Detrixhe, Jonathan I.
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Pollock, David T.
`Sunday, November 27, 2016 10:27 PM
`Joseph DePumpo; Ari Rafilson
`Detrixhe, Jonathan I.; Kaufman, Marc S.; Roche, Brian D.
`Re: IPR2016-00357, IPR 2016-00358, and IPR2016-00359 (U.S. Pat. No. RE44,644) - Part
`1
`
`Joe, 
` 
`We are disappointed that UVAPF has reneged on the parties' agreement  ‐ an agreement that would decrease the 
`burden on the Board. 
` 
`Your statement that UVAPF has been working on this for over a week is simply false; UVAPF first sent GE a draft motion 
`to seal after close of business on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. What UVAPF has been doing for over a week is 
`sending insulting emails, accusing me of "making idiotic statements" and "vacuous threats". Such sharp practice is not 
`appropriate in any venue, but even less so before the PTAB, which expects better of the lawyers who practice before it. 
` 
`GE will not publicly file any documents or testimony that UVAPF has identified as confidential. 
` 
` David 
`
`     
`
` Original Message 
`From: Joseph DePumpo 
`Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 3:18 AM 
`To: Pollock, David T.; Ari Rafilson 
`Cc: Detrixhe, Jonathan I.; Kaufman, Marc S.; Rhonda Polvado 
`Subject: RE: IPR2016‐00357, IPR 2016‐00358, and IPR2016‐00359 (U.S. Pat. No. RE44,644) ‐ Part 1 
`
`  
`
`David, 
` 
`We have spent an enormous amount of time and effort trying to get GE's agreement on a motion to seal for over a 
`week, but GE keeps adding requirements to any potential agreement. 
` 
`Joe 
` 
`‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
`From: Pollock, David T. [mailto:DPollock@ReedSmith.com] 
`Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 6:18 PM 
`To: Joseph DePumpo <jdepumpo@ShoreChan.com>; Ari Rafilson <arafilson@ShoreChan.com> 
`Cc: Detrixhe, Jonathan I. <JDetrixhe@ReedSmith.com>; Kaufman, Marc S. <MSKaufman@ReedSmith.com>; Rhonda 
`Polvado <rpolvado@ShoreChan.com> 
`Subject: Re: IPR2016‐00357, IPR 2016‐00358, and IPR2016‐00359 (U.S. Pat. No. RE44,644) ‐ Part 1 
` 
`Joe, 
`
`1
`
`General Electric Co. - Exhibit 1051, Page 1
`
`

`
` 
`GE agrees not to oppose sealing the below documents. Why does UVAPF insist on filing only an Opposed motion? 
` 
`David 
`  Original Message 
`From: Joseph DePumpo 
`Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 12:05 AM 
`To: Pollock, David T.; Ari Rafilson 
`Cc: Detrixhe, Jonathan I.; Kaufman, Marc S.; Rhonda Polvado 
`Subject: RE: IPR2016‐00357, IPR 2016‐00358, and IPR2016‐00359 (U.S. Pat. No. RE44,644) ‐ Part 1 
`
`David, 
` 
`Since we are unable to reach agreement, UVAPF will file an opposed motion to seal tomorrow. In the meantime, please 
`make absolutely certain that GE does not publicly file any documents or testimony that UVAPF has identified as 
`confidential. 
` 
`Joe 
` 
`‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
`From: Pollock, David T. [mailto:DPollock@ReedSmith.com] 
`Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 4:30 PM 
`To: Ari Rafilson <arafilson@ShoreChan.com> 
`Cc: Detrixhe, Jonathan I. <JDetrixhe@ReedSmith.com>; Kaufman, Marc S. <MSKaufman@ReedSmith.com>; Joseph 
`DePumpo <jdepumpo@ShoreChan.com>; Rhonda Polvado <rpolvado@ShoreChan.com> 
`Subject: RE: IPR2016‐00357, IPR 2016‐00358, and IPR2016‐00359 (U.S. Pat. No. RE44,644) ‐ Part 1 
`
`  
`
`  
`
`Ari, 
` 
`This draft of the unopposed motion does not reflect GE's position stated in my email below. Furthermore, please 
`provide properly redacted copies of the emails ‐ at least the to, from, cc, and Subject lines are not confidential and 
`certain content appears to be non‐confidential, also.  UVAPF must make a good faith effort to seal only confidential 
`information. 
` 
`Please correct the the draft motion to include the following statement: 
` 
`GE has requested but UVAPF has not yet produced in the IPRs the agreements on which it relies for the alleged 
`confidentiality of documents and testimony.  As a compromise to avoid a dispute before the Board and without agreeing 
`that any confidentiality applies to any of Mugler’s testimony, GE agrees to provisionally designate as confidential in its 
`Replies the following passages from the Mugler transcript: 142:10‐12, 149:12‐14, and 195:11‐199:4. To avoid a dispute 
`before the Board and without agreeing that any confidentiality applies to the content of any email, GE also provisionally 
`agrees to designate the content of the identified emails as confidential in the Replies.  GE retains all rights to request 
`that the Board unseal any or all these documents at a later date, including after UVAPF produces in the IPR he requested 
`agreements, or if the Board relies upon this information in its Final Written Decisions, or if the information is relevant to 
`any issue in the litigation, or for any other reason. 
`
`   
`
`Please send a copy of the unopposed motion and redacted versions of the emails as soon as possible. 
` 
`
`2
`
`General Electric Co. - Exhibit 1051, Page 2
`
`

