Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 361-3 Filed 02/28/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID
`#: 14785
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Firefox
`
`https://outlook.of(cid:46)ce.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGY5ZTVkNjViLW...
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 361-3 Filed 02/28/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID
`#: 14786
`
`Outlook
`
`Re: Touchstream v. Charter | Joint Exhibit List
`
`From Philip Eckert <peckert@bsfllp.com>
`Date Thu 2/20/2025 10:53 AM
`To
`Anderson, Carson <Carson.Anderson@arnoldporter.com>; Anita Liu <aliu@bsfllp.com>;
`A&P_EDTX60_Charter <A&P_EDTX60_Charter@arnoldporter.com>; Brown, Melissa
`<melissa.brown@arnoldporter.com>; Reisner, Daniel <daniel.reisner@arnoldporter.com>;
`ddacus@dacusfirm.com <ddacus@dacusfirm.com>; Hayes, Dina <dina.hayes@arnoldporter.com>
`Touchstream <Touchstream@bsfllp.com>; Tom Gorham <Tom@gillamsmithlaw.com>;
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com <melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com>; McKellar Karr
`<McKellar@gillamsmithlaw.com>
`
`Cc
`
`Thanks Carson, let's plan to discuss tomorrow at Noon ET. I will circulate an invite shortly.
`
`Best,
`Phil
`
`From: Anderson, Carson <Carson.Anderson@arnoldporter.com>
`Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 10:32 AM
`To: Philip Eckert <peckert@bs(cid:85)lp.com>; Anita Liu <aliu@bs(cid:85)lp.com>; A&P_EDTX60_Charter
`<A&P_EDTX60_Charter@arnoldporter.com>; Brown, Melissa <Melissa.Brown@arnoldporter.com>;
`Reisner, Daniel <Daniel.Reisner@arnoldporter.com>; ddacus@dacus(cid:84)rm.com
`<ddacus@dacus(cid:84)rm.com>; Hayes, Dina <Dina.Hayes@arnoldporter.com>
`Cc: Touchstream <Touchstream@bs(cid:85)lp.com>; Tom Gorham <Tom@gillamsmithlaw.com>;
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com <melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com>; McKellar Karr
`<McKellar@gillamsmithlaw.com>
`Subject: RE: Touchstream v. Charter | Joint Exhibit List
`
`CAUTION: External email. Please do not respond to or click on links/attachments unless you recognize the sender.
`
`Philip,
`
`This is the exact issue that was discussed at the December 19 Pretrial Conference. You
`speci(cid:84)cally said to the Court “[i]t's called background art, but it looks a lot like invalidity, and
`that's exactly why we think it's confusing.” Charter responded by explaining “the importance
`of this, Your Honor, is that the Plaintiff is going to claim to have solved a problem that had not
`been solved, and that's what they contend is the value proposition of their invention. It goes
`to damages.” The Court sided with Charter and denied Touchstream’s MIL No. 3. See
`December 19, 2024, Tr. at 74:9-79:22; see also Dkt. 275 at 2 (“Plaintiff’s MIL No. 3 … This
`motion in limine is DENIED as overbroad. Defendants are bound by their representations
`that they will not use unelected prior art to show the jury that the prior art meets the
`limitations of a claim.”) (emphasis in original).
`
`This exact issue has already been briefed, and Touchstream lost. As we explained at the
`pretrial conference and in the email below, Charter will not use these trial exhibits to argue
`invalidity, but they are nonetheless relevant to other issues, such as damages. Contrary to
`your allegation, Charter is not using these references to “backdoor[] invalidity arguments”
`into the case.
`
`1 of 6
`
`2/21/25, 1:00 PM
`
`

