Free Declaration - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Krauth and RMWade v. Phelps Dodge Page 1 of 2
Peter Heuser
From: Peter Heuser
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 11:29 AM
To: ‘[email protected]'
Cc: Anita Tabayoyon
Subject: FW: Krauth and RMWade v. Phelps Dodge
Attachments: Settlement Agreement.doc; Redline of Settlement Agreement.DOC
Mark
Ed Newbegin is continuing to talk to Netafim to attempt to determine the design of each of the emitters included
in your list. He is hoping to finish that up next week.
l noticed one other paragraph that we need changed. Paragraph 6c includes the following sentence: "Wade
and Krauth jointly and severally represent and warrant that they are not aware of any patents other than the
Patents and the ’548 Patent that might be infringed by the use of drip irrigation for leach mining." This is a very
broad representation and we don‘t understand why we are being asked to make such a warranty. The
sentence would be acceptable and perhaps appropriate if we amend the sentence as follows: "V‘i/ade and Krauth
jointly and severally represent and warrant that they are not aware of any patents owned in whole or in part by
Wade and/or Krauth other than the Patents and the '548 Patent that might be infringed by the use of drip
irrigation for leach mining."
Let me know what you think.
Pete
Kolisch Hartwell, P.C.
Intellectual Property Attorneys
520 SW Yamhill Street, Suite 200
Portland, Oregon 97204
Phone: (503) 224-6655
Facsimile: (503) 295-6679
email: [email protected]
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply
email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or
disclosing the contents. Thank you.
From: Peter Heuser
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 1:32 PM
To: ‘[email protected]'
Cc: Anita Tabayoyon
Subject: F\N: Krauth and RMWade v. Phelps Dodge
Mark
Thanks for your latest proposal. l think we can agree to all of your proposed changes with the exception of the
addition of paragraph 2b. We have agreed that these designs do not infringe, and we have given a covenant not
to sue. A license under the '548 Patent is therefore not necessary. lf we granted you a license, it could prevent us
from getting a preliminary injunction against any infringer, could make it difficult to obtain lost profits, and might
even provide evidence of a zero percent established royalty under the '548 Patent. Given that it is totally
unnecessary to PD, and could be seriously prejudicial to Wade, we cannot agree to it.
With respect to the emitter designs you have identified, l don’t think we are going to have a problem. However,
it is impossible to clearly determine the construction of each such emitter from the publicly available information.
Exhibit L Page 1
Case 2:04-cv—O0544—PGFt Document 67-9 Filed O3/31/2006 Page 1 of 2 \ME(B%5
2/14/2006

Krauth and RMWade v. Phelps Dodge Page 2 of 2
Ed Newbegin is talking to Netafim about how to resolve the issue regarding the Netafim emitters. l think that will
be resolved pretty quickly. With respect to Bowsmith and Toro emitters, it would be helpful if you could provide us
with samples of the Bowsmith NSI (06, 10 or 20), the Bowsmith TFl (05-16, 10-16, 05-18, or 10-18), and the Toro
Drip ln PC Pressure Compensating Dripline (either ofthe stated dimensions). We do not need any more
information regarding either the Toro Drip ln Classic or the T-Tape Drip units.
Pete
Peter E. Heuser
Kolisch Hartwell, P.C.
Intellectual Property Attorneys
520 SW Yamhill Street, Suite 200
Portland, Oregon 97204
Phone: (503) 224-6655
Facsimile: (503) 295-6679
email: [email protected]
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply
email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or
disclosing the contents . Thank you .
From: Kittredge, Mark [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 2:13 PM
To: Peter Heuser
Subject: Krauth and RMWade v. Phelps Dodge
Dear Peter:
A revised draft Settlement Agreement and a black·lined version showing the modifications from your last
draft are attached for your review. As you can see, we have added Mrs. Krauth to the agreement since she owns
an interest in the patents. We have also deleted the definitions for "Processes" and "Products" because, as
written, they made the license grant circuitous and clunky. Finally, we have added warranty of noninfringement,
covenant not to sue and license language limited to the products identified in Exhibit C. Hopefully the review of
Exhibit C is going well.
Of course, let me know if you have any questions.
thanks
Mark Kittredge
<> <>
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have
received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and
any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
Exhibit L Page 2
Case 2:04-cv—00544—PGFi Document 67-9 Filed 03/31/2006 Page 2 of 2
2/14/2006 WE06566

Exhibit L Page 1
Case 2:04-cv-00544-PGR Document 67-9 Filed 03/31/2006 Page 1 of 2

WAE 06565

Exhibit L Page 2
Case 2:04-cv-00544-PGR Document 67-9 Filed 03/31/2006 Page 2 of 2

WAE 06566