`
`Thanks, 
`David 
`
`   
`
`Sent with Good (www.good.com) 
` 
`________________________________ 
`From: Ari Rafilson 
`Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 2:41:45 PM 
`To: Pollock, David T. 
`Cc: Detrixhe, Jonathan I.; Kaufman, Marc S.; Joseph DePumpo; Rhonda Polvado 
`Subject: RE: IPR2016‐00357, IPR 2016‐00358, and IPR2016‐00359 (U.S. Pat. No. RE44,644) ‐ Part 1 
` 
`David, 
` 
`Attached is the unopposed motion and renumbered exhibits, excluding the deposition transcript itself, which our 
`paralegal will number tomorrow. The transcript will be exhibit 2029. 
` 
`We trust that GE will not publicly file or disclose the content of any testimony that has been identified by UVAPF as 
`confidential pursuant to 77 Fed. Reg. 48771, which states that “[w]ithin ten days of the receipt of the transcript of the 
`testimony, that person, or that person’s representative, shall advise the opposing party of those portions of the 
`testimony to which a claim of confidentiality is to be maintained, and the reasons in support of that claim. Such portions 
`shall be treated as confidential and maintained under seal in any filings to the Board unless, upon motion of a party and 
`after a hearing on the issue, or sua sponte, the Board determines that some or all of the redacted information does not 
`qualify for confidential treatment.” 
` 
`Best Regards, 
` 
`Ari 
` 
`From: Pollock, David T. [mailto:DPollock@ReedSmith.com] 
`Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2016 1:42 PM 
`To: Joseph DePumpo <jdepumpo@ShoreChan.com>; Ari Rafilson <arafilson@ShoreChan.com> 
`Cc: Detrixhe, Jonathan I. <JDetrixhe@ReedSmith.com>; Kaufman, Marc S. <MSKaufman@ReedSmith.com> 
`Subject: RE: IPR2016‐00357, IPR 2016‐00358, and IPR2016‐00359 (U.S. Pat. No. RE44,644) ‐ Part 1 
` 
`Joe, 
` 
`UVAPF still has not produced in the IPRs the agreements on which it relies for the alleged confidentiality of documents 
`and testimony.  UVAPF’s continued lack of good faith is clear, but despite UVAPF’s behavior, GE further responds as 
`follows: 
` 
`Regarding your request below that GE identify why it needs to rely on the disputed information, for the emails, this was 
`discussed in detail during the discovery dispute and correspondence concerning those documents – they also are 
`relevant at least because
`
` 
`
`To the extent there is any confidentiality interest in any of that information (and GE 
`does not agree that there is any), it is outweighed by the “strong public policy in favor of making information filed in 
`[post grant] review open to the public, especially because the proceeding determines the patentability of claims in an 
`
`3
`
`General Electric Co. - Exhibit 1051, Page 3
`
`

