Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 650-3 Filed 03/08/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 33159
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Document 650-3 Filed 03/08/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 33159
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT E
`
`EXHIBIT E
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 650-3 Filed 03/08/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 33160
`
`Miller, Tiffany A.
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Attachments:
`
`Miller, Tiffany A.
`Friday, January 29, 2021 3:53 PM
`Jay, Michael; Jenkins, Dawn; Knudson, David; Cunningham, Sean; Fowler, Mark
`Beaber, Jamie B.; Levy, Kfir B.; Fussell, Tripp; Geoff Culbertson; Gibson, Erin
`RE: Maxell Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS (E.D. Tex.) - DCO
`Revised Narrowing Schedule.docx
`
`Mike,
`
`Thanks for sending the draft over. Narrowing of the issues for trial is a two way street and there is no reason that Maxell’s
`narrowing should be required to be provided in advance of Apple’s, particularly where 1) Maxell has already identified two
`of the patents that it will not present at the March trial, and 2) the Court has required Apple to narrow its invalidity
`positions on a per-patent basis rather than to a specific overall number. We would thus propose that the parties exchange
`their narrowing identification and representative product proposals simultaneously on February 2 (or a later date if Apple
`prefers). If February 2 is adopted, Maxell can serve its response to the representative product proposal on February 5 and
`the parties can meet and confer on February 8.
`
`We are also fine to include dates for exchanges of drafts of the PTO, etc., but do not think that the present schedule
`permits sufficient time for the parties to meet and confer prior to the filing on February 25. Thus we would propose that
`Maxell provide the initial draft February 12 and Apple its response on February 19.
`
`These changes are reflected in the attached.
`
`Maxell also wants to advise Apple that it does not intend to drop its allegations with respect to the four patents that it is
`not permitted to bring to March’s trial. Rather, Maxell will seek to sever these claims from the case such that they may be
`heard in a second trial to be scheduled by the Court. Given that Apple itself chose to push for trial to be narrowed to six
`patents over Maxell’s objections, we assume that Apple will join in Maxell’s motion to sever. We ask, however, that you
`please confirm Apple’s position.
`
`We are also available next week for a call to discuss these issues further if you would like.
`
`Thanks,
`Tiffany
`
`From: Jay, Michael <michael.jay@dlapiper.com>  
`Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 1:03 PM 
`To: Miller, Tiffany A. <TMiller@mayerbrown.com>; Jenkins, Dawn <dawn.jenkins@dlapiper.com>; Knudson, David 
`<david.knudson@dlapiper.com>; Cunningham, Sean <sean.cunningham@dlapiper.com>; Fowler, Mark 
`<mark.fowler@dlapiper.com> 
`Cc: Beaber, Jamie B. <JBeaber@mayerbrown.com>; Levy, Kfir B. <KLevy@mayerbrown.com>; Fussell, Tripp 
`<JFussell@mayerbrown.com>; Geoff Culbertson <gpc@texarkanalaw.com>; Gibson, Erin <erin.gibson@dlapiper.com> 
`Subject: RE: Maxell Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case 5:19‐cv‐00036‐RWS (E.D. Tex.) ‐ DCO 
` 
`**EXTERNAL SENDER** 
`
`Tiffany, 
`
`1
`
`