Free Exhibits - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 148-4

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 1 Page of 9

of 47

Slip

Copy

Page 2037356 2037356 N.D.Ill

Slip

Copy 2006

Cite as 2006

N.D.Ill

noninfringement

Motions

and

Whenever
relies

in

patent
to

infringement off
as to

on

advice

of counsel

fend

of the

Only

Westlaw

citation

willful

question

arises

extent privilege United
States District

which

that

waives product
this

attorney-client
as to prior

other
to

Court
Division
Plaintiff

related

case
advice

N.D Eastern BECK SYSTEMS

ManageSofts
as

decision
to

to

rely

on

counsel
if

defense

willfulness
to

the

ManageSoft

elected scope

do

so

the

Court

would by
in

MANAGESOFT CORP Penson ADP Inc
Defendants

Industries

Inc

construe decision Beneficial

the

of principles

Medic Inc

Co
line

Inc

Bank

One

NA

No
July Steven

205
that with

N.D.Ill.2001
statement advice also or work-product has
in

asserts

14
Timothy
Fitch

to

disclosing

on

which

Kenneth

relies privileged

Ronald

Baumann
Flannery

documents

to

the

Even
Keith

Tabin

IL
Peter

for

extent required

Beneficial

Rockey
Wagner
Steven

Michael

Siavelis

In

the

motion

currently
that

before recent

Court decision F.3d

doc
In

Wallenstein

LTD
Yovits Lowrie
Sidley Austin

124 LLP
Silverman 2006

Beck

asserts

David Chicago Lowrie John

EchoStar

Communications

Corp
concerning of

1294

IL
Prescott

Fed.Cir.2006
legal

altered

Anastasi

LLP
Miller

Cambridge

MA
Ryan

applicable

landscape on advice

extent
to

to

Jr

which
claim

reliance

defend

Indianapolis

IN
OPINION

infringement or on argues of
that

waives

attorney-client

work same
subject matter

MEMORANDUM
SCHENKIER
In this

for

the

Beck
scope

EchoStar beyond
Beneficial

opinion
this

waiver

Court the

recognized

and
or work-product produce

Beck
infringement of
asserts

Systems
against

Inc

asserts

claims

scope

of
that

privileged

of

patent

ManageSoft customers

Corp
Beck
alleged

documents ManageSoft
broadens Beneficial
in

ManageSoft
that

must

and

several

disagrees scope
to

opinion waiver
in that

additionally infringement of
In

that

of

continued

the
is

the contrary respect adopted

and
aid
to
its

one
of

particular

ManageSoft argues Echo narrows
Beneficial

the

defense

to

Becks
has

of
letters

scope of the For

infringement counsel

ManageSoft
pre-dating of

the

reasons

that

follow

we

conclude approach

commencement

opinions

EchoStar

require

modification

2007

Thomson/West

No

Claim

to

Orig U.S

Works

1/10/2007

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 148-4

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 2 Page of 9

of 47

Slip

Copy

Page 2037356 2037356 N.D.Ill

Slip

Copy

Cite as 2006

that in

Court

took

broadening

rationale

for that
all

as

follows
to client

respects scope of

and

respects

Not

conveyed
transmittal
specifically reality
is

neatly or
in

the
In

waiver
III

opinion

reflected

and

we
EchoStar on
the

discuss

the
in

memorandum
The
information

to

the

client

Beneficial particular approach Part changes produce

and

negative
to

Beneficial
In

was

important
is

enough

reduce

to

we we

deem
the of

memorandum
the fashion
to

there

reasonable
in

discuss respect

was
the

conveyed

some

form

or

ManageSofts

to

attorney-client subject matter
as

material the

Id

See

also

Dunhall

Pharmaceuticals 994 F.Supp 1202

Inc
1205

on the same which

on

Discus

C.D.Cal
II

We
decision resulting counsel

start as

with
it

discussion
to to

Beneficial scope of waiver of
willful

We
case

now
the

turn

discussion Circuit

of

EchoStar

that

pertains decision

the

considered
district

from

produce

petition

by EchoStar
on waiver of

challenging attorney-client resulting in-house

courts and

defense
In that

of

ruling

infringement threshold
resulting

case

this

Court

held

as

work-product reliance defense held attorney-client

immunity
the
willful

matter

matter
to

waiver opinions

on
to

advice

as

from

decision party

produce not

The
of privilege
to

court

requires

produce

only attorney counsel

reliance and advice including

waived
work-product any counsel

communications
but involving
at

and
information

same

immunity
regarding and

relating

the

same

subject

205

F.R.D

217
Court
to

material obtained additional

Merchant

Gould

This

then

considered

waiver
after

EchoStar Merchant
patent

respect

the not

of
rely

extended

material of case or

infringement

and
court

decided held
that

commencement
canvassing
that

by law
to

counsel Court both attorney-client
after if

upon
waiver

it

The

district

EchoStars

attorney-privilege required production

work-product
all

would
materials of

protection product subject

and commencement
involved Court involving materials