`
`             
`             
`             
`             
`             
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`issued patent and, therefore, affects the rights of the public.”  Apple v Sightsound Technologies, 2014 WL 1867336 
`(Patent Tr. & App. Bd.) 
` 
`To obviate UVAPF’s concern regarding the Forbearance Agreement, and as a compromise to avoid a dispute before the 
`Board and without agreeing that the Agreement applies to any of Mugler’s testimony, GE will agree to provisionally 
`designate as confidential the following two passages in its Replies: 142:10‐12 and 149:12‐14:  None of the other 
`testimony even arguably reveals the content of any communication or document protected by the Forbearance 
`Agreement.  Regarding 195:11 – 199:4 elicited by UVAPF, UVAPF has not identified any portion of any agreement that 
`allegedly protects such testimony, but as a compromise to avoid a dispute before the Board and without agreeing that 
`any unidentified agreement protects such testimony, GE will agree to provisionally designate that passage as 
`confidential in its Replies.  GE retains all rights to request that the Board unseal any or all these documents at a later 
`date, including after UVAPF produces in the IPR he requested agreements, or if the Board relies upon those documents 
`in its Final Written Decision, or if the information is relevant to any issue in the litigation, or for any other reason. 
` 
`In addition, GE has reduced the number of emails that it will submit with its Replies. GE does not agree that any of the 
`emails contain any confidential information and UVAPF has not produced in the IPR or identified any portion of any 
`agreement that would warrant such protection.  However, to avoid a dispute before the Board and without agreeing 
`that any unproduced agreement protects such documents, GE will agree to designate the below emails as confidential in 
`the replies. 
` 
`
` 
`Please immediately provide an updated exhibit list with numbering to reflect the fewer number of exhibits. 
` 
`Please also immediately provide for our review a draft of the Unopposed Motion and of the Opposed Motion that reflect 
`GE’s compromise proposal concerning the Mugler transcript and these four emails: Upon receipt of the new draft 
`Motions, we will promptly indicate our agreement or any concerns, as appropriate. 
` 
`David 
` 
`From: Pollock, David T. 
`Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2016 10:03 AM 
`To: 'Joseph DePumpo'; Ari Rafilson 
`Cc: Detrixhe, Jonathan I.; Kaufman, Marc S. 
`Subject: RE: IPR2016‐00357, IPR 2016‐00358, and IPR2016‐00359 (U.S. Pat. No. RE44,644) ‐ Part 1 
` 
`Joe, 
` 
`As I requested yesterday and which you have so far ignored: “If you are relying on those agreements to prevent public 
`disclosure of allegedly‐confidential information, GE is entitled to argue to the Board that they provide no such  
`protection. Please promptly produce all such agreements in the IPRs or withdraw your reliance thereon.” In addition, for 
`each of the allegations of confidentiality based upon those agreements, please point out each portion of each 
`agreement that UVAPF believes protects 134:3 – 136:25 and 195:11 – 199:4. 
` 
`Thanks 
` 
`David 
` 
`
` 
`
`4
`
`General Electric Co. - Exhibit 1051, Page 4
`
`

`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`From: Joseph DePumpo [mailto:jdepumpo@ShoreChan.com] 
`Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 1:43 PM 
`To: Pollock, David T.; Ari Rafilson; Detrixhe, Jonathan I. 
`Subject: RE: IPR2016‐00357, IPR 2016‐00358, and IPR2016‐00359 (U.S. Pat. No. RE44,644) ‐ Part 1 
` 
`David, 
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`Joe 
`_____________________________________________ 
`From: Joseph DePumpo 
`Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 2:04 PM 
`To: 'Pollock, David T.' <DPollock@ReedSmith.com<mailto:DPollock@ReedSmith.com>>; Ari Rafilson 
`<arafilson@ShoreChan.com<mailto:arafilson@ShoreChan.com>>; Detrixhe, Jonathan I. 
`<JDetrixhe@ReedSmith.com<mailto:JDetrixhe@ReedSmith.com>> 
`Subject: RE: IPR2016‐00357, IPR 2016‐00358, and IPR2016‐00359 (U.S. Pat. No. RE44,644) ‐ Part 1 
`
`  
`
`David, 
` 
`
` 
`For each portion of the deposition transcript UVAPF has identified, please immediately provide an explanation of "why . 
`. . GE . . . must rely, specifically, on the subject information . . . ." Corning Optical Commc'ns RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, 
`Inc., Case IPR2014‐00736, slip op. at 2 (PTAB Apr. 14, 2015) (Paper 38). 
` 
`Best regards, 
` 
`Joe 
` 
`‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
`From: Pollock, David T. [mailto:DPollock@ReedSmith.com] 
`Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 11:41 AM 
`To: Ari Rafilson <arafilson@ShoreChan.com<mailto:arafilson@ShoreChan.com>>; Detrixhe, Jonathan I. 
`<JDetrixhe@ReedSmith.com<mailto:JDetrixhe@ReedSmith.com>>; Kaufman, Marc S. 
`<MSKaufman@ReedSmith.com<mailto:MSKaufman@ReedSmith.com>> 
`Cc: Joseph DePumpo <jdepumpo@ShoreChan.com<mailto:jdepumpo@ShoreChan.com>>; Clark Jablon 
`(CJablon@panitchlaw.com<mailto:CJablon@panitchlaw.com>) 
`<CJablon@panitchlaw.com<mailto:CJablon@panitchlaw.com>>; Aaron Ettelman 
`(AEttelman@panitchlaw.com<mailto:AEttelman@panitchlaw.com>) 
`<AEttelman@panitchlaw.com<mailto:AEttelman@panitchlaw.com>> 
`Subject: RE: IPR2016‐00357, IPR 2016‐00358, and IPR2016‐00359 (U.S. Pat. No. RE44,644) ‐ Part 1 
` 
`Ari, 
` 
`
`5
`
`General Electric Co. - Exhibit 1051, Page 5
`
`