`

`Firefox
`
`https://outlook.of(cid:46)ce.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGY5ZTVkNjViLW...
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 361-3 Filed 02/28/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID
`#: 14787
`Finally, your case, Mojo v. Samsung, is not on point. The Court gave Samsung the same
`instruction that it gave Charter regarding not comparing unelected prior art references to the
`claim limitations of the asserted patents, but did not strike the use of those references in toto,
`speci(cid:84)cally explaining that there are permissible uses of the unelected references. See Mojo
`v. Samsung, Case No. 2:22-cv-00398-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 251 at 8-9 (July 23, 2024 E.D. Tex.).
`
`If necessary, we are available to discuss on Friday, February 21 at noon ET.
`
`Best,
`Carson
`_______________
`Carson Anderson
`Senior Associate | Bio
`
`3000 El Camino Real | Suite 500
`Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
`T: +1 650.319.4578
`Carson.Anderson@arnoldporter.com
`www.arnoldporter.com | LinkedIn
`
`From: Philip Eckert <peckert@bs(cid:85)lp.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 3:59 PM
`To: Anderson, Carson <Carson.Anderson@arnoldporter.com>; Anita Liu <aliu@bs(cid:85)lp.com>;
`A&P_EDTX60_Charter <A&P_EDTX60_Charter@arnoldporter.com>; Brown, Melissa
`<Melissa.Brown@arnoldporter.com>; Reisner, Daniel <Daniel.Reisner@arnoldporter.com>;
`zzz.External.ddacus@dacus(cid:84)rm.com <ddacus@dacus(cid:84)rm.com>; Hayes, Dina
`<Dina.Hayes@arnoldporter.com>
`Cc: Touchstream <Touchstream@bs(cid:85)lp.com>; Tom Gorham <Tom@gillamsmithlaw.com>;
`zzz.External.melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com <melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com>; McKellar Karr
`<McKellar@gillamsmithlaw.com>
`Subject: Re: Touchstream v. Charter | Joint Exhibit List
`
`External E-mail
`
`Counsel, please let us know when we may expect a response to the below.
`
`From: Philip Eckert <peckert@bs(cid:85)lp.com>
`Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 2:56 PM
`To: Anderson, Carson <Carson.Anderson@arnoldporter.com>; Anita Liu <aliu@bs(cid:85)lp.com>;
`A&P_EDTX60_Charter <A&P_EDTX60_Charter@arnoldporter.com>; Brown, Melissa
`<Melissa.Brown@arnoldporter.com>; Reisner, Daniel <daniel.reisner@arnoldporter.com>;
`ddacus@dacus(cid:84)rm.com <ddacus@dacus(cid:84)rm.com>; Hayes, Dina <dina.hayes@arnoldporter.com>
`Cc: Touchstream <Touchstream@bs(cid:85)lp.com>; Tom Gorham <Tom@gillamsmithlaw.com>;
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com <melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com>; McKellar Karr
`<McKellar@gillamsmithlaw.com>
`Subject: Re: Touchstream v. Charter | Joint Exhibit List
`
`Thanks, Carson. We disagree that is what the Court said at the December 19 pretrial
`conference, or that the Court "speci(cid:84)cally sanctioned" the use of these references in this
`manner. At any rate, neither the Court nor Touchstream could have considered this issue at
`that pretrial conference, as that hearing occurred before Charter narrowed its invalidity
`theories on January 6.
`
`The sections of Dr. Shamos's report you cite refer back to his background art and invalidity
`
`2 of 6
`
`2/21/25, 1:00 PM
`
`