their to

Merchant
matter or of not
to

Gould
counsel product

on

the

even

in-house
that

counsel
limited
this

F.R.D

at

218
materials

whether

was 1297
federal

waiver one

concerning respect

communicated
reviewing

EchoStar
court separately privilege

448
decision the

at

counsel the not indicate

work which on

attorneys

files

Circuit attorney-client work-product

of
of

were
to

communicated
waiver the
if

and

the
to

were not subject
contradict or
cast

failed

doubt

on

opinions
to

on

which Id

relied

As
Circuit reliance

to

attorney-client once of

privilege party
to

Federal

willful that

By

contrast

this

held not
indicate to

explained

announces

documents
their that

on

advice

counsel

defend privilege
is

on

were

communicated
to

willful

the 448
F.3d
at

defendants
if

were

nonetheless or
cast

production

waived
the scope of

1299

The

court

observed

doubt

on

the opinions explained

on
the

applied waiver of

standard attorney-client

determining
that

which

relied

Id

We

2007

Thomson/West

No

Claim

to

Orig U.S Govt Works

https//findprint.west1aw.coprint/printstream.aspxrsIFP2.92mtWest1awvr2

1/10/2007

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 148-4

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 3 Page of 9

of 47

Slip

Copy 2006

Page

Slip

WL

Cite as 2006

WL
to
all

the
relating to

applies the

communications matter Id quoting 1340
court

privilege attorney

all

communications
including
as

same

subject

and

any

documentary
letters

Fort

James

Corp
that

Cup
As
to

F.3d the
rely

communications

opinion F.3d
at

and
in

1349

Fed.Cir.2005

memoranda
the

EchoStar
the

1302
that

Later

concluded advice

when
in-house

on the

opinion

explained

when

counsel

waived
regard
to to

privilege

even
to

if

opinion

attorney-client attorney-client subject counsel include See matter

privilege

any same
with

being

communicated

the non-privileged
to

communications
including than in-house

the

become
fact

of

namely 448
F.3d

what
at

was

communicated

the

client

would

1303

communications

Gould Corp
EchoStar 243 448
F.3d
at

Akeva

LLC

Mizuno

Before categories of

the

second

and

third

418 423
1299

M.D.N.C.2003

work

product

Federal noted our scope of courts
that prior

commented
opinions

scholars

do

not

clearly

define result
far to

Turning

to

the

scope

of court

work-product explained
to that

work-product
are split

waiver on
just

immunity
product waiver

EchoStar

extend

scope
then

extends

factual the

or

EchoStar
sought conclude but does
to

448

F.3d

at

1302-03
on
to as

The
that

court

non-opinion
subject F.3d
that at

work
as

same 448

provide

guidance extends

we
category

matter

disclosed Circuit

product

the the

1302 between work

not

extend

so

far

second

Id

at

product not always distinct

1303

opinion
especially
itself

when
in

as

here an work

attorneys

may
The
court should

As

to

work-product
to

materials the
identified

that

were

never of the

communicated work
product court
fall

the

second the

category

instructed

opinion
for

drawn
balance
litigation

given
policies tactics

case
to

district

courts

should

EchoStar
that

explained scope unlike

rationale

holding

sword-and-shield
to

they

outside

of

waiver

The

the

protect

work
the

court product

reasoned
is

mental
to

product
federal categories

Id
circuit

With
then

communicated
of
fact

the

potential

becomes
to

what

of

subject

formed
to

clients

state

of
legal

which
opinions

is

relevant mental

waiver communication
concerning
traditional

documents between
the

embody and attorney
of

willfulness

and

client as

impressions acquire therefore such not

were
factual

not

communicated

do

not

the opinion
trial

matter

case

such

characteristics

are
the

analyzing strategy

within F.3d
at

the

scope

of

waiver
explained

the the attorneys
to

and

so

forth

that

reflect

EchoStar
that

448

1303

The

court only so of

mental

were not given documents
attorney of
to

work
court of

waiver the

extends

far

as

to

the

and

discuss

inform

state if

mind
opinion
to to

communication
concerning themselves the

between
matter

and
case but
are

emphasis
not mental client court then
in
it

original

legal

or the the
it

was
provides

never
little

communicated
any the value
is

communications

or

from

assistance

Id

determining

whether
any
relative

was As
to

infringing

the

first

category

the party

circuit relies to

stated

when
as

on

the

by the Id at 1304

supporting

workproduct

advice-of-counsel infringement the

defense waives

willful

party

attorney-client

As

to

the

third

category

of

work

2007

Thomson/West

No Claim

to

Orig U.S

Works

https//findprint.westlaw.conVprint/printstream.aspxrsIFP2.92mtWestlawvr2.Os..