`
`GE objects to UVAPF sending this information after close of business on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, despite 
`our request that you provide it on Monday. The parties are required to meet and confer in good faith, and it appears 
`UVAPF is unwilling to do so. 
` 
`We are traveling this holiday weekend, but hope to respond in full later today or tomorrow. 
` 
`Preliminarily, however, and as we stated during the Mugler deposition, GE does not agree that the identified portions of 
`the Mugler transcript are confidential. As such, two motions will be required; one opposed and one unopposed.  GE also 
`is attempting to reduce the number of emails that it will submit with its reply. 
` 
`Please immediately send to GE all the agreements upon which UVAPF is relying for its assertions of confidentiality so we 
`can determine whether we agree with those assertions. 
` 
`Thanks, 
` 
`David 
`
`   
`
`Sent with Good (www.good.com<http://www.good.com>) 
` 
`________________________________ 
`From: Ari Rafilson 
`Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 5:32:50 PM 
`To: Pollock, David T.; Detrixhe, Jonathan I.; Kaufman, Marc S. 
`Cc: Joseph DePumpo; Clark Jablon (CJablon@panitchlaw.com<mailto:CJablon@panitchlaw.com>); Aaron Ettelman 
`(AEttelman@panitchlaw.com<mailto:AEttelman@panitchlaw.com>) 
`Subject: IPR2016‐00357, IPR 2016‐00358, and IPR2016‐00359 (U.S. Pat. No. RE44,644) ‐ Part 1 
` 
`David, Marc, and Jonathan, 
` 
`Attached is a draft unopposed motion to seal documents which we understand GE may wish to cite in its responses. 
`Please let us know if you agree or oppose, in whole or in part. The exhibits themselves are quite large, so I have 
`uploaded those to the following FTP site, in the “Exhibits for Motion to Seal” directory. Please confirm receipt. 
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`Best Regards, 
` 
`Ari 
`
`   *
`
` * * 
`
` 
`This E‐mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have 
`received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e‐mail and then delete this 
`message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. 
`Thank you for your cooperation. 
` 
`
`6
`
`General Electric Co. - Exhibit 1051, Page 6
`
`

`
`Disclaimer Version RS.US.201.407.01 
` 
`
`7
`
`General Electric Co. - Exhibit 1051, Page 7
`
`

`
`Detrixhe, Jonathan I.
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Attachments:
`
`Detrixhe, Jonathan I.
`Thursday, November 17, 2016 7:00 PM
`'Joseph DePumpo'; Ari Rafilson
`Pollock, David T.; Kaufman, Marc S.
`IPR protective order / IPR reply exhibits that UVAPF has designated confidential
`Default Protective Order.docx
`
`Joe, 
` 
`Attached is a draft of the Board’s default protective order. Please return an executed copy so that we may submit it to 
`the Board pursuant to its instructions. 
` 
`The following is a list of exhibits that GE may submit with its reply that UVAPF has designated confidential or has 
`asserted include UVAPF’s confidential information: 
` 
`
` 
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`
` 
` 
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
`
`1
`
` 
` 
` 
`
` 
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`General Electric Co. - Exhibit 1051, Page 8
`
`

