`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 735-2 Filed 06/16/21 Page 1 of 3 Page|D# 20091
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 735-2 Filed 06/16/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 20092
`
`
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Michalik, John M.
`Tuesday, June 1, 2021 6:46 PM
`Jennifer.Koh@lw.com; pmiedva.lwteam@lw.com
`RJREDVA; cmolster@molsterlaw.com
`RE: RAI Strategic Holdings v. Altria Client Services (EDVa) - Summary Judgment
`
`Jennifer ‐ ‐
`
`Reynolds confirms it will not pursue a claim of inequitable conduct on the ‘545 patent. Reynolds does not withdraw the
`Liao reference as prior art to the ‘374 patent.
`
`With respect to the issues raised in your prior email, Reynolds will not pursue estoppel, acquiescence, waiver, or unclean
`hands with respect to the ‘911 patent; Reynolds will not pursue estoppel, acquiescence, waiver, or unclean hands with
`respect to the ‘556 patent; Reynolds will not pursue unclean hands with respect to the ‘545 patent; Reynolds will not
`pursue estoppel, waiver, or acquiescence with respect to the ‘374 patent; and Reynolds will not pursue estoppel, waiver,
`or acquiescence with respect to the ‘265 patent. Reynolds will not pursue its limitation on damages defense for the
`PMP patents. Reynolds will not pursue its extraterritorial claims defense.
`
`For its part, Reynolds intends to move for summary judgment of no willful infringement of any asserted patent and
`summary judgment of invalidity of the ‘374 patent. In addition, please confirm tonight if Counterclaim‐Plaintiffs are
`dropping any claims or infringement theories from its infringement allegations for the ‘911 patent. Otherwise, Reynolds
`intends to move for summary judgment of noninfringement (literal or under the doctrine of equivalents) of the ‘911
`patent. We assume Counterclaim‐Plaintiffs oppose Reynolds’s motion. Otherwise, we are available to meet and confer
`at 9 am PT as you propose.
`
`
`John M. Michalik
`Partner
`JONES DAY® - One Firm Worldwide℠
`77 West Wacker
`Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692
`Office +1.312.269.4215
`Mobile +1.312.315.5926
`jmichalik@jonesday.com
`
`From: Jennifer.Koh@lw.com <Jennifer.Koh@lw.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 3:16 PM
`To: RJREDVA <RJREDVA@jonesday.com>
`Cc: pmiedva.lwteam@lw.com
`Subject: RAI Strategic Holdings v. Altria Client Services (EDVa) ‐ Summary Judgment
`
`** External mail **
`
`Counsel,
`
`
`Please confirm whether Reynolds will withdraw its claim of inequitable conduct on the ’545 patent,
`and whether Reynolds will withdraw the “Liao” reference as prior art to the ’374 patent. If Reynolds
`does not agree, we intend to seek summary judgment. Further, since Reynolds has not withdrawn its
`other affirmative defenses identified in our May 14 email, we plan to seek summary judgment on
`those defenses as well. We assume Reynolds opposes a motion for summary judgment on these
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 735-2 Filed 06/16/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 20093
`
`issues, otherwise, please confirm your availability to meet and confer on these issues tomorrow at 9
`a.m. PT.
`
`Regards,
`Jennifer
`
`Jennifer Koh
`
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`12670 High Bluff Drive
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Direct Dial: +1.858.523.3949
`Email: jennifer.koh@lw.com
`https://www.lw.com
`
`
`_________________________________
`
`This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of
`the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express
`permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all
`copies including any attachments.
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP or any of its affiliates may monitor electronic communications sent or received by our
`networks in order to protect our business and verify compliance with our policies and relevant legal
`requirements. Any personal information contained or referred to within this electronic communication will be
`processed in accordance with the firm's privacy notices and Global Privacy Standards available at 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