1/10/2007

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 148-4

Filed 01/11/2007

Page Page 4 of 910of47

Slip

Copy

Page

Slip

Copy 2006

WL

N.D.Ill

Cite as 2006

WL
admittedly and
at

federal

circuit

it

as

falling

core and

work work

product

that

were not given documents

to

the

somewhere
second

between EchoStar 448

the

1304
that

communication
not themselves

between

attomey and
to

are

The

court

posited

that

some

documents have
been

within

or

from

the

category
to

may
client

themselves

never

conveyed
describe client the
client

client having

EchoStar
laid

448

F.3d

at

1302-03
analyses

the

nonetheless

may
and
to

out the

communication

the attorney not does

and EchoStar
adopted

we

consider

extent the approach

which

Though
directly to

it

communication

we

nor

substantive
will

reference
parties to

what was

communicated what

the

detennining
client

communications
against of

were made
intentional

the or

First

we
to

difference concerning include extension privilege

and

protect

Echo
of waiver

unintentional

withholding the

attorney-client

and

communications
held
that

court
within

Id

Thus
category

court
are

certain litigation In that

documents
although they
for

that

Beneficial

this

Court of

rejected
suit
is

discoverable
to

may

require within
that

the proposition the bright waiver protection
as

commencement no

provide or
to

work

longer

memorandum
communicated

other

document

was

attorney-client
for

privilege

or

work-product subject matter

the client

materials
letters at

on

the
are

same

the

revealed

The

Federal
that

also

addressed does not

EchoStars
extend
to

205

F.R.D

218

Likewise

EchoStar
that

the the

argument

federal

proposition of opinions given
after to as that

attorney-client generated
that

and
litigation

work-product

materials court the
as

waiver work where

not

extend

to

advice
in

and
case

The

rejected

argument
to

it

not the case

when

the

advice so
in

ongoing
infringement
at

relevant
that

ongoing
infringement
is

long

as

infringement
is

long

ongoing

at at at

issue

the

at

issue

litigation
this

litigation

EchoStar Akeva
the the

448

F.3d

1303

1303

In

case Beck and

infringement

quoting
party opens
entire

243

F.Supp.2d

423
of during

ManageSoft
the on advice
to

that

Thus
decision
to rely

asserts to

advice

inspection of

received

to

defend

against
certain

course

alleged

extends materials

attorney-client even
after

workproduct commencement of

III

this

of
that arise

and
of
issues are

discoverability

assertion necessarily

Second
of adopted

EchoStar

did

not

disturb extends
certain

we
the waiver
to

defense patent Circuit

Beneficial

which

law
law EchoStar
that

448

governed at 1298
rnles

attorney-client

work-product Beneficial

Thus

to

material held

involving the waiver of

counsel

In

we

the extent the scope

announced stemming
counsel defense
in that

attorney-client to

of

the assertion

the advice
set to forth

from those

workproduct communications F.R.D
before
at

documents
Beneficial

counsel EchoStar
dealt

205

by
our

Court

Beneficial
to

we
evident
to

obliged Circuit
intent

218

mandamus
an
attorney-client

petition

conform
is

approach
true in

Federal of

order

That of

required work-product

production

of

the with guidance

EchoStar
as to

provide waiver
that

outside

courts

the

of

Merchant
in-house

Gould

who

was

different

work-product

documents

prepared

the

on

2007

Thomson/West

No Claim

to

Orig

Works

https

//findprint.westlaw.conilprint/printstream.aspxrsIFP2.92mtWestlawvr2.0s..