`
`As explained in Clio USA, Inc. v. Procter and Gamble Co., IPR2013‐00348, Paper No. 50 (PTAB  Sept. 29, 2014), it is 
`UVAPF, as the party whose confidential information is at issue, who should be the party moving to seal. And, as the 
`moving party, it is UVAPF’s burden to show that the information is truly confidential. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). GE is providing 
`this list so that UVAPF has ample time to prepare its motion to seal before GE’s Nov. 28 reply deadline.  
` 
`In addition, so that GE can evaluate whether it will oppose UVAPF’s motion, for each of the above documents, please: 
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Identify the confidential information in each exhibit and explain UVAPF’s reasons for asserting 
`confidentiality 
`State whether UVAPF is asserting confidentiality of the entire exhibit or only some portions 
`For those exhibits where UVAPF alleges confidentiality as to some but not all of the information in the 
`exhibit, please provide the required non‐confidential version to be publicly filed that redacts any 
`confidential information. 
` 
`Please provide the requested information no later than COB on Monday, Nov. 21. 
` 
`Best, 
` 
`Jonathan I. Detrixhe
`Associate
`415.659.4856
`jdetrixhe@reedsmith.com
`
`ReedSmith LLP
`101 Second Street
`Suite 1800
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`415.543.8700
`Fax 415.391.8269
`www.reedsmith.com
`
`  
`
`2
`
`General Electric Co. - Exhibit 1051, Page 9
`
`

`
`Detrixhe, Jonathan I.
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`David,
`
`Joseph DePumpo <jdepumpo@ShoreChan.com>
`Friday, November 04, 2016 1:12 PM
`Pollock, David T.; Ari Rafilson; Rhonda Polvado
`Detrixhe, Jonathan I.; Kaufman, Marc S.
`RE: Discussions Regarding GE's Motion to Compel
`
`UVAPF has been very reasonable in attempting to schedule Dr. Kiefer’s deposition. As you know, Dr. Kiefer and Dr.
`Mugler both testified that Dr. Kiefer did not conceive of any subject matter in Mugler 2000.
`
`
`
` UVAPF originally arranged for Dr. Kiefer to be deposed in New York City on either October 11 or
`October 14, but GE passed on that opportunity.
`
` UVAPF produced those documents to GE on Oct. 24.
`UVAPF and Dr. Mugler had no obligation to perform that search, and did it solely (1) because of the Board’s
`instruction to try to resolve this dispute and (2) to avoid the expense of a motion to compel.
`
`
`In view of this history,
`we find it very troubling that GE has alleged in its recently filed ’109 IPR that Mugler 2000 is 102(a) prior art.
`
`
`
`
`
`GE advised UVAPF multiple times that it would consider deposing Dr. Kiefer by telephone or videoconference once
`UVAPF produced the additional documents. So even though it was not required to do so, UVAPF arranged for Dr.
`Kiefer to be deposed by telephone or videoconference on either Nov. 15, 16, or 17. But as soon as UVAPF
`produced the additional documents, GE rejected that offer too.
`
`UVAPF subsequently arranged for Dr. Kiefer to be deposed on Dec. 1 in Chicago. Because that date is three days
`after GE’s deadline to file its reply, UVAPF conditioned that deposition on GE taking the lead on securing an
`acceptable schedule modification. UVAPF will cooperate in that process, but given the effort UVAPF has put forth to
`date, GE should assume that responsibility. UVAPF also requested, for at least the fourth time, that GE provide
`proposed dates for Dr. Pelc’s deposition.
`
`GE has rejected this offer as well. UVAPF has been extremely reasonable in arranging for GE to depose Dr. Kiefer.
`Since it appears that GE does not desire to depose him on Dec. 1, we will tell him to release that date from his
`calendar.
`
`  
`
`Best regards,
`
`Joe 
` 
`From: Pollock, David T. [mailto:DPollock@ReedSmith.com]
`Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 12:03 PM
`To: Joseph DePumpo; Ari Rafilson; Rhonda Polvado
`Cc: Detrixhe, Jonathan I.; Kaufman, Marc S.
`Subject: RE: Discussions Regarding GE's Motion to Compel
`
`Joe, 
` 
`We disagree with your characterization of the content of the produced documents – 
`
`1
`
`General Electric Co. - Exhibit 1051, Page 10
`
`

