`
`Exhibit B
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 149-3 Filed 12/02/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 6161
`
`From: Beasley, Tony <tbeasley@omm.com>
`Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 8:12 PM
`To: Fussell, Tripp <JFussell@mayerbrown.com>
`Cc: Godfrey, Kristin <kgodfrey@omm.com>; Beaber, Jamie B. <JBeaber@mayerbrown.com>;
`Grimaldi, Alan M. <AGrimaldi@mayerbrown.com>; Gelsleichter, Alison T.
`<AGelsleichter@mayerbrown.com>; Bonner, Amanda Streff <ASBonner@mayerbrown.com>; Paul,
`Baldine B. <BPaul@mayerbrown.com>; Nese, Bryan <BNese@mayerbrown.com>;
`kbt@texarkanalaw.com; Levy, Kfir B. <KLevy@mayerbrown.com>; Pluta, Robert G.
`<RPluta@mayerbrown.com>; Siddiqui, Saqib <SSiddiqui@mayerbrown.com>; Barrow, William J.
`<WBarrow@mayerbrown.com>; gpc@texarkanalaw.com; #Maxell-Apple <maxellapple@omm.com>;
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com; Bobby Lamb <wrlamb@gillamsmithlaw.com>; FW-CLIENT-Maxell-
`Apple-Service <Maxell-Apple-Service@mayerbrown.com>; Miller, Tiffany A.
`<TMiller@mayerbrown.com>
`Subject: Re: Maxell Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS) - Source Code
`
`**EXTERNAL SENDER**
`
`Hi Tripp,
`
`We do not agree with your characterization of the July 19 meet and confer. During that meet and confer,
`Maxell (1) committed to providing more information for why it contended it was proper to invoke PR 3-
`1(g) for the five identified claim limitations; (2) noted several times that it was treating its invocations of
`PR 3-1(g) as reservations of rights to cite source code as evidence of alleged infringement if its review so
`warranted; and (3) stated its position that Apple must produce all relevant source code irrespective of what
`was stated in Maxell’s infringement contentions. Apple agreed that if it identified any additional
`limitations as to which it believed Maxell had improperly invoked PR 3-1(g), we would let you
`know. Apple did not agree to summarize what source code it was or was not producing on “an element-
`by-element basis,” as your email seems to suggest, nor is Apple required to do so. Based on your
`representation that Maxell’s invocation of PR 3-1(g) was a reservation of rights, Apple has not identified
`any further limitations as to which it believes PR 3-1(g) was improperly invoked. As such, there was
`nothing further to report to Maxell.
`
`Your request also exceeds the scope of Apple’s discovery obligations under PR 3-4. Apple has produced
`documents and made available for inspection source code that is sufficient to show the operation of the
`aspects or elements of the accused products as identified in Maxell’s infringement contentions, and there is
`no “additional information” that Apple needs to—or is required to—provide under the court’s order, the
`local rules, or the parties’ discussion. We informed you weeks ago that we would be producing source
`code on August 14, and Apple has already cleared Maxell’s experts. Thus, we disagree with your position
`that Apple must provide additional information before Maxell can give notice of inspection.
`
`Thanks,
`
`Tony
`
`
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
