Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 250-5 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 9582
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS DocumepbfiQéVfiigqfi/BOIZO Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 9582
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT R
`
`EXHIBIT R
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 250-5 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 9583
`
`
`
`
`
`
`July 22, 2019
`
`VIA E-MAIL
`
`Tony Beasley
`O’Melveny & Myers LLP
`400 South Hope Street
`18th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
`tbeasley@omm.com
`
`
`
`
`Mayer Brown LLP
`1999 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006-1101
`Main Tel +1 202 263 3000
`Main Fax +1 202 263 3300
`www.mayerbrown.com
`
`James A. Fussell, III (Tripp)
`Direct Tel +1 202 263 3222
`Direct Fax +1 202 263 5209
`jfussell@mayerbrown.com
`
`Re: Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Dear Tony:
`
`This letter is written in response to your letter of July 15 and to summarize the parties’
`
`meet and confer held on July 19 addressing the substance of your letter. As we explained during
`the meet and confer, Maxell’s contentions are sufficient and Maxell does not intend to amend them
`as demanded by your letter. You acknowledged during the call that, despite the language in your
`July 15 letter, Apple is not challenging the sufficiency of Maxell’s contentions in the letter. Rather,
`you indicated that the letter was to preserve Apple’s relevancy objections concerning production
`of certain source code. Notwithstanding Apple’s “objections,” however, you agreed during the call
`to search for and produce all relevant source code. Further, upon completing the search for all
`relevant source code, you agreed to identify (if applicable) any limitations where Maxell invoked
`P.R. 3-1(g) where Apple was unable to identify any relevant source code after a reasonable search.
`
`
`In addition, below we address the five specific limitations identified in your letter where
`you contend source code is not relevant. As explained during the call, this information is already
`self-evident from the contentions and the claims themselves, but we provide the below, this time
`only, to demonstrate the lack of merit in Apple’s position.
`
`
` Element [1.c] of the ’493 patent in Appendix 3 claims “a display unit with the display
`screen, to display an image corresponding to the image signals” (emphasis added).
`Relevant source code may demonstrate that the display is rendering an image
`corresponding to the image signals. This is similarly the case for elements [5.c] and
`[10.c].
`
` Element [1.a] of the ’438 patent in Appendices 4A-4C claims “an input unit for receiving
`an input entered by a user” (emphasis added). Relevant source code may demonstrate
`
`Mayer Brown LLP operates in combination with other Mayer Brown entities with offices in Europe and Asia
`and is associated with Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership.
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 250-5 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 9584
`Mayer Brown LLP
`
`
`
`T. Beasley
`July 22, 2019
`Page 2
`
`
`that the input received by the input unit was an input entered by a user. Similar
`explanations apply to the other identified elements in claims 1 and 4.
`
` Element [1.b] of the ’794 patent in Appendix 8 claims “a power supply circuit for
`supplying power to each of said function devices” (emphasis added). Relevant source
`code may demonstrate that the power supply circuit is for supplying power to each of said
`function devices. Similar explanations apply to the other identified elements in claims 1
`and 9.
`
`As the explanations above show, the relevancy of source code for each of these limitations is
`already clear from the contentions and the claims themselves and we would expect a sophisticated
`company like Apple to readily understand the relevance of source code to these limitations. We
`provide these only to emphasize the obvious relevancy of source code and underscore the baseless
`nature of Apple’s “objections.” If Apple intends to sustain its position as to these or any other
`limitations and refuses to search for and produce relevant source code, please confirm this now so
`that we can raise the issue with the Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sincerely,
`
`cc: Counsel of Record
`
`James A. Fussell (Tripp)
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`