throbber
Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 76-2 Filed 09/17/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1685
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 76-2 Filed 09/17/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1686
`
`Fox, David M.
`"fwilliams@wsltrial.com"; "alivingston@wsltrial.com"; "tlandis@wsltrial.com"; "msimons@wsltrial.com"; "johnw@wsltrial.com"; "gtpcounselwsl@wsltrial.com";
`"Daniel Garza"
`Team Samsung GTP; "Melissa Smith"; "Bryan Clark"; "Kent E. Baldauf Jr."; "Phyllis M. Taranto"; "Mark Mann"; "Blake Thompson"; "Matt Warren"; "Warren
`Lex Project Buckeye"
`RE: Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al., 2:21-cv-0040-JRG -- Supplementing Contentions
`Friday, September 17, 2021 1:53:42 PM
`image001.png
`
`From:
`To:
`
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`Date:
`Attachments:
`
`Counsel,
`
` I
`
` am writing once again to follow-up on the emails below. Please advise today whether GTP opposes Defendants’ proposed
`supplementation. Defendants plan to file their motion today, as stated in our previous emails, and would like to do so unopposed. If
`we do not hear from you, however, we will count GTP as opposed.
`
`Thank you,
`David
`
`From: Fox, David M.
`Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 12:17 PM
`To: 'fwilliams@wsltrial.com' <fwilliams@wsltrial.com>; 'alivingston@wsltrial.com' <alivingston@wsltrial.com>; 'tlandis@wsltrial.com'
`<tlandis@wsltrial.com>; 'msimons@wsltrial.com' <msimons@wsltrial.com>; 'johnw@wsltrial.com' <johnw@wsltrial.com>;
`'gtpcounselwsl@wsltrial.com' <gtpcounselwsl@wsltrial.com>; 'Daniel Garza' <dgarza@wsltrial.com>
`Cc: Team Samsung GTP <TeamSamsungGTP@paulhastings.com>; 'Melissa Smith' <melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com>; 'Bryan Clark'
`<bclark@webblaw.com>; 'Kent E. Baldauf Jr.' <kbaldaufjr@webblaw.com>; 'Phyllis M. Taranto' <PTaranto@webblaw.com>; 'Mark
`Mann' <mark@themannfirm.com>; 'Blake Thompson' <blake@themannfirm.com>; 'Matt Warren' <matt@warrenlex.com>; 'Warren
`Lex Project Buckeye' <buckeye@matters.warrenlex.com>
`Subject: RE: Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al., 2:21-cv-0040-JRG -- Supplementing Contentions
`
`Counsel,
`
` I
`
` am writing to follow-up on the email below. Please advise whether GTP opposes Defendants’ proposed supplementation.
`Defendants plan to file their motion on Friday, September 17, and hope to do so unopposed. If we do not hear from you, we will
`note as much in the motion.
`
`Thank you,
`David
`
`
`From: Fox, David M.
`Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 10:33 AM
`To: fwilliams@wsltrial.com; alivingston@wsltrial.com; tlandis@wsltrial.com; msimons@wsltrial.com; johnw@wsltrial.com;
`gtpcounselwsl@wsltrial.com; Daniel Garza <dgarza@wsltrial.com>
`Cc: Team Samsung GTP <TeamSamsungGTP@paulhastings.com>; 'Melissa Smith' <melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com>; 'Bryan Clark'
`<bclark@webblaw.com>; 'Kent E. Baldauf Jr.' <kbaldaufjr@webblaw.com>; Phyllis M. Taranto <PTaranto@webblaw.com>; 'Mark
`Mann' <mark@themannfirm.com>; 'Blake Thompson' <blake@themannfirm.com>; 'Matt Warren' <matt@warrenlex.com>; 'Warren
`Lex Project Buckeye' <buckeye@matters.warrenlex.com>
`Subject: Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al., 2:21-cv-0040-JRG -- Supplementing Contentions
`
`Counsel,
`
`Defendants will seek the Court’s leave to supplement their Invalidity & Subject-Matter Eligibility Contentions (“Contentions”), served
`July 6, 2021.
`
`As you are aware, Defendants’ Contentions disclosed, among others, two prior art systems: (1) TV Controller Using Hand Gestures
`and Related Interactive Computer Graphics Applications (“MERL”), and (2) 3D Image Control with Hand Gestures, including Control of
`Molecular Biology Modeling (“MDScope”). As you are also aware, Defendants subpoenaed documents from Mitsubishi Electric
`Research Laboratories, Inc. (creator of the MERL system) and the Beckman Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
`(creator of the MDScope system).
`
`In response, Mitsubishi Labs produced a video, which we served on September 2, that provides additional background and support
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 76-2 Filed 09/17/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1687
`
`for the disclosed MERL system. In addition, the Beckman Institute produced the six publications, which we served on August 25, that
`provide additional background and support for the disclosed MDScope system. Although Defendants believe their Contentions
`served July 6 are entirely sufficient with respect to these prior art systems and do not require supplementation, out of an abundance
`of caution Defendants will seek leave to supplement their Contentions with this additional background and supporting evidence. For
`your reference, you will receive a link in a separate email to download the video clip and six publications.
`
`Defendants’ proposed supplementation to their Contentions will be included in the separate link for download, with changes shown
`in redline. Please let us know as soon as possible (but no later than Wednesday, September 15) whether GTP will oppose
`Defendants’ motion for leave.
`
`Thank you,
`David
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`David M. Fox | Associate, Litigation Department
`Paul Hastings LLP | 1117 S. California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Direct: +1.650.320.1823 |
`Main: +1.650.320.1800 | Fax: +1.650.320.1923 | davidfox@paulhastings.com |
`www.paulhastings.com
`
`

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