1/10/2007

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 148-4

Filed 01/11/2007

Page Page 5 of 911

of47

Slip

Copy

Page

Slip

Copy 2006 as 2006

WL

N.D.Ill 2037356

Cite

WL

N.D.IIl

which
trial

EchoStar counsel
this

relied

who was

not

EchoStars
be read
as

privileged involving therefore

or

work-product

material
that to this

Thus
Courts
waiver

cannot

counsel
not required

Court

disturbing extends claims of

follow

case
to trial

involving counsel

ManageSofts assuming the EchoStar
confronted

Opp
reading decision the

at

3-4
fmd

Even

ongoing

we
to

nothing
that

FN1
mindful

reaching of Indiana

we
Inc

Circuit the

would
of

exclude even

scope

Manufacturing

assuming Echostar

Group

Inc
S.D.Ind
the court
that to stated

ManageSofts and of
correct Court
that to

Court

Indiana

WL
which
indication
to
trial

May
is

Mills

reading
alter

would
approach
this

not

no

require adopted applied

the

court

intended

Beneficial waiver
to

which

Court

extend counsel
In

communication
product

documents
trial

and

or fact
at

to that

work

communication
not before Third court took waiver Beneficial did

involving

counsel

counsel

was
agree the of

court
scenario did
trial

Id

19

We
to

that

not

alter

the

approach the scope

we
of

Star

respect

not

involve

the attorney-client held extended the not opinions opinion of only of

Beneficial

counsel the the of scope privilege
at

we
court

part

company
respect envisioned

this

Court

with

with

privilege

to

other attorney

whether application
In

EchoStar

court
to
trial

communications
rendering but counsel

the

counsel

on

which
information subject held
after further to

of

attorney-client the
at to

attorney-client

same

205

EchoStar
Federal

448
Circuit

1299
to

F.R.D
the extended

217

And
of

we

communications and

decision received infringement

which

all
relating to if

commencement
attorney-client defendant the chose
to rely

communications counsel Id
Circuit
stated at

between

must

be

even

they

218

In

EchoStar

come Akeva
that as in

from 243

defendants
at

attorneys

423

We
to

believe

on

the

advice

of respect
relating to

the well
as

of the the scope respect of

waived Akeva
matter
attorney-client

attorney-client

any

attorney-client subject counsel include

communications
including in-house

the

describing

same
with

matter

waiver privilege indicates extend than those the the

which

and
that to
all

protection

would

communications
at

Gould
attomeys other

F.3d

1299

we
EchoStar

have

explained
to

above

we

read
as

who

on

attorney-client

being

consistent such
as

with

the
to

which whether
counsel

Beneficial attorneys
are
trial

extending

waiver being the

post-suit

communications
at least

and
of

with argues
that

not

contradicting the

Beneficial
to
trial

any

suggestion
to
trial

decisions

extension

EchoStar
counsel involve

that

the

waiver

extends case

communications
counsel

defendant

did

not

an

issue

of

2007

ThomsonlWest

No

Claim

to

Orig

Works

https //findprint.westlaw.comlprint/printstream.aspxrs4FP2

.92mtWest1awvrr2

1/10/2007

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 148-4

Filed 01/11/2007

Page Page 6 of 912

of47

Slip

Copy

Page

Slip

Copy as 2006

WL

2037356

N.D.Ill

Cite

WL

N.D.Ill

Fourth more
contained

as

for

work-product

