`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1144-2 Filed 03/11/22 Page 1 of 3 PagelD# 30564
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1144-2 Filed 03/11/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 30565
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Laud, Sanjiv P. <slaud@jonesday.com>
`Wednesday, February 23, 2022 5:20 PM
`Okuda, Takashi (NY); RJREDVA; cmolster@molsterlaw.com
`#C-M PMIEDVA - LW TEAM
`RE: RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Altria Client Services LLC - Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-
`LO-TCB (E.D. Va.)
`
`Follow Up Flag:
`Flag Status:
`
`Follow up
`Flagged
`
`Takashi,
`
`Reynolds does not dispute that CN 667 has the same inventor as the ’374 patent, but we disagree with your proposed
`stipulation for the reasons discussed in our summary judgment briefing. Moreover, we do not believe your stipulation
`reflects what the court had in mind. We read the footnote in the court’s order as asking the parties to advise whether
`they believe the issue needs to be resolved and, if so, how and when it should be resolved.
`
`We are available to meet and confer Friday at 1 pm CT.
`
`Regards,
`Sanjiv
`
`Sanjiv P. Laud (bio)
`Partner
`JONES DAY® - One Firm Worldwide℠
`90 South Seventh Street, Suite 4950
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Office +1.612.217.8879
`
`From: Takashi.Okuda@lw.com <Takashi.Okuda@lw.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 4:27 PM
`To: Laud, Sanjiv P. <slaud@jonesday.com>; RJREDVA <RJREDVA@jonesday.com>; cmolster@molsterlaw.com
`Cc: pmiedva.lwteam@lw.com
`Subject: RE: RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Altria Client Services LLC - Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB (E.D. Va.)
`
`** External mail **
`
`Sanjiv,
`
`Thank you for your email. We would appreciate a response by COB tomorrow.
`
`Regards,
`
`Takashi Okuda
`
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`1271 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10020
`Direct Dial: +1.212.906.1773
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1144-2 Filed 03/11/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 30566
`Email: takashi.okuda@lw.com
`https://www.lw.com
`
`
`
`From: Laud, Sanjiv P. <slaud@jonesday.com>
`Sent: Friday, February 18, 2022 5:39 PM
`To: Okuda, Takashi (NY) <Takashi.Okuda@lw.com>; RJREDVA <RJREDVA@jonesday.com>; cmolster@molsterlaw.com
`Cc: #C-M PMIEDVA - LW TEAM <pmiedva.lwteam@lw.com>
`Subject: RE: RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Altria Client Services LLC - Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB (E.D. Va.)
`
`Takashi,
`
`We are reviewing your draft stipulation and will get back to you next week.
`
`Regards,
`Sanjiv
`
`Sanjiv P. Laud (bio)
`Partner
`JONES DAY® - One Firm Worldwide℠
`90 South Seventh Street, Suite 4950
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Office +1.612.217.8879
`
`From: Takashi.Okuda@lw.com <Takashi.Okuda@lw.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 4:47 PM
`To: RJREDVA <RJREDVA@jonesday.com>; cmolster@molsterlaw.com
`Cc: pmiedva.lwteam@lw.com
`Subject: RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Altria Client Services LLC - Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB (E.D. Va.)
`
`** External mail **
`
`Counsel:
`
`In light of the Court’s statement in its recent summary judgment order that “the Parties are encouraged to confer with
`each other” as to their dispute concerning the inventorship of Chinese Utility Model Patent CN 201482667, please
`confirm that RJR accepts the attached stipulation. If RJR does not agree, please identify why not, and provide your
`availability to meet and confer on February 18, 2022.
`
`Regards,
`
`Takashi Okuda
`
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`1271 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10020
`Direct Dial: +1.212.906.1773
`Email: takashi.okuda@lw.com
`https://www.lw.com
`
`
`_________________________________
`
`
`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
