTechFTKALL@ftkEaw.ccm (Via email)
`Joshua Raskin, Esq. (Via email)
`Rich Pettus, Esq. (via email)
`Justin MacLean, Esq. (via emaik)
`
`1 1530987.§