`
`If UVAPF knows of further relevant documents but is refusing to produce them based on the ‘agreement’ you 
`mischaracterize below, please let us know. 
` 
`Regarding Dr. Kiefer’s deposition, if UVAPF refuses to make him available in the United States in accordance with the 
`schedule set by the PTAB and agreed to by UVAPF, it is UVAPF’s responsibility to request that the Board change that 
`schedule, not GE’s.  If UVAPF has a proposal for a further extension to the schedule to accommodate its declarants’ 
`availability, please make it and GE will consider it.   
` 
`Thanks, 
` 
`David 
`
`  
`
`From: Joseph DePumpo [mailto:jdepumpo@ShoreChan.com]
`Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 3:30 PM
`To: Pollock, David T.; Ari Rafilson; Rhonda Polvado
`Cc: Detrixhe, Jonathan I.; Kaufman, Marc S.
`Subject: RE: Discussions Regarding GE's Motion to Compel
`
`David,
`
`UVAPF has produced all of the documents it agreed to produce.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Your email restates GE’s original document requests. GE agreed not to pursue those requests in exchange for
`UVAPF’s agreement to allow GE to use 31 documents from the district court case and the additional 19 documents
`UVAPF has now provided. Does GE now plan to renege on that agreement? If so, then GE needs to return all such
`documents and no longer has UVAPF’s consent to use them in this proceeding.
`
`With respect to Dr. Kiefer’s deposition, UVAPF arranged for GE to depose Dr. Kiefer in New York City on Oct. 11 or
`14. GE passed on that opportunity. GE subsequently advised UVAPF that it would consider deposing Dr. Kiefer by
`telephone or videoconference. So even though it was not required to do so, UVAPF arranged for Dr. Kiefer to be
`deposed by telephone or videoconference on November 15-17. Your email below rejects that offer also.
`
`As explained below, Dr. Kiefer is not available to travel to the U.S. at this time. The earliest he can be deposed in
`the U.S. is December 1, likely in Chicago. UVAPF will arrange for GE to depose him on that date provided that (1)
`GE provides UVAPF with a proposed modification to the schedule that is acceptable to UVAPF and the Board, and
`(2) GE provides acceptable dates for Dr. Pelc’s deposition, which we have been requesting for many weeks.
`
`Joe 
`
`From: Pollock, David T. [mailto:DPollock@ReedSmith.com]
`Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 4:48 PM
`To: Ari Rafilson; Joseph DePumpo; Rhonda Polvado
`Cc: Detrixhe, Jonathan I.; Kaufman, Marc S.
`Subject: RE: Discussions Regarding GE's Motion to Compel
`
`Joe,
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`General Electric Co. - Exhibit 1051, Page 11
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regarding Dr. Kiefer’s deposition, GE does not agree to a remote deposition because it would not be practical
`to properly discuss the many exhibits and technical issues that are involved in this case and implicated by his
`declaration. Please provide dates and locations in early November for his deposition in the U.S. Regarding his
`CV UVAPF provided, please either produce a proper CV (for example, listing projects, job duties, papers and
`publications, and patents) or confirm that this is the only CV Dr. Kiefer has.
`
`Attached are acknowledgements for Marc Kaufman and Dr. Pelc.
`
`David
`
`  
`
`From: Ari Rafilson [mailto:arafilson@ShoreChan.com]
`Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 3:48 PM
`To: Pollock, David T.; Detrixhe, Jonathan I.
`Cc: Joseph DePumpo; Rhonda Polvado
`Subject: RE: Discussions Regarding GE's Motion to Compel
`
`David and Jonathan,  
` 
`
`. There are a total of 19 additional documents. 
`
` 
`We have not yet received a signed copy of the PO acknowledgment for Marc, so he is not copied on this email. 
` 
`Please confirm receipt of this email and the attachments. 
` 
`Best Regards, 
` 
`Ari 
` 
`From: Pollock, David T. [mailto:DPollock@ReedSmith.com]  
`Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 6:09 PM 
`To: Joseph DePumpo <jdepumpo@ShoreChan.com>; Ari Rafilson <arafilson@ShoreChan.com> 
`Cc: Kaufman, Marc S. <MSKaufman@ReedSmith.com>; Detrixhe, Jonathan I. <JDetrixhe@ReedSmith.com> 
`Subject: RE: Discussions Regarding GE's Motion to Compel 
`
`
`3
`
` 
`
`General Electric Co. - Exhibit 1051, Page 12
`
`