`

`Firefox
`
`https://outlook.of(cid:46)ce.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGY5ZTVkNjViLW...
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 361-3 Filed 02/28/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID
`#: 14788
`sections at §§ VII-VIII, IX-XII. Both are problematic—the background art was raised with the
`Court, which, as noted below, restricted their use to those references you actually elect in a
`prior art combination. 12/19/24 Pretrial Conf. Tr. 79:14-15 ("That showing should be limited
`to the elected prior art."). And your citations to § XIII of Dr. Shamos's report, which just refers
`back to the invalidity sections of his report, show that the use of these exhibits must rely on
`unelected invalidity opinions at trial.
`
`Using these references as exhibits is improper where you have not elected to use them in a
`prior art combination, and will confuse the jury. Your proposed use for damages purposes
`simply backdoors invalidity arguments without the legal standard of proving invalidity on a
`limitation by limitation basis and by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`I'm attaching more authority on the subject, at 7-9. We would like to avoid burdening the
`Court with this, but if we are truly at an impasse we intend to seek relief soon. If you are not
`prepared to remove these exhibits from the exhibit list, please let us know some times this
`week that your team is available to discuss and hopefully avoid motion practice.
`
`Best,
`Philip Eckert
`Associate
`
`BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
`1401 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20005
`(t) +1 202 274 1141 | (m) +1 816 716 4153 | peckert@bsfllp.com
`(cid:1)(cid:1)
`
`From: Anderson, Carson <Carson.Anderson@arnoldporter.com>
`Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 11:41 AM
`To: Anita Liu <aliu@bs(cid:85)lp.com>; Philip Eckert <peckert@bs(cid:85)lp.com>; A&P_EDTX60_Charter
`<A&P_EDTX60_Charter@arnoldporter.com>; Brown, Melissa <Melissa.Brown@arnoldporter.com>;
`Reisner, Daniel <Daniel.Reisner@arnoldporter.com>; ddacus@dacus(cid:84)rm.com
`<ddacus@dacus(cid:84)rm.com>; Hayes, Dina <Dina.Hayes@arnoldporter.com>
`Cc: Touchstream <Touchstream@bs(cid:85)lp.com>; Tom Gorham <Tom@gillamsmithlaw.com>;
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com <melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com>; McKellar Karr
`<McKellar@gillamsmithlaw.com>
`Subject: RE: Touchstream v. Charter | Joint Exhibit List
`
`CAUTION: External email. Please do not respond to or click on links/attachments unless you recognize the sender.
`
`Anita,
`
`The trial exhibits referenced in Mr. Eckert’s email are relevant to issues outside of invalidity, and
`Charter’s Disclosure of Final Invalidity Theories has no impact on whether these exhibits should
`be included on the joint exhibit list. For instance, each of the trial exhibits referenced in Mr.
`each of the trial exhibits referenced in Mr.
`Eckert’s email are relevant to damages, including at least Georgia-Pacific factor 9, and they are
`Eckert’s email are relevant to damages, including at least Georgia-Pacific factor 9, and they are
`cited in §XVI of Dr. Shamos’ Rebuttal Report titled “Minimal Technical Value of the Asserted
`cited in §XVI of Dr. Shamos’ Rebuttal Report titled “Minimal Technical Value of the Asserted
`Claims;” see also §XIII of Dr. Shamos’ Opening Report regarding the “Value of The Claimed
`Claims;” see also §XIII of Dr. Shamos’ Opening Report regarding the “Value of The Claimed
`Invention and The Asserted Claims Over the Prior Art.” To this end, Mr. Bakewell specifically
`Invention and The Asserted Claims Over the Prior Art.” To this end, Mr. Bakewell specifically
`
`cites Dr. Shamos in his discussion of Georgia-Pacific Factor 9 and the “incremental benefitcites Dr. Shamos in his discussion of Georgia-Pacific Factor 9 and the “incremental benefit
`
`provided by the patents-in-suit, particularly over prior art.” See Mr. Bakewell’s Rebuttal Report,provided by the patents-in-suit, particularly over prior art.” See Mr. Bakewell’s Rebuttal Report,
`
`§5.10.§5.10.
`
`As Charter explained during the December 19, 2024, Pretrial Conference, “the importance of
`this, Your Honor, is that the Plaintiff is going to claim to have solved a problem that had not
`
`3 of 6
`
`2/21/25, 1:00 PM
`
`

`

`Firefox
`
`https://outlook.of(cid:46)ce.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGY5ZTVkNjViLW...
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 361-3 Filed 02/28/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID
`#: 14789
`been solved, and that's what they contend is the value proposition of their invention. It goes to
`damages.” December 19, 2024, Tr. at 77:13-17. The Court specifically sanctioned this use
`these trial exhibits. See id., 79:14-22.
`
`Inclusion of these trial exhibits on the joint exhibit list is not inconsistent with Judge Payne’s
`ruling on this issue or the Court’s Standing MIL No. 4.
`
`Best,
`Carson
`_______________
`Carson Anderson
`Senior Associate | Bio
`
`3000 El Camino Real | Suite 500
`Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
`T: +1 650.319.4578
`Carson.Anderson@arnoldporter.com
`www.arnoldporter.com | LinkedIn
`
`From: Anita Liu <aliu@bs(cid:85)lp.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 2:20 PM
`To: Philip Eckert <peckert@bs(cid:85)lp.com>; A&P_EDTX60_Charter
`<A&P_EDTX60_Charter@arnoldporter.com>; Anderson, Carson
`<Carson.Anderson@arnoldporter.com>; Brown, Melissa <Melissa.Brown@arnoldporter.com>;
`Reisner, Daniel <Daniel.Reisner@arnoldporter.com>; zzz.External.ddacus@dacus(cid:84)rm.com
`<ddacus@dacus(cid:84)rm.com>; Hayes, Dina <Dina.Hayes@arnoldporter.com>
`Cc: Touchstream <Touchstream@bs(cid:85)lp.com>; Tom Gorham <Tom@gillamsmithlaw.com>;
`zzz.External.melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com <melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com>; McKellar Karr
`<McKellar@gillamsmithlaw.com>
`Subject: Re: Touchstream v. Charter | Joint Exhibit List
`
`External E-mail
`
`Counsel,
`
`It's our understanding that Charter is not currently prepared to make any changes to the parties' joint
`exhibit list. Given Charter's narrowed invalidity theories, the exhibits listed in Phil's email below re(cid:85)ect
`prior art that is no longer relevant to any claim or defense. As such, they are only potentially relevant
`as background references. It's our position that these exhibits are excluded under the Court's
`standing MIL No. 4. Further, Charter counsel agreed to limit the use of unelected prior art to just
`background at the pretrial conference on December 19, 2024 (see Tr. pp. 77-79). Based on our
`understanding of Judge Payne's prior rulings (in this and other cases), background art references are
`not exhibits and should not go back to the jury.
`
`Please let us know Charter's rationale for keeping unelected prior art references on the JTX list.
`
`Thanks,
`Anita
`
`Anita Liu | 202.274.1111 | aliu@bsfllp.com
`
`4 of 6
`
`2/21/25, 1:00 PM
`
`

