Free Declaration - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Page l of 2
Peter Heuser
From: Peter Heuser
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 11:15 AM
To: 'Ed Newbegin (E-mail)'; '[email protected]‘
Cc: Anita Tabayoyon
Subject: RE: Revised Settlement Agreement
Ed and Rick
l called Mark Kittredge this morning to see if his client had given him input on the redline draft we sent him on
March 24. He said he thought the way we were going to have to resolve this would be for him to list various
emitters PD had been using and to get a warranty from us that these did not infringe. l told him I thought that
would be agreeable to us. He said he expected to get all of these model numbers from him client "in the next
week or two", and agreed to get back to me then.
He asked if we heard anything from the PTO and l said we had not. We agreed that we were both certain that
what we would get would be a first office action rejection of all of the claims. We also agreed that such a result
would not change the settlement we were working on. Such an office action does not ofcourse mean we lose; it is
simply the next step in the process. We then would have an opportunity to respond. lf, on the other hand, the PTO
does not reject all ofthe claims, then that could totally change things to our benefit.
Anita Please docket to follow up on this in two weeks.
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: Peter Heuser
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 11:47 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Cc: Anita Tabayoyon; 'Ed Newbegin (E-mail)‘; '[email protected]‘
Subject: Revised Settlement Agreement
Mark
l am appending a redline and clean copy ofthe Agreement. l have included all of your changes and have
added a few more provisions to address the issues we have discussed. l did have an issue about the "related" in
paragraph 1b because that might include the '548 Patent. l think the list of continuations, etc. covers what you
need there. l have included a release as to all past matters, and have excluded the '548 Patent from the
prospective covenant not to sue. I have also added a warranty clause to 6c that says that Wade is not aware of
any infringement by the Phelps Dodge Companies of the '548 Patent. This should take care of your client‘s
concerns. l think the other changes are self-explanatory. Let me know if you have questions.
ii r 1
3/IO/2OO%ase 2:O4—cv—OO544—PGR Document 67-7 Filed O3/31/2006
WAE 6774

Page 2 of 2
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.
‘it‘ `‘t‘’t re ters si 7
—e~e ‘i* its ·4·· itisté
crti 2
Case 2:04-cv—OO544—PGR Document 67-7 Filed O3/31/2006 Page 2 of 2
3/l0/2006 WAE 6775

Exhibit I Page 1
Case 2:04-cv-00544-PGR Document 67-7 Filed 03/31/2006 Page 1 of 2

WAE 6774

Exhibit I Page 2
Case 2:04-cv-00544-PGR Document 67-7 Filed 03/31/2006 Page 2 of 2

WAE 6775