protection

result

is

which
at that

relies

mixed

With

respect transmitted category difference
for in

work

product the

218

By

contrast not

EchoStar
to

documents the
there
is

were

conveyed

the

client

but

attomey and EchoStar immunity work
that certain

identified

in

describe information
to at

communication
the Unlike
to

work-product be under
if

no

EchoStar
Beneficial

waived

As

categories

of

448
that refers that to

1304

the case even product

we
of

conclude
in

required
specific

both respects
in

expands

contracts

work

the

scope

Court

not

contradict

on

which

recognized

Beneficial

the

With

respect

to

documents
impressions the Circuit
that

an

Iv
In light

attorneys

mental
to

were

never

of

foregoing

analysis requires

we

conclude
parties

communicated category
protection Beneficial product do not
indicate

EchoStar
broader opinion
in

the

EchoStar
the scope of

Federal than In
in that

reassess

ManageSofts
or

production materials
legal

did

Courts
Court

attorney-client

privilege subject

work
as to

held on
their

work
face

on

the

same
it

matter defense cover

the
willful

on

which
That

relies

they only

were

sent

the or
cast are

reassessment

the

must be
on the

produced

opinions scope
at

they

First and

outside

of court the

205 announced
is

ManageSoft any documents
matter of

must

review

generated opinion order
full letters to that

on the

F.R.D
different

218
the

subject not

may

not be

consideration information

on
it

the

determine of

whether
or
casts

contradicts instead

scope

what

required

doubt

on

the

under

ar

In

making
assert

determination privilege

whether
information the the product product

shows was conveyed
protection
to

work-product the

ManageSoft
or

may
of

not

attorney-client the
to

so not

then then

work

protection

categories subject rely any

documents
as

that

the

same
they

need

not be never received
it

work would
casts to this

matter

the

legal

on

which

defendant
to

communications
counsel

between
trial

ManageSoft
including

have
doubt

produce

under

on

disclosed the

opinion

not

subject
In

communications
work-product the
files

which
information

to

the

production respect the

and
attorneys
to

ManageSoft from

EchoStar
material applied

opinion narrower Beneficial

waiver than

on

of
that

ManageSofts

including

work
that

product Court

the one

counsel
that

were not conveyed
product
to

ManageSoft was
this

information respect

communicated

ManageSoft ManageSoft

As
not

to

documents

in

an

attorneys
to

file

that

were

latter

category

may
that

not

withhold

actually

communicated
to

the

contain

documents
information

on

the
to

ground
contradict

the
cast

work-product doubt

reference

or

description

communications
category of

or

on

the

between work
the

an

attorney

and
analyzed
is

legal

advice

on

which
redact any

relies references
to

in

ManageSoft imposed
work-product
to

may
material

was 448

not

communicated
at

by
required
file that to

Court

Beneficial

In

Beneficial
in

the

Court

ManageSoft

EchoStar

1304

As

work-product only or
casts

documents

an

attorneys

recognized time scope of the

EchoStar
waiver not

Beneficial limited
to

be

contain doubt

the period but

on

the

opinions

on

ending

commencement

of

2007

ThomsonlWest