`

`Firefox
`
`https://outlook.of(cid:46)ce.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGY5ZTVkNjViLW...
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 361-3 Filed 02/28/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID
`#: 14790
`
`BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
`
`(cid:1) F
`
`rom:(cid:1)Philip Eckert <peckert@bs(cid:85)lp.com>
`Sent:(cid:1)Tuesday, February 4, 2025 3:44 PM
`To:(cid:1)A&P_EDTX60_Charter <A&P_EDTX60_Charter@arnoldporter.com>; Anderson, Carson
`<Carson.Anderson@arnoldporter.com>; Brown, Melissa <melissa.brown@arnoldporter.com>; Daniel
`L. Reisner <daniel.reisner@arnoldporter.com>; Deron Dacus <ddacus@dacus(cid:84)rm.com>; Dina Hayes
`<dina.hayes@arnoldporter.com>; Melissa Richards Smith <melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com>; Tom
`Gorham <Tom@gillamsmithlaw.com>; McKellar Karr <McKellar@gillamsmithlaw.com>; Touchstream
`<Touchstream@bs(cid:85)lp.com>
`Subject:(cid:1)Touchstream v. Charter | Joint Exhibit List
`
`(cid:1)C
`
`ounsel,
`
`(cid:1)G
`
`iven Charter's narrowing of its invalidity theories, the Court's Standing MIL #4, and the Court's
`guidance given at the first pretrial conference, we request the following be removed from the joint
`exhibit list:
`(cid:1)
`
`1. JTX 20
`2. JTX 21
`3. JTX 22
`4. JTX 23
`5. JTX 24(cid:1)
`6. JTX 25(cid:1)
`7. JTX 26(cid:1)
`8. JTX 27(cid:1)
`9.(cid:1)JTX 40(cid:1)
`10.(cid:1)JTX 41(cid:1)
`11. JTX 42(cid:1)
`12. JTX 43
`13. JTX 55(cid:1)
`14. JTX 56
`
`(cid:1)P
`
`(cid:1)B
`
`lease let us know if you agree, or if you have any questions.
`
`est,
`Philip Eckert
`Associate
`
`(cid:1)B
`
`OIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
`1401 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20005
`(t) +1 202 274 1141 | (m) +1 816 716 4153 | peckert@bsfllp.com
`(cid:1)(cid:1)
`
`(cid:1) T
`
`he information contained in this electronic message is confidential information intended only for the use of the named recipient(s) and may contain information
`that, among other protections, is the subject of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of
`this electronic message is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are hereby notified that any
`dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and no privilege is waived. If you have received this communication
`in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic message and then deleting this electronic message from your computer. [v.1
`08201831BSF]
`
`5 of 6
`
`2/21/25, 1:00 PM
`
`

`

`Firefox
`
`https://outlook.of(cid:46)ce.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGY5ZTVkNjViLW...
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 361-3 Filed 02/28/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID
`#: 14791
`
`(cid:1) T
`
`his communication may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient,
`please note that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Anyone who receives this message in error
`should notify the sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete it from his or her computer.
`___________________________________________
`For more information about Arnold & Porter, click here:
`http://www.arnoldporter.com
`
`The information contained in this electronic message is confidential information intended only for the use of the named recipient(s) and may contain information
`that, among other protections, is the subject of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of
`this electronic message is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are hereby notified that any
`dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and no privilege is waived. If you have received this communication
`in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic message and then deleting this electronic message from your computer. [v.1
`08201831BSF]
`
`6 of 6
`
`2/21/25, 1:00 PM
`
`