`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS DocumeBWflé—Q VEH‘BEaT/oe/zo Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 8851
`
`EXHIBIT F
`
`EXHIBIT F
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 212-7 Filed 03/06/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 8852
`
`Miller, Tiffany A.
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Pensabene, Marc J. <mpensabene@omm.com>
`Monday, March 02, 2020 7:08 PM
`Miller, Tiffany A.; Simmons, Luann L.; 'melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com'; Beasley, Tony;
`Moon, Bo; Gore, Laura Bayne; Zhou, Vincent; #Maxell-Apple; 'Bobby Lamb'; Godfrey,
`Kristin; 'bstevens@wscllp.com'; 'hcannom@wscllp.com'; 'jquilici@orrick.com';
`Williamson, Brett J.
`Beaber, Jamie B.; Fussell, Tripp; Levy, Kfir B.; FW-CLIENT-Maxell-Apple-Service; 'Geoff
`Culbertson'
`RE: Maxell Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS) - Court Order DI 204
`
`**EXTERNAL SENDER**
`
`Tiffany,
`
`The Court has now ordered Maxell to provide supplemental infringement contentions by March 12. The Court’s order
`also specifically contemplates the possibility (raised by Maxell’s 2/14 motion to compel) that Apple has produced source
`code after February 12. It also specifically contemplates a remedy for such post‐February 12 production: “Maxell may
`move for leave to supplement its contentions.” (Order at 5).
`
`Should Maxell therefore desire to further supplement its contentions after March 12 with code that Apple produced
`after February 12, Apple will promptly consider any Maxell request to do so. Apple is hopeful that Maxell’s request
`would be such that Maxell could file an unopposed motion for leave to further supplement its infringement
`contentions. Should Maxell make such a request, and to aid Apple’s prompt review, please provide with the request
`redlined contentions readily identifying citations to source code produced after February 12.
`
`If Maxell insists on filing the motion contemplated by your email, Apple will oppose it at least because the court’s order
`already contemplates a mechanism for Maxell to supplement its contentions with code produced after February 12, and
`because Apple has committed to evaluating any Maxell request to further supplement with post‐February 12 code
`promptly in a manner that avoids court intervention.
`
`The time for Maxell to have provided infringement contentions that are “sufficiently focused to the accused
`functionality” has long passed. Apple was forced to make a motion to obtain such contentions despite Apple’s
`production of an extraordinary volume of source code in this case. Apple plainly produced source code sufficient to
`show the relevant operation of the products with its P.R. 3‐4 production, and also plainly did so by February 12, in
`response to Maxell’s many requests that Maxell used to defer its compliance with its obligations. It is high time for
`Maxell to comply with its P.R. 3‐1(g) obligations as Maxell’s failure to do so has (and continues to) materially prejudiced
`Apple’s defense of this matter.
`
`Best
`Marc
`
`From: Miller, Tiffany A. <TMiller@mayerbrown.com>
`Sent: Saturday, February 29, 2020 12:55 PM
`To: Pensabene, Marc J. <mpensabene@omm.com>; Simmons, Luann L. <lsimmons@omm.com>;
`'melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com' <melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com>; Beasley, Tony <tbeasley@omm.com>; Moon, Bo
`<bmoon@omm.com>; Gore, Laura Bayne <lbayne@omm.com>; Zhou, Vincent <vzhou@omm.com>; #Maxell‐Apple
`<maxellapple@omm.com>; 'Bobby Lamb' <wrlamb@gillamsmithlaw.com>; Godfrey, Kristin <kgodfrey@omm.com>;
`'bstevens@wscllp.com' <bstevens@wscllp.com>; 'hcannom@wscllp.com' <hcannom@wscllp.com>; 'jquilici@orrick.com'
`1
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 212-7 Filed 03/06/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 8853
`
`<jquilici@orrick.com>; Williamson, Brett J. <bwilliamson@omm.com>
`Cc: Beaber, Jamie B. <JBeaber@mayerbrown.com>; Fussell, Tripp <JFussell@mayerbrown.com>; Levy, Kfir B.
`<KLevy@mayerbrown.com>; FW‐CLIENT‐Maxell‐Apple‐Service <Maxell‐Apple‐Service@mayerbrown.com>; 'Geoff
`Culbertson' <gpc@texarkanalaw.com>
`Subject: Maxell Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (Case 5:19‐cv‐00036‐RWS) ‐ Court Order DI 204
`
`
`[EXTERNAL MESSAGE]
`
`Counsel,
`
`In the Court’s Order issued at D.I. 204, the Court directed Maxell to serve revised infringement contentions on March 13,
`2020, based on Apple’s representation that its source code production was complete on February 12, 2020. Apple,
`however, continued its source code production after February 12. Given such continued production, Apple stated that it
`expects Maxell to supplement its contentions by March 23, 2020. Given this statement, and the fact that at least
`
` code remains unproduced, Maxell believes March 23 is the more appropriate deadline for supplementation, and
`intends to move the Court to extend the date for compliance until March 23. Given your prior statements, we assume
`Apple will not oppose such motion, but we request that you please formally provide us with your position no later than
`Monday.
`
`
`Thank you,
`
`
`Tiffany
`_________________________________________________________________________________________
`Tiffany A. Miller
`Counsel
`Mayer Brown LLP
`1999 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006-1101 United States of America
`T +1 202 263 3121
`tmiller@mayerbrown.com
`mayerbrown.com
`
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________________
`This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
`addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named
`addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e‐mail.
`
`Mayer Brown is a global services provider comprising an association of legal practices that are separate entities,
`including Mayer Brown LLP (Illinois, USA), Mayer Brown International LLP (England), Mayer Brown (a Hong Kong
`partnership) and Tauil & Chequer Advogados (a Brazilian partnership).
`
`Information about how we handle personal information is available in our Privacy Notice.
`
`2
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`