No Claim

to

Orig U.S Govt Works

https//findprint.westlaw.conVprint/printstream.aspxrsIFP2

.92mtWestlawvr2

1/10/2007

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 148-4

Filed 01/11/2007

Page Page 7 of 9

of47

Slip

Copy

Page

Slip

Copy as 2006

WL

N.D.Ill

Cite

WL
include materials attorney-client
after suit

continues work-product

to

redacted

F.3d

at

1304

commenced
will

As

matter

of search
to

the extend

Court

Second documents
determine category of any
to

Beck
date

must

review

the
to

require

ManageSofts
June

by
fall

the

ending

of

the

recognized

Echo
opinions doubt not

ar
or the

FN2
that

In

its

ManageSoft

argues

work-product conclusions disclosed they

documents
that

containing or
cast

requiring production
trial

materials require
to

contradict but
to

on

involving produce
litigation

counsel

opinions

which
the client
to

reflect

most and
strategy

sensitive

matters
as

of
as at

were conveyed was

Under
types
are

strategy

well

ManageSoft documents from

required

produce

of

settlement

ManageSofts
matter

Opp
note

EchoStar The ManageSoft
without
to will

protected the
earlier as

6-7
this

As Courts

we

that

disclosure

treat

approach

in

Beneficial

production inadvertent protection

documents
of the

required
certain

production

and
work-product
trial that

work

product
that

extent

materials generated

were

ManageSoft
within

produced
category

any

documents them
to

commencement
the concern

of

Beck
not

must any copies

Thus
EchoStar
already
frilly

expressed

Manage
or

Soft any
further

shall

retain

them

ManageSoft

was
but

not

one
that

created

make

use of

one

ManageSoft
if as

has

least with

CONCLUSION
For the reasons

complied
claims

Beneficial

Becks

motion

to

compel
to

ManageSoft

discovery advice-of-counsel

communications

Opp
In

at

5-8
event

doc
part

any

we

do

not

believe the

that

part

and
shall

By
any
that

August

work-product matter of

material

on
advice

subject

ManageSoft
or

additional
fall

on

which from

work
of the waiver date
as set forth

within

ManageSoft
disclosure Beneficial material
in

can required merely

be

scope

this

opinion

By
any
as

EchoStar
it

or
as client

that

same

shall

return scope
line

ManageSoft
of

documents
recognized ruling
in

exceed EchoStar The
for

being settlement not

to

assist

the

Courts
without

assessing

By

the
as to

same
allow

token Beck

above
request

Court

denies
to

the waiver

so broad

Becks

take based

window
strategy waiver
to

ManageSofts
or settlement For the

deposition

ManageSoft produced
if

on

further

documents
separately

we

will

apply
the matter of

must

be

nexus

need

the

between
the

and
advice there
to

subject

on must

Slip

2037356

N.D.Ill

which
be
that

ManageSoft

something the
to

indicate

Motions

and

Back

to

top

was
the

communicated
place the

ManageSoft

as

to

2006 and
Opposition Supplemental
to

Trial
Plaintiffs

Memorandum Memorandum
to Strike

document
rather
that to

EchoStar
second contains production

category the extent

To some

Motion Managesofts Claim Constructions Document

material

2006Original
be

Image of

PDF

some

that

not

the

may
Thomson/West

2007

No

Claim

to

Orig U.S

Works

https//findprint.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspxrsIFP2

.92mtWestlawvr2

.0s..

