Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 174-6 Filed 04/14/21 Page 1 of 5
`Case 1:19-cv-11586—FDS Document 174-6 Filed 04/14/21 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 174-6 Filed 04/14/21 Page 2 of 5
`
`From:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Date:
`
`Peterman, Chad
`RRodrigues@foley.com
`BOSTFPhilipsFitbit@foley.com; Philips - Fitbit
`RE: Philips v. Fitbit - Meet and Confer
`Monday, December 28, 2020 8:51:05 AM
`
`Ruben,
`
`Regardless of what the file history shows, it cannot be disputed that the patent itself states
`that U.S. Patent No. 6,602,191, an application to which the ’377 patent claims priority, “is a
`conversion of Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/172,486, filed Dec. 17, 1999.” ’377 patent,
`1:19–22.
`
`The Federal Circuit has made clear that “[t]he patentee is the person best suited to
`understand the genealogy and relationship of her applications; a requirement for her to
`clearly disclose this information should present no hardship.” Medtronic CoreValve v.
`Edwards Lifesciences Corp., 741 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Forcing the public to
`delve into the prosecution history “improperly places the burden of deciphering a priority
`claim upon the reader or the public.” Id.
`
`In view of the controlling case law, Fitbit reiterates its position that the ’377 patent’s term
`expired in January 2020 due to the patent’s specific reference to a conversion application in
`its priority chain in the “cross-references to related applications” section of the specification.
`Thus, as we explained during the meet and confer on Tuesday, we will oppose Philips’
`motion to supplement its Local Rule disclosures on the basis that the ’377 patent expired
`before the launch of the new Fitbit products that Philips seeks to accuse of infringement.
`
`We also await your position on whether Philips will oppose Fitbit’s supplement to its
`invalidity contentions.
`
`Regards,
`Chad
`
`
` 
` 
`From: RRodrigues@foley.com <RRodrigues@foley.com> 
`Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2020 9:26 AM
`To: Peterman, Chad <chadpeterman@paulhastings.com>
`Cc: BOSTFPhilipsFitbit@foley.com; Philips - Fitbit <Philips-Fitbit@paulhastings.com>
`Subject: [EXT] RE: Philips v. Fitbit - Meet and Confer
` 
`Hi Chad,
` 
`With respect to the expiration date of the ’377 Patent and whether U.S. Pat. App. No. 09/738,270
`was a “conversion” of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/172,486, I’d refer you to Philips’s
`supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 13 served on November 13, 2020 wherein we explain
`that this non-provisional application was not actually a conversion but rather an independent non-
`provisional filing claiming the benefit of provisional applications 60/172,486, as demonstrated in the
`file history produced at PNA-FB0006868-7173.  Also, there was no request for conversion filed in the
`provisional application, as would have been required to effectuate a conversion.
` 
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 174-6 Filed 04/14/21 Page 3 of 5
`
`Let me know if you have any further questions and whether Fitbit will continue to maintain that the
`‘377 Patent is expired based on the incorrect understanding that the above-referenced non-
`provisional application was a conversion of the above-referenced provisional application.
` 
`Regards,
` 
`-Ruben
` 
`From: Peterman, Chad <chadpeterman@paulhastings.com> 
`Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 8:22 PM
`To: Rodrigues, Ruben J. <RRodrigues@foley.com>
`Cc: BOST - F - Philips - Fitbit <BOSTFPhilipsFitbit@foley.com>; Philips - Fitbit <Philips-
`Fitbit@paulhastings.com>
`Subject: Philips v. Fitbit - Meet and Confer
` 
`** EXTERNAL EMAIL MESSAGE **
`Ruben –
`
` I
`
`
`
` write to memorialize the action items and agreements from our meet and
`confer on 12/22.
`
`
`1) Infringement Contentions: Philips and Fitbit discussed Philips’s
`proposed motion for leave to amend its infringement contentions to
`add additional products launched beginning in April 2020 of this
`year. Fitbit requested Philips’s position on the expiration date of the
`’377 patent due to the conversion identified in the priority chain of
`the specification. Philips stated that it would review the conversion
`issue and provide a written response on its position. Fitbit will
`provide a further response after receiving Philips’ position.
`
`2) Invalidity Contentions: Philips and Fitbit discussed Fitbit’s proposed
`motion for leave to amend its invalidity contentions. Philips provided
`a preliminary positions that it was not opposed to the additions of
`the material related to ICON Health production and deposition. The
`parties discussed the additional prior art in the proposed supplement
`that was discovered as part of Philips’ September 10, 2020
`production. Fitbit indicated it was open to revisiting the addition of
`the Gaukel reference.
`
`3) Document Production:
`
`
`a. In connection with Philips’s request for production of the
`additional license identified during Mr. Hudson’s deposition,
`Fitbit agreed to provide additional assurances in support of its
`position that the agreement is not responsive to Philips’s RFPs
`or relevant to Philips claims in this case. To this end, we have
`reviewed all of Philips’s discovery responses where it identified
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 174-6 Filed 04/14/21 Page 4 of 5
`
`accused products and have confirmed that the license
`agreement does not cover any of the products or technologies
`accused by Philips. Moreover, Fitbit has not paid and is not
`obligated to pay any royalties under this license agreement for
`the accused products (including on the currently accused
`products, the products that Philips is seeking to add to the
`case, or in connection with the Fitbit app).
`
`b. In connection with documents requested by Fitbit:
`
`
` i. Philips agreed to produce the agreements we requested
`(Apple, MIO, and Garmin)
`
` ii. Per your email of 12/22, we will await production of the
`Philips Health Watch, Health Suite, and Health Band
`documents that were produced in the Garmin litigation.
`However, it is our position that merely producing
`documents sufficient to show the operational details of
`the Philips Health Watch, Health Suite, and Health Band
`is not sufficient. Philips must also produce documents
`relevant to Fitbit’s Request for Production Nos. 13
`(finance/marketing), 27 (objective indicia), 31 (R&D), 37
`(source code), and 52-53 (finance/marketing/technical)
`as it relates to these products. As you note, Philips
`admits that these products practice one or more
`asserted patents. Thus, the information requested is, at
`least, relevant to damages (including consideration of
`the Georgia-Pacific factors) and objective indicia of
`nonobviousness. Please confirm that you will produce
`the requested information.
`
` 
`
`4)  ESI Custodian Info: Fitbit will determine whether the ESI
`production included custodian information. If the information was
`not included, Fitbit will endeavor to provide the information or a
`chart that identifies custodians by Bates range.
`
`
`We appreciate your prompt attention to these open matters.
`
`
`
`Regards,
`Chad
`
`
`
`
`The information contained in this message, including but not limited to any attachments, may
`be confidential or protected by the attorney-client or work-product privileges. It is not
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 174-6 Filed 04/14/21 Page 5 of 5
`
`intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this
`message in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message
`in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the message and any attachments or copies. Any disclosure,
`copying, distribution or reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly
`prohibited, and may be unlawful. Unintended transmission does not constitute waiver of the
`attorney-client privilege or any other privilege. Legal advice contained in the preceding
`message is solely for the benefit of the Foley & Lardner LLP client(s) represented by the Firm
`in the particular matter that is the subject of this message, and may not be relied upon by any
`other party. Unless expressly stated otherwise, nothing contained in this message should be
`construed as a digital or electronic signature, nor is it intended to reflect an intention to make
`an agreement by electronic means.
`
`