Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-3 Filed 02/28/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID
`#: 14860
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-3 Filed 02/28/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID
`#: 14861
`
`Anderson, Carson
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`I External E-mail I
`
`Carson,
`
`Philip Eckert <peckert@bsfllp.com>
`Monday, February 24, 2025 9:02 AM
`Anderson, Carson; Anita Liu; A&P_EDTX60_Charter; Brown, Melissa; Reisner, Daniel;
`zzz.External.ddacus@dacusfirm.com; Hayes, Dina
`Touchstream; Tom Gorham; zzz.External.melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com; McKellar Karr
`Re: Touchstream v. Charter I Joint Exhibit List
`
`Thanks for the call just now, and the meet and confer last Friday. I'm writing to follow up on your offer this
`morning to compromise at four exhibits. While we appreciate you making an effort at compromise, we
`cannot agree to leave the Danciu, McMahon, Redford, and Hayward patents on the Joint Exhibit list, fo r;
`the reasons explained last week and in our motion. If you think it helps to discuss further, I am available
`by phone.
`
`Best,
`Phil
`
`From: Philip Eckert <peckert@bsfllp.com>
`Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 12:53 PM
`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>
`Cc: Touchstream <Touchstream@bsfllp.com>; Tom Gorham <Tom@gillamsmithlaw.com>; melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`<melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com>; McKellar Karr <McKellar@gillamsmithlaw.com>
`Subject: Re: Touchstream v. Charter I Joint Exhibit List
`
`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@bsfllp.com>; Anita Liu <aliu@bsfllp.com>; A&P _EDTXG0_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>
`Cc: Touchstream <Touchstream@bsfllp.com>; Tom Gorham <Tom@gillamsmithlaw.com>; melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`<melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com>; McKellar Karr <McKellar@gillamsmithlaw.com>
`Subject: RE: Touchstream v. Charter I Joint Exhibit List
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-3 Filed 02/28/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID
`#: 14862
`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 specifically 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.
`
`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, specifically explaining that there
`are permissible uses of the unelected references. See Mojo v. Samsung, Case No. 2:22-cv-00398-JRG(cid:173)
`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 I Bio
`
`Arnold Porter
`3000 El Camino Real I Suite 500
`Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
`T: +1 650.319.4578
`Carson.Anderson@arnoldporter.com
`www.arnoldporter.com I Linkedln
`
`From: Philip Eckert <peckert@bsfllp.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 3:59 PM
`To: Anderson, Carson <Carson.Anderson@arnoldporter.com>; Anita Liu <aliu@bsfllp.com>; A&P _EDTXGO_Charter
`<A&P _EDTX60_Charter@arnoldporter.com>; Brown, Melissa <Melissa.Brown@arnoldporter.com>; Reisner, Daniel
`<Daniel.Reisner@arnoldporter.com>; zzz.External.ddacus@dacusfirm.com <ddacus@dacusfirm.com>; Hayes, Dina
`<Dina.Hayes@arnoldporter.com>
`Cc: Touchstream <Touchstream@bsfllp.com>; Tom Gorham <Tom@gillamsmithlaw.com>;
`zzz.External.melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com <melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com>; McKellar Karr
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-3 Filed 02/28/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID
`#: 14863
`
`<McKellar@gillamsmithlaw.com>
`Subject: Re: Touchstream v. Charter I Joint Exhibit List
`I External E-mail I
`
`Counsel, please let us know when we may expect a response to the below.
`
`From: Philip Eckert <peckert@bsfllp.com>
`Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 2:56 PM
`To: Anderson, Carson <Carson.Anderson@arnoldporter.com >; Anita Liu <aliu@bsfllp.com>; A&P _EDTXG0_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>
`Cc: Touchstream <Touchstream@bsfllp.com >; Tom Gorham <Tom@gillamsmithlaw.com >;
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com <melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com>; McKellar Karr <McKellar@gillamsmithlaw.com>
`Subject: Re: Touchstream v. Charter I Joint Exhibit List
`
`Thanks, Carson. We disagree that is what the Court said at the December 19 pretrial conference, or that
`the Court "specifically 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 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 Cont. 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 I (m) +1 816 716 4153 I peckert@bsfllp.com
`
`From: Anderson, Carson <Carson.Anderson@arnoldporter.com>
`Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 11:41 AM
`To: Anita Liu <aliu@bsfllp.com>; Philip Eckert <peckert@bsfllp.com>; A&P _EDTXG0_Charter
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-3 Filed 02/28/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID
`#: 14864
`<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>
`Cc: Touchstream <Touchstream@bsfllp.com >; Tom Gorham <Tom@gillamsmithlaw.com >;
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com <melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com>; McKellar Karr <McKellar@gillamsmithlaw.com>
`Subject: RE: Touchstream v. Charter I 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. Eckert's email
`are relevant to damages, including at least Georgia-Pacific factor 9, and they are cited in §XVI of Dr.
`Sha mos' Rebuttal Report titled "Minimal Technical Value of the Asserted Claims;" see also §XIII of Dr.
`Sha mos' Opening Report regarding the "Value of The Claimed Invention and The Asserted Claims Over
`the Prior Art." To this end, Mr. Bakewell specifically cites Dr. Shamos in his discussion of Georgia(cid:173)
`Pacific Factor 9 and the "incremental benefit provided by the patents-in-suit, particularly over prior
`art." See Mr. Bakewell's Rebuttal Report, §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 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 I Bio
`
`Arnold Porter
`3000 El Camino Real I Suite 500
`Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
`T: +1 650.319.4578
`Carson.Anderson@arnoldporter.com
`www.arnoldporter.com I Linkedln
`
`From: Anita Liu <aliu@bsfllp.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 2:20 PM
`To: Philip Eckert <peckert@bsfllp.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@dacusfirm.com <ddacus@dacusfirm .com>; Hayes, Dina
`<Dina.Hayes@arnoldporter.com>
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-3 Filed 02/28/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID
`#: 14865
`Cc: Touchstream <Touchstream@bsfllp.com >; Tom Gorham <Tom@gillamsmithlaw.com >;
`zzz.External.melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com <melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com>; McKellar Karr
`<McKellar@gillamsmithlaw.com>
`Subject: Re: Touchstream v. Charter I Joint Exhibit List
`I 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 reflect 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 I 202.274.1111 I aliu@bsfllp.com
`BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
`
`From: Philip Eckert <peckert@bsfllp.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 3:44 PM
`To: 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@dacusfirm.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@bsfllp.com>
`Subject: Touchstream v. Charter I Joint Exhibit List
`
`Counsel,
`
`Given 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:
`
`1. JTX20
`2. JTX21
`3. JTX22
`4. JTX23
`5. JTX24
`6. JTX25
`7. JTX26
`8. JTX27
`9. JTX40
`10.JTX41
`11. JTX 42
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-3 Filed 02/28/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID
`#: 14866
`
`12. JTX43
`13. JTX 55
`14. JTX 56
`
`Please let us know if you agree, or if you have any questions.
`
`Best,
`Philip Eckert
`Associate
`BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
`1401 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20005
`(t) +1 202 274 1141 I (m) +1 816 716 4153 I peckert@bsfllp.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 08201831 BSF]
`
`This 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.amoldporter.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 08201831 BSF]
`
`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 08201831 BSF]
`
`6
`
`