1/10/2007

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 148-4

Filed 01/11/2007

Page Page 8 of 9

of 47

Slip

Copy

Page

Slip

Copy as 2006

WL

Cite

WL
3054198 Motion
Support of

2006 and Systems
Magistrate

2006 Beck
to

2192591

Trial

Motion Combined Motion
Relevant
to to

Memorandum
Motion
to

and

Affidavit

Plaintiffs

Strike

Untimely Document

Compel
Advice-of-Counsel Support

of

Communications and

Judges

Discovery

18

Defense

Memorandum

2006Original

Image of 3054199

PDF

Thereof

30 2006

2006 and
Support Constructions

Its

Managesofts Motion to and

Memorandum Memorandum
Strike

2006 and

WL

2192592

Trial Brief Regarding Interrogatory

Affidavit of

Defendants
Patent

Late

Claim

Supplementation

Invalidity

18
Document

Responses

Jun 30 2006
1416295
Trial

2006Original 2006 and
Regarding

Image of

2006 3054197 Managesofts
Rule

Motion

Memorandum Memorandum
on the

and

Affidavit of Production
to

Memorandum
Compel Documents
this

Support

Defendant

to

72a
15 2006Original

Scope
of

Supplement 2006Original

Apr

Waiver Document

Image

Image of

Document

PDF
of
to

PDF
2006

WL

1416298

Trial
in

2006 and

WL

3054196

Trial

Motion
to

and Systems Comply Second
with

Memorandum
to

Support

Affidavit

Managesofts
Supplementation

Magistrates Interrogatory

Order Responses Document

Compel Order and
of

Sanctions

Sep

2006Original

Apr

2006Original

Image

Document

Image

PDF
Response Under
to

PDF
2006 Defendant
to

2006 and ManageSofts
Magistrates

2580310
Plaintiffs

740678
Affidavit of

Trial

and
Support

Memorandum
to

Compel

Order Regarding Image
of

Becks Document

Communications

With Document

Aug

15

20 2006Original
2006

Image of

PDF
Beck

PDF
WL
740677
Trial

Motion

2006 and

WL

2310213

Trial

Motion
to

and Defendants
of Patent

Affidavit

Memorandum
Compel Order and
to

Plaintiffs

Response

Systems
with

Motion

Defendants Sanctions

to

Comply

Submission
Invalidity

Regarding
Interrogatory

17

Responses Document

Jul

10

2006Original

Image of

Document

PDF
to

2006Original 2006
and Opposition Additional of
to

Image of

PDF
2005 3709609
Trial

WL

2310214 Beck

Trial

Motion

and
in

Affidavit of
et

Reply
Defendants

the

Systems

Memorandum

Amended
Corporation al

Managesoft

Managesofts

Related

Discovery

Jul

10

2006Original

Image

23 2005Original
2005

Image of

Document

PDF
Managesoft

Document

PDF
3285893
of Trial Defendants Trial
to

2006 and

WL

2310215

Memorandum
Plaintiff to

Amended
Corporation

Affidavit Inc.s

Opposition

Industries

Telephone and
Penton

Systems
Discovery

Compel

Data Inc

Systems and
Related

ADP
Image of

Media

Docket

No

124

10 2006Original

Counterclaims

Image

Document

PDF
2007 Thomson/West

200 5Original

Document

PDF

No Claim

to

Orig U.S Govt Works

https

//findprint.westlaw.comlprint/printstream.aspxrsIFP2

92mtWestlawvr2 0s..

1/10/2007

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 148-4

Filed 01/11/2007

Page Page 9 of 915

of47

Slip

Copy

Page

Slip

Copy

WL

N.D.Ill

Cite as 2006

WL
Docket

105cv02036

Apr

2005
Complaint

2003

WL
2003Original Image
this

Apr
with

Document

Appendix

END OF

2007

Thomson/West

No

Claim

to

Orig U.S

Works

https//findprint.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspxrsJFP2

92mtWestlawvr2

1/10/2007