`
`Joe,
`
`
`
`Attached are the signed undertakings for Jonathan and me. Please forward the production to us as soon as
`possible.
`
`
`
`We are looking into the other issues raised in your email and will respond soon.
`
`
`
`David
`
`
`
`From: Joseph DePumpo [mailto:jdepumpo@ShoreChan.com]
`Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 7:29 PM
`To: Pollock, David T.; Ari Rafilson
`Cc: Kaufman, Marc S.; Detrixhe, Jonathan I.
`Subject: RE: Discussions Regarding GE's Motion to Compel
`
`
`
`David,
`
`
`
`Ari is back in Asia this week.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`We have advised you that Dr. Kiefer has told us that he does not have emails from this time period. His CV is
`attached.
`
`
`
`We also advised you tha
`
` Please have the outside lawyers who intend to the view the
`documents sign the attached acknowledgement so the documents uncovered by this search can be produced to
`them.
`
`
`4
`
`General Electric Co. - Exhibit 1051, Page 13
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As you know, UVAPF previously arranged for GE to depose Dr. Kiefer in New York City on either Oct. 11 or
`14, but GE passed on that opportunity. UVAPF subsequently requested GE’s agreement that Dr. Kiefer’s
`deposition would be taken by telephone or video conference. Dr. Kiefer is available to be deposed on November
`15, 16, or 17 by telephone or videoconference starting at either 2:00 p.m. or 3:00 p.m. (Germany time). He is
`not available to travel to the U.S. for his deposition. Please let us know whether GE desires to take his
`deposition by telephone or videoconference on any of those dates.
`
`
`
`Finally, we have asked multiple times for GE to provide proposed dates for Dr. Pelc’s deposition, which will
`have to occur in the middle of the holiday season when all of our schedules are packed. GE has advised that it
`will not provide dates until after Dr. Hennig’s deposition on November 9. There is no reason to wait until
`November 9 to reserve dates for Dr. Pelc’s deposition. Please provide potential dates for the deposition so we
`can get them on our calendars.
`
`
`
`Best regards,
`
`
`
`Joe
`
`
`
`From: Pollock, David T. [mailto:DPollock@ReedSmith.com]
`Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 5:01 PM
`To: Ari Rafilson; Joseph DePumpo
`Cc: Kaufman, Marc S.; Detrixhe, Jonathan I.
`Subject: RE: Discussions Regarding GE's Motion to Compel
`
`
`
`Ari,
`
`
`
`Please provide an update on
`
`.
` Please also confirm that you will produce all documents at least one
`week before the earliest declarant deposition so that GE will have sufficient time to review.
`
`
`
`
`
`We confirm that we will take Dr. Mugler’s deposition in Dallas on November 10 and propose a 9:00 CT start
`time – please confirm that start time is acceptable. And please promptly provide Dr. Kiefer’s CV and promptly
`propose dates in early November for his deposition in the United States.
`5
`
`General Electric Co. - Exhibit 1051, Page 14
`
`

`
`
`
`Thanks,
`
`
`
`David
`
`
`
`From: Detrixhe, Jonathan I.
`Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:08 PM
`To: 'Ari Rafilson'; Joseph DePumpo
`Cc: Pollock, David T.; Kaufman, Marc S.
`Subject: RE: Discussions Regarding GE's Motion to Compel
`
`
`
`Ari,
`
`
`
`Thank you for the update on the search. Please confirm that UVAPF and Dr. Mugler will produce documents
`resulting from the search at least one week before the earliest declarant deposition so that GE will have
`sufficient time to review.
`
`
`
`Best regards,
`
`Jonathan
`
`
`
`From: Ari Rafilson [mailto:arafilson@ShoreChan.com]
`Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 12:53 PM
`To: Joseph DePumpo; Pollock, David T.
`Cc: Detrixhe, Jonathan I.; Kaufman, Marc S.
`Subject: RE: Discussions Regarding GE's Motion to Compel
`
`
`
`David, Dr. Mugler’s and UVAPF’s search is taking longer than expected. They expect the search to take a few
`days, and we will get back to you on that search promptly after we hear back.
`
`
`
`Best Regards,
`
`
`
`6
`
`General Electric Co. - Exhibit 1051, Page 15
`
`

