`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 55-2 Filed 03/29/23 Page 1 of 3
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00765-LY
`
`REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR
`CORPORATION,
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 55-2 Filed 03/29/23 Page 2 of 3
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`BANDSPEED, LLC,
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`Defendant.
`DECLARATION OF JEFFREY JOHNSON
`My name is Jeffrey Johnson. I am over 18 years of age and of sound mind. All the
`1.
`facts set forth in this declaration are based on my personal knowledge.
`2.
`I am a partner at Orrick, counsel for Defendant Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
`(“Realtek”).
`invalidity contentions on Plaintiff Bandspeed, LLC
`its
`Realtek served
`3.
`(“Bandspeed”) on July 12, 2022. Ten days later, on July 22, 2022, Realtek identified 112 claim
`terms requiring construction.
`4.
`I had numerous email and telephone exchanges with counsel for Bandspeed
`(primarily Adam Price) to discuss and attempt to narrow the extent of the parties’ claim
`construction disputes and reduce the number of terms that would need to be addressed at the
`Markman hearing. I have run multiple searches on our email system and found that at no time
`during any of these discussions did counsel for Bandspeed suggest that Realtek’s identification of
`certain terms as indefinite was untimely or that Realtek needed to amend its invalidity contentions
`to assert indefiniteness. Further, I have no memory of any such communication. In fact, the parties
`substantively addressed the terms Realtek contends are indefinite during their discussions, and
`counsel for Bandspeed never took the position that Realtek had waived its right to assert that these
`terms were indefinite.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 55-2 Filed 03/29/23 Page 3 of 3
`
`Specifically, the parties exchanged emails regarding the administrative issues
`5.
`and/or claim construction related issues on August 11, 12, 17, 22, 25, and 29, and September 1, 2,
`6, 7, and 12. The parties exchanged their proposed constructions on August 12, and exchanged
`additional emails about various administrative and claim construction related issues on August 25
`and 29, and September 1, 2, 6, 7, and 12.
`6.
`Again, at no time during these numerous emails and calls did counsel for
`Bandspeed ever suggest that Realtek’s identification of certain terms as indefinite was untimely.
`7.
`On September 13, 2022, the parties filed their Joint Claim Construction Statement
`(“JCCS”). Counsel for Bandspeed did not suggest that Realtek’s identification of certain terms as
`indefinite was untimely in the JCCS either.
`8.
`On September 27, 2022, the parties exchanged emails about aligning their claim
`construction briefs. And again counsel for Bandspeed did not suggest that Realtek’s identification
`of certain terms as indefinite was untimely.
`9.
`On October 4, 8, 10, 12, and 13, the parties exchanged emails on various subjects.
`Counsel for Bandspeed did not suggest that Realtek’s identification of certain terms as indefinite
`was untimely in any of these emails.
`10.
`In fact, the first time Bandspeed suggested that Realtek had not timely identified
`certain terms as indefinite was in its Opening Claim Construction Brief filed on October 17, 2022.
`I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
`correct. Executed on March 29, 2023.
`
`Jeffrey Johnson
`
`2
`
`
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
