`4890
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit A
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 66-1 Filed 11/19/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
`4891
`
`Carder Brooks
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Emma,
`
`Carder Brooks
`Thursday, November 14, 2024 2:30 PM
`Emma Lee; DG-R2Solutions
`R2 V Databricks
`RE: R2 v Databricks -- Proposed Comprise Construction
`
`We cannot agree to that construction. The inclusion of the additional language seems unrelated to the
`parenthetical, it improperly narrows the meaning of the term to require "organization of data" according to the
`attributes (whatever that means), and it doesn't seem to be technically correct in the context of the patent. As we
`said before, R2 would agree to the construction "a set of attributes."
`
`Thanks,
`
`Carder W. Brooks I Attorney I 817.806.3814
`Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC I 3131 W. 7th Street, Suite 300 I Fort Worth, TX 76107
`carder@nelbum.com I www.nelbum.com
`
`nelson bumgardnerconroy
`
`This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm of Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC that
`may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this
`information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then
`delete the message and its attachments.
`
`From: Emma Lee <Emma.Lee@fenwick.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2024 2:20 PM
`To: Carder Brooks <carder@nelbum.com>; DG-R2Solutions <R2Solutions@nelbum.com>
`Cc: R2 V Data bricks <R2vDatabricks@fenwick.com>
`Subject: RE: R2 v Databricks -- Proposed Comprise Construction
`
`Carder,
`
`We are amenable to dropping the parenthetical for "schema" if R2 agrees to construe the term as "organization of data
`according to a set of attributes." Please let us know if this works for R2.
`
`Additionally, as explained in our responsive claim construction brief, Data bricks updated the following proposed
`constructions in response to arguments raised in R2's opening brief and in an effort to minimize the disputes for the
`Court:
`
`Term
`"reducing"/ "reduce"
`
`Original Proposed Construction
`"[combining]/ [combine] all
`intermediate data values sharing
`
`Amended Proposed Construction
`"[merging]/ [merge] all
`intermediate data values sharing
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 66-1 Filed 11/19/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
`4892
`
`"providing each data partition
`to a selected one of a plurality
`of mapping functions"
`
`the same key into a single key-
`value pair or a list of values
`associated with the key"
`"providing each data partition to
`one of a plurality of different
`mapping functions where the
`mapping function is selected for a
`partition based on the data group
`the partition originated from"
`
`the same key into a single key-
`value pair or a list of values
`associated with the key"
`" providing each data partition to
`one of a plurality of different
`mapping functions where each
`mapping function is selected for a
`partition based on the data group
`the partition originated from"
`
`Best,
`S. Emma Lee (she/her)
`Fenwick I Associate I +1415-875-2007 I emma.lee@fenwick.com
`
`From: Carder Brooks <carder@nelbum .com >
`Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 9:58 AM
`To: Emma Lee <Emma.Lee@fenwick.com >; DG-R2Solutions <R2Solutions@nelbum.com>
`Cc: R2 V Data bricks <R2vDatabricks@fenwick.com >
`Subject: RE: R2 v Databricks -- Proposed Comprise Construction
`
`** EXTERNAL EMAIL **
`Emma,
`
`R2 would agree to the construction "a set of attributes," but not to a construction that includes the parenthetical. Let
`us know if that works for Databricks.
`
`Thanks,
`
`Carder W. Brooks I Attorney I 817.806.3814
`Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC I 3131 W. 7th Street, Suite 300 I Fort Worth, TX 76107
`carder@nelbum.com I www.nelbum.com
`
`nelson bumgardnerconra;
`
`This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm of Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC that
`may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this
`information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then
`delete the message and its attachments.
`
`From: Emma Lee <Emma.Lee@fenwick.com >
`Sent: Friday, November 1, 2024 4:05 PM
`To: DG-R2Solutions <R2Solutions@nelbum .com >
`Cc: R2 V Data bricks <R2vDatabricks@fenwick.com >
`Subject: R2 v Databricks -- Proposed Comprise Construction
`
`Counsel-
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 66-1 Filed 11/19/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
`4893
`
`Upon review of R2 Solutions' opening claim construction brief, Data bricks proposes the following compromise
`construction for the term "schema" in effort to resolve the dispute. Please let us know if R2 will agree to this proposal.
`Data bricks reserves the right to proceed with its original proposed construction if R2 does not agree.
`
`Term
`
`"schema"
`
`Original Proposed Construction
`"a set of attributes (such as DeptlD,
`LastName, DeptName) and their
`properties (such as their data types:
`integer DeptlD, string LasName, string
`DeptName)"
`
`New Proposed Construction
`"a set of attributes (such as DeptlD,
`LastName, DeptName)"
`
`Best,
`S. Emma Lee (she/her)
`Fenwick I Associate I +1415-875-2007 I emma .lee@fenwick.com
`
`3
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ ChargeStill 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