`
`Ari
`
`
`
`From: Joseph DePumpo
`Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 5:14 PM
`To: Pollock, David T. <DPollock@ReedSmith.com>; Ari Rafilson <arafilson@ShoreChan.com>
`Cc: Detrixhe, Jonathan I. <JDetrixhe@ReedSmith.com>; Kaufman, Marc S. <MSKaufman@ReedSmith.com>
`Subject: RE: Discussions Regarding GE's Motion to Compel
`
`
`
`David,
`
`
`
`In response to the three points below:
`
`
`
`1. UVAPF agrees that GE can use documents
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`3. Okay.
`
`
`
`Joe
`
`
`
`From: Pollock, David T. [mailto:DPollock@ReedSmith.com]
`Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 3:57 PM
`To: Joseph DePumpo; Ari Rafilson
`Cc: Detrixhe, Jonathan I.; Kaufman, Marc S.
`Subject: RE: Discussions Regarding GE's Motion to Compel
`
`
`
`Joe,
`
`
`
`7
`
`General Electric Co. - Exhibit 1051, Page 16
`
`

`
`We appreciate your offer of compromise and also would like to avoid motion practice.
`
`
`
`GE is willing to agree not to file the motions authorized by the Board’s October 7 Order, but with three changes
`or clarifications to your offer below:
`
`
`
`1) That you include documents 1 and 3 in the list of documents GE can use.
`
`2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3) Because UVAPF is asserting confidentiality, the motion to seal must be made by UVAPF or jointly.
`Clio USA, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., IPR2013-00438, Paper No. 50 at 3 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 29, 2014). GE will
`consult and cooperate with UVAPF in protecting UVAPF’s confidential information.
`
`
`
`Please confirm by 4:00 PT today that UVAPF will agree to these clarifications and changes.
`
`
`
`Thanks,
`
`
`
`From: Joseph DePumpo [mailto:jdepumpo@ShoreChan.com]
`Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 11:18 AM
`To: Pollock, David T.; Ari Rafilson
`Cc: Detrixhe, Jonathan I.; Kaufman, Marc S.
`Subject: RE: Discussions Regarding GE's Motion to Compel
`
`
`
`David,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`General Electric Co. - Exhibit 1051, Page 17
`
`

`
`Nevertheless, in an attempt to avoid motion practice and in view of the PTAB’s instruction to try to resolve
`disputes, UVAPF stated during yesterday’s call that it would provide a list of the documents from the 51 that it
`will agree that GE can use in the IPRs.
`
`
`
`UVAPF previously pointed out that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GE has not articulated a credible reason why any of the remaining 31 documents are discoverable. Nevertheless,
`if GE agrees not to file a motion to compel, UVAPF will agree that GE can use the 31 documents (i.e., the 31
`documents that have not been crossed out below) in the IPRs provided that GE treats them in all respects as
`Confidential Information under the default protective order and takes all reasonable steps necessary to seal any
`of the documents it files in the IPRs.
`
`
`
`If GE elects instead to move to compel documents, then this offer is withdrawn and GE may not use the
`documents absent a PTAB order compelling their use. Further, UVAPF does not agree to GE’s use in a motion
`to compel of any of UVAPF’s documents that are subject to the protective order in the district court case.
`
`
`
`Also, we expect to produce Dr. Kiefer’s CV next week.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Please let us know GE’s position by the close of business tomorrow.
`
`
`
`Best regards,
`
`
`
`Joe
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`General Electric Co. - Exhibit 1051, Page 18
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`H
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`10
`
`General Electric Co. - Exhibit 1051, Page 19
`
`General Electric Co. - Exhibit 1051, Page 19
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`General Electric Co. - Exhibit 1051, Page 20
`
`General Electric Co. - Exhibit 1051, Page 20
`
`

`
`From: Joseph DePumpo
`Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 11:50 AM
`To: Pollock, David T. <DPollock@ReedSmith.com>; Ari Rafilson <arafilson@ShoreChan.com>
`Cc: Detrixhe, Jonathan I. <JDetrixhe@ReedSmith.com>; Kaufman, Marc S. <MSKaufman@ReedSmith.com>
`Subject: RE: Discussions Regarding GE's Motion to Compel
`
`
`
`David,
`
`
`
`
`
`The PTAB instructed GE during Friday’s telephone conference to narrow the scope of its document requests.
`After the conference, GE sent us the two document requests in the email below, which combined two of its
`previous requests into a single request but did not reduce their scope. GE’s email states that UVAPF refused to
`